Title: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:01:01 AM
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:01:01 AM
A person posting under the name Robert Newman on another forum is arguing that Mozart and even Haydn didn't write the majority (if any) of the music attributed to them. He's apparently got a book planned, so my guess everyone would have to wait until said book is published to read his argument. I've asked if he can provide any reputable documentary evidence to support his claims, and hopefully he will - outside of his book, of course. His titillating posts appear to be a slightly cynical early marketing ploy (Mozart is a fraud!), but I'm curious to see if this idea gains any traction.
So, any takers on this hypothesis?
The poster is active on the Magle (http://www.magle.dk/music-forums/classical-music-forum/) forum among others, so you can interact with him directly.
A sample post from a thread entitled "The Myth of Mozart, 'Musical Genius'":
"Having worked already for many years on the subject of Mozart and his career I'm well aware of the controversy that can occur on the rare occasions when Mozart's status as a 'genius' composer is questioned. It seems unthinkable that his story (told in countless books and even in such famous films as 'Amadeus') may be largely (almost totally) fraudulent. There are, you will be told, mountains of documentary evidence in support of him being a musical talent far beyond that of most others. This evidence consisting of surviving musical manuscripts and also including huge surviving correspondence of the Mozart family and their contemporaries, anecdotes, reports, playbills, diary entries and so on. And, without dispute, consisting of many musical works of extraordinary quality.
This musical genius (so we are told) was author of close to 800 works in his short lifetime of 35 years. He toured Europe for much of his childhood and was the wonder of the musical world, both as a performer and as a composer. His feats, his achievements, are legendary. He is (so we learn) the author of around 50 symphonies, over 14 operas, some 27 piano concertos and literally hundreds of other works, many of which are still today in the repertoire of orchestras and opera companies. Surely, nothing is clearer than Mozart enjoying a status that is entirely justified, by facts ?
Well, no.
It would not be possible to debate/discuss this issue in the detail it deserves on short forum posts. But it IS possible to describe how the above view of Mozart is seriously flawed.
It's my view (and I hope to expand on it at some length in a controversial book) what we've been told of Mozart is mostly fiction. In reality, the reputation and alleged career of Mozart as a composer and performer was massively 'manufactured' and so too was his 'genius'. This during his lifetime and for decades afterwards. He is simply not the composer of the music today attributed to him. In point of fact, 'his' music was written FOR him, by others, and this at each and every stage of his life. Nor was Mozart at any time a 'Kapellmeister' though that title was falsely and repeatedly used of him during his last decade in Vienna. Mozart was also NOT a piano virtuoso. And there was never a time when he publicly performed to great acclaim, either in Vienna or anywhere else. Again, such stories do not survive close examination. What really happened was the deliberate falsification of facts, the deliberate creation and propagation of a musical 'superman', and this as a project of elites/patrons with an agenda. So, at least, are the findings of my research, conducted over 15 years or so.
Which begs the question, of course, of WHO wrote this music, and how such a thing can possibly be true ?
Whatever views we may have of Mozart it would be good for us all to appreciate this music. And in this aspect nothing but good comes of a detailed study of 'his' life and career."
So, any takers on this hypothesis?
The poster is active on the Magle (http://www.magle.dk/music-forums/classical-music-forum/) forum among others, so you can interact with him directly.
A sample post from a thread entitled "The Myth of Mozart, 'Musical Genius'":
"Having worked already for many years on the subject of Mozart and his career I'm well aware of the controversy that can occur on the rare occasions when Mozart's status as a 'genius' composer is questioned. It seems unthinkable that his story (told in countless books and even in such famous films as 'Amadeus') may be largely (almost totally) fraudulent. There are, you will be told, mountains of documentary evidence in support of him being a musical talent far beyond that of most others. This evidence consisting of surviving musical manuscripts and also including huge surviving correspondence of the Mozart family and their contemporaries, anecdotes, reports, playbills, diary entries and so on. And, without dispute, consisting of many musical works of extraordinary quality.
This musical genius (so we are told) was author of close to 800 works in his short lifetime of 35 years. He toured Europe for much of his childhood and was the wonder of the musical world, both as a performer and as a composer. His feats, his achievements, are legendary. He is (so we learn) the author of around 50 symphonies, over 14 operas, some 27 piano concertos and literally hundreds of other works, many of which are still today in the repertoire of orchestras and opera companies. Surely, nothing is clearer than Mozart enjoying a status that is entirely justified, by facts ?
Well, no.
It would not be possible to debate/discuss this issue in the detail it deserves on short forum posts. But it IS possible to describe how the above view of Mozart is seriously flawed.
It's my view (and I hope to expand on it at some length in a controversial book) what we've been told of Mozart is mostly fiction. In reality, the reputation and alleged career of Mozart as a composer and performer was massively 'manufactured' and so too was his 'genius'. This during his lifetime and for decades afterwards. He is simply not the composer of the music today attributed to him. In point of fact, 'his' music was written FOR him, by others, and this at each and every stage of his life. Nor was Mozart at any time a 'Kapellmeister' though that title was falsely and repeatedly used of him during his last decade in Vienna. Mozart was also NOT a piano virtuoso. And there was never a time when he publicly performed to great acclaim, either in Vienna or anywhere else. Again, such stories do not survive close examination. What really happened was the deliberate falsification of facts, the deliberate creation and propagation of a musical 'superman', and this as a project of elites/patrons with an agenda. So, at least, are the findings of my research, conducted over 15 years or so.
Which begs the question, of course, of WHO wrote this music, and how such a thing can possibly be true ?
Whatever views we may have of Mozart it would be good for us all to appreciate this music. And in this aspect nothing but good comes of a detailed study of 'his' life and career."
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Mark G. Simon on February 08, 2009, 07:04:23 AM
Post by: Mark G. Simon on February 08, 2009, 07:04:23 AM
Oh, that guy again. ::)
Just another nutcase. The internet is full of them.
Just another nutcase. The internet is full of them.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:05:54 AM
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:05:54 AM
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on February 08, 2009, 07:04:23 AMJust another nutcase. The internet is full of them.
Hard to believe.
I guess I don't surf the net enough, because I've never stumbled upon this "idea" before.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on February 08, 2009, 07:08:10 AM
Post by: Herman on February 08, 2009, 07:08:10 AM
I love it when people write lines like:
Quote from: Nutcase on February 08, 2009, 07:01:01 AMIt's my view (and I hope to expand on it at some length in a controversial book)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Harry on February 08, 2009, 07:08:12 AM
Post by: Harry on February 08, 2009, 07:08:12 AM
Newman himself is a fraud, and a proven nutcase. :P
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:10:24 AM
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:10:24 AM
Quote from: Herman on February 08, 2009, 07:08:10 AMI love it when people write lines like:
As do I. I wonder if he'll actually get something published. I think I know the answer.
Out of curiosity for those who've run across Mr Newman, where else has he trolled?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on February 08, 2009, 07:11:08 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on February 08, 2009, 07:11:08 AM
I think 'Robert Newman' is a falsification. But WHO is posting all these claims about Mozart on the Internet? Or should I say - who ARE doing this?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on February 08, 2009, 07:21:43 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on February 08, 2009, 07:21:43 AM
Yes Todd, Newmann is a major "nutjob". First "encountered him on "Talk Classical", and I think he also appeared on GMG, but that was before my time. He also claims Haydn was a fraud too. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on February 08, 2009, 07:27:10 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on February 08, 2009, 07:27:10 AM
Quite frankly, I thought he made the rounds of all the forums at this point, and thought we'd heard the end of "Dear Robert". Guess not. >:(
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on February 08, 2009, 07:29:35 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on February 08, 2009, 07:29:35 AM
Yes, this nutcase showed up on CMG briefly. His particular brand of idiocy gained no traction there and he departed PDQ, thankfully, since CMG already has more than its quota of nutcases in house who imagine that what they think about something outweighs factual evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:53:52 AM
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:53:52 AM
Yep, I need to surf the net more. I've missed some fun crackpots it seems. Now, when will someone address the other obvious falsehoods of classical music? I mean really, there's no way that Beethoven or Smetana or Faure composed their late works - they were deaf! Outrageous!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Opus106 on February 08, 2009, 08:00:26 AM
Post by: Opus106 on February 08, 2009, 08:00:26 AM
He had a wonderful way of presenting his "evidence," though. Very eloquent writing and all, but nothing more.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bunny on February 08, 2009, 08:03:08 AM
Post by: Bunny on February 08, 2009, 08:03:08 AM
In search of the "historic" Mozart? I'll keep the myth, if you don't mind. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on February 08, 2009, 08:07:02 AM
Post by: Holly on February 08, 2009, 08:07:02 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 08, 2009, 07:29:35 AM
Yes, this nutcase showed up on CMG briefly. His particular brand of idiocy gained no traction there and he departed PDQ, thankfully, since CMG already has more than its quota of nutcases in house who imagine that what they think about something outweighs factual evidence to the contrary.
Newman was banned from CMG because he upset a few of the CMG locals, one in particular, and you might be able to guess who.
You're right that CMG has more than its quota of nutcases.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on February 08, 2009, 08:10:38 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on February 08, 2009, 08:10:38 AM
Quote from: Holly on February 08, 2009, 08:07:02 AM
Newman was banned from CMG because he upset a few of the CMG locals, one in particular, and you might be able to guess who.
You're right that CMG has more than its quota of nutcases.
And Newman would resurface, on occasion, under a woman's name. 0:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Wanderer on February 08, 2009, 08:13:12 AM
Post by: Wanderer on February 08, 2009, 08:13:12 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on February 08, 2009, 07:27:10 AM
"Dear Robert".
That rings a bell. As for the alleged book, I think we oughtn't to expect anything worthwhile from this fraud or to participate in any way in his publicity schemes.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on February 08, 2009, 08:14:22 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on February 08, 2009, 08:14:22 AM
Everyone knows that Ms. Elaine Smith of Eagle Grove, Iowa traveled back in time to write Mozart's music. She did this because gray aliens implanted the suggestion in her brain. They also supplied the time machine which is now on display in the Smithsonian.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on February 08, 2009, 08:24:15 AM
Post by: Holly on February 08, 2009, 08:24:15 AM
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:10:24 AM
Out of curiosity for those who've run across Mr Newman, where else has he trolled?
Newman has been trotting out his views about the alleged fakery of W A Mozart and J Haydn for several years on a variety of music Boards, one after the other. I believe the chronological order of the main ones was: "OpenMozart", "Mozart Forum", "Beethoven Reference Site", "CMG", "Talk-Classical", "Classical Music Mayhem". The first of these no longer exists. On each of these Boards he suffered a bruising from the vast majority of those he came into contact with, and was banned from at least 5 of them. As far as I know, the only one he wasn't banned from was the last, CMM.
Newman had a long run at Talk-Classical from October 2006 until about November 2007. Most of Newman's theses were set out at there, where he ranged far and wide over various aspects of the subject. He raised several threads, but THIS (http://www.talkclassical.com/865-controversy-over-true-musical.html) thread was the first and longest-running. The whole foul plot was allegedly organised by the Jesuit Order which, having been banned by the Pope, was anxious to get themselves re-instated and did so by currying favour with the Austrian Emperor by promoting music by German composers at the expense of the Italians. Mozart and Haydn happened to be convenient receivers of quality music composed by a number of others. Thus, Newman argued that Mozart and Haydn wrote virtually nothing of any importance, and it was all the work of others, including especially a man called Andrea Luchesi, who was Kapellmeister at Bonn (where LvB was a student).
All of these theories were challenged at T-C and ultimately became subject to much derision. When pressed to produce evidence, it was always very vague, and he kept shifting ground when he felt the heat coming on. The allegations became more annd more unconvincing. In the end there was a spoof thread, as a piss-taking exercise, HERE (http://www.talkclassical.com/1697-controversy-over-true-musical.html), which summarised the nonsenses in Newman's position and in particular his method of arguing. This thread saw the beginning of the end for poor old Newman as he was left floundering around trying to maintain some credibility. After a year or so, Newman's venture at T-C ended in tears and he was banned, just as he had been from CMG prior to his arrival at T-C, and before that at the BRS.
After leaving T-C, he moved to CMM where he enjoyed the protection of Corkin. There Newman decided to concentrate on one main aspect which was some weird theory that Le Nozze was not composed by WAM, as an earlier version had allegedly been discovered by some Italian researchers. A few Mozart experts from the Mozart Forum turned up to dispute all this, and the discussion ran for a long time but fizzled out last Autumn when it became obvious he didn't have a leg to stand on.
Newman's time at CMM ended mysteriously in November 2008 when he suddenly stopped posting without explanation. At that time he joined "Magle International" and has been there since. Until very recently he has made no mention of his views on Mozart/Haydn, and appears to have been grooming the locals on that Board into believing that he has no hidden agenda. Now, possibly prompted by a stooge colleague who set up a suitable question, he has sprung into action again on his anti-Mozart theme. The way it has been introduced and encouraged looks very peculiar, and it seems very strange that the management should allow a re-run of all this Newmanry when only a year or so ago they banned him on the sister site, T-C.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Wanderer on February 08, 2009, 08:31:52 AM
Post by: Wanderer on February 08, 2009, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: mn dave on February 08, 2009, 08:14:22 AM
Everyone knows that Ms. Elaine Smith of Eagle Grove, Iowa traveled back in time to write Mozart's music. She did this because gray aliens implanted the suggestion in her brain. They also supplied the time machine which is now on display in the Smithsonian.
I thought the ones responsible for the implant were the blue whale aliens. Isn't it true that - according to a suburban legend - they forgot some of their kind behind, which dumped down to become regular blue whales after watching too much Beavis & Butthead?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on February 08, 2009, 08:38:23 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on February 08, 2009, 08:38:23 AM
Quote from: opus67 on February 08, 2009, 08:00:26 AMWe should be grateful, then, that he hasn't applied this talent to electoral politics, otherwise he'd probably be running the Senate by now.
He had a wonderful way of presenting his "evidence," though. Very eloquent writing and all, but nothing more.
Welcome to GMG, Holly. Since there's no train wreck outside right now I couldn't help but read your summary of Newman's (think Seinfeld) internet travels and travails. It's not surprising that Corkin took him under wing, I suppose (birds of a feather), nor that it took that band of rocket scientists some time to discover that his ravings have no substance.
I hope you will stick around and further regale us with tales collected during a life well (if not profitably) spent. Clearly you are literate up the wazoo!
And Min-es-so-tah Dave: Thank you so much for the plot preview of your next book. BTW, how did those British awards turn out for you?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 08:45:21 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 08:45:21 AM
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:01:01 AM
A person posting under the name Robert Newman on another forum is arguing that Mozart and even Haydn didn't write the majority (if any) of the music attributed to them. He's apparently got a book planned, so my guess everyone would have to wait until said book is published to read his argument. I've asked if he can provide any reputable documentary evidence to support his claims, and hopefully he will - outside of his book, of course. His titillating posts appear to be a slightly cynical early marketing ploy (Mozart is a fraud!), but I'm curious to see if this idea gains any traction.
So, any takers on this hypothesis?
Todd,
Old news, I'm afraid. Robert has been around for years posting on numerous sites (from which he has been evicted in every case). If you ask him for documentation of anything, he promises much but provides nothing. He is of the same order as various other conspiracy theorists. I can promise you that if the putative book ever sees the light of day, it will contain not a shred of documented proof for any claims made. Unless he has been saving it all through the years for the big event... :D
8)
----------------
Listening to:
The Beethoven Academy - May, 1824 - Das neue Orchester \ Spering - Op 125 Symphony #9 in d 2nd mvmt - Molto vivace - Presto
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on February 08, 2009, 08:48:09 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on February 08, 2009, 08:48:09 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on February 08, 2009, 08:38:23 AM
And Min-es-so-tah Dave: Thank you so much for the plot preview of your next book. BTW, how did those British awards turn out for you?
I should have researched them a bit more before tooting my horn. Anyone can put you on the preliminary list, including your publisher. :P
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 08:49:03 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:10:24 AM
As do I. I wonder if he'll actually get something published. I think I know the answer.
Out of curiosity for those who've run across Mr Newman, where else has he trolled?
Places where I've run across him:
Openmozart (unfortunately deceased)
Mozartforum.com
Beethoven Forum
CMG
Classical Music Mayhem (even Roddy gave him the boot eventually!)
Talk Classical (only heard of him there, I don't go there myself)
and probably others. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
The Beethoven Academy - May, 1824 - Das neue Orchester \ Spering - Op 125 Symphony #9 in d 3rd mvmt - Adagio molto e cantabile
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on February 08, 2009, 09:12:15 AM
Post by: Brian on February 08, 2009, 09:12:15 AM
Having worked already for many years on the subject of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and his career I'm well aware of the controversy that can occur on the rare occasions when his assassination is questioned. It seems unthinkable that his story (told in countless books and even in such famous films as 'JFK') may be largely (almost totally) fraudulent. There are, you will be told, mountains of documentary evidence in support of his having been killed that day in Dallas by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald.
This American president (so we are told) was murdered by Oswald, working by himself, with one 'magic bullet' fired from the Texas Schoolbook Depository. There were no other associated killers in other parts of the scene, as some evidence might suggest, and no videotape corroborating claims of killers on, for instance, the Grassy Knoll. Surely, nothing is clearer than Kennedy enjoying a status that is entirely justified, by facts ?
Well, no.
It would not be possible to debate/discuss this issue in the detail it deserves on short forum posts. But it IS possible to describe how the above view of the Kennedy assassination is seriously flawed.
It's my view (and I hope to expand on it at some length in a controversial book) what we've been told of JFK is mostly fiction. In reality, John Fitzgerald Kennedy is still alive today. On that day in 1963 a body double, well-made-up and with an elaborate hairpiece, rode in the presidential car through Dealey Plaza. Kennedy himself had been spirited away to an undisclosed location in Fort Worth. His hired gunman, Oswald, in fact a covert Secret Service agent, shot the body double in order to convince the American people that Kennedy was dead. But, in fact, he lives on, by now worth billions of dollars through his investments in the drug trade and other highly profitable organizations. There might be those who will tell you that Kennedy is dead, that he was really riding in the car that day in Dallas, and that the subsequent autopsy was performed by honest doctors who sincerely believed their subject to be the real JFK. Again, such stories do not survive close examination. What really happened was the deliberate falsification of facts, the deliberate creation and propagation of a legendary assassination, and this as a project of an elusive criminal President with an agenda. So, at least, are the findings of my research, conducted over 15 years or so. I would be happy to share evidence with you if any of you believe you can prove me wrong.
This American president (so we are told) was murdered by Oswald, working by himself, with one 'magic bullet' fired from the Texas Schoolbook Depository. There were no other associated killers in other parts of the scene, as some evidence might suggest, and no videotape corroborating claims of killers on, for instance, the Grassy Knoll. Surely, nothing is clearer than Kennedy enjoying a status that is entirely justified, by facts ?
Well, no.
It would not be possible to debate/discuss this issue in the detail it deserves on short forum posts. But it IS possible to describe how the above view of the Kennedy assassination is seriously flawed.
It's my view (and I hope to expand on it at some length in a controversial book) what we've been told of JFK is mostly fiction. In reality, John Fitzgerald Kennedy is still alive today. On that day in 1963 a body double, well-made-up and with an elaborate hairpiece, rode in the presidential car through Dealey Plaza. Kennedy himself had been spirited away to an undisclosed location in Fort Worth. His hired gunman, Oswald, in fact a covert Secret Service agent, shot the body double in order to convince the American people that Kennedy was dead. But, in fact, he lives on, by now worth billions of dollars through his investments in the drug trade and other highly profitable organizations. There might be those who will tell you that Kennedy is dead, that he was really riding in the car that day in Dallas, and that the subsequent autopsy was performed by honest doctors who sincerely believed their subject to be the real JFK. Again, such stories do not survive close examination. What really happened was the deliberate falsification of facts, the deliberate creation and propagation of a legendary assassination, and this as a project of an elusive criminal President with an agenda. So, at least, are the findings of my research, conducted over 15 years or so. I would be happy to share evidence with you if any of you believe you can prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Harry on February 08, 2009, 09:14:50 AM
Post by: Harry on February 08, 2009, 09:14:50 AM
Quote from: Holly on February 08, 2009, 08:07:02 AM
Newman was banned from CMG because he upset a few of the CMG locals, one in particular, and you might be able to guess who.
You're right that CMG has more than its quota of nutcases.
It takes little to upset the Corker! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2009, 09:24:59 AM
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2009, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 08:45:21 AMIf you ask him for documentation of anything, he promises much but provides nothing.Well, he should still be fun to exchange one or two posts with.
Quote from: Brian on February 08, 2009, 09:12:15 AMIn reality, John Fitzgerald Kennedy is still alive today.
Shhh. I saw him once, when I visited Florida. He's going to be very angry if this secret gets out.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Opus106 on February 08, 2009, 09:33:44 AM
Post by: Opus106 on February 08, 2009, 09:33:44 AM
Brian, I hope you give enough thought (and space in your book) about the period in which he produced - secretly, of course - that film with Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Coopmv on February 08, 2009, 12:21:36 PM
Post by: Coopmv on February 08, 2009, 12:21:36 PM
Not sure which is easier, to prove that Mozart was a fraud or Marco Polo never went to China. Indeed, one of my sisters knew an Italian who wanted to do just that ... LOL
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on February 08, 2009, 12:52:27 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on February 08, 2009, 12:52:27 PM
Quote from: Coopmv on February 08, 2009, 12:21:36 PMPerhaps your sister's friend can answer a question that's long puzzled me: just what did the Italians eat before the Chinese gave them pasta and the Americans gave them tomato sauce?
Not sure which is easier, to prove that Mozart was a fraud or Marco Polo never went to China. Indeed, one of my sisters knew an Italian who wanted to do just that ... LOL
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on February 08, 2009, 01:07:47 PM
Post by: knight66 on February 08, 2009, 01:07:47 PM
They ate rice.
As to the Mozart affair. Mr Corkin did insert a fair smattering of the above mentioned theories into this board. I seem to remember having some exchanges with him on the supposed theories. No evidence was adduced, just the assertions placed firmly in the ring.
Mike
As to the Mozart affair. Mr Corkin did insert a fair smattering of the above mentioned theories into this board. I seem to remember having some exchanges with him on the supposed theories. No evidence was adduced, just the assertions placed firmly in the ring.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Coopmv on February 08, 2009, 01:24:35 PM
Post by: Coopmv on February 08, 2009, 01:24:35 PM
Mozart may have died from eating undercooked pork
http://depts.washington.edu/mednews/vol5/no24/mozart.html
http://depts.washington.edu/mednews/vol5/no24/mozart.html
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 01:31:32 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 01:31:32 PM
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2009, 09:24:59 AM
Well, he should still be fun to exchange one or two posts with.
I'll bet you bite your own tongue off within 24 hours.... ;D
----------------
Listening to:
Piano Sonates n°s 3 & 4 (CD2) - Weber, Carl Maria von - Weber Op 49 Sonata #3 in d 1st mvmt - Allegro feroce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2009, 01:44:23 PM
Post by: Todd on February 08, 2009, 01:44:23 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 01:31:32 PMI'll bet you bite your own tongue off within 24 hours....
Nah, he's already become tiresome. Time for another conspiracy theorist. Hey, what is Sean up to these days.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 01:54:10 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 01:54:10 PM
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2009, 01:44:23 PM
Nah, he's already become tiresome. Time for another conspiracy theorist. Hey, what is Sean up to these days.
Don't know, but I'm sure he'll tell us all about it when he touches base with reality next... :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
The Young Beethoven - Igor Kipnis - LvB WoO 53 Allegretto in c
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Sorin Eushayson on February 08, 2009, 02:05:14 PM
Post by: Sorin Eushayson on February 08, 2009, 02:05:14 PM
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:01:01 AMSo that's where Newman is hiding out these days! He used to make his nest at CMM, but finally got himself banned. It was a long time coming: his misinformation and bullying was a plague on our forum, turning many people off from posting there. It seems he's still doing what he does best: stirring up the masses with nothing more than spin and hot air.
A person posting under the name Robert Newman on another forum is arguing that Mozart and even Haydn didn't write the majority (if any) of the music attributed to them. He's apparently got a book planned, so my guess everyone would have to wait until said book is published to read his argument. I've asked if he can provide any reputable documentary evidence to support his claims, and hopefully he will - outside of his book, of course. His titillating posts appear to be a slightly cynical early marketing ploy (Mozart is a fraud!), but I'm curious to see if this idea gains any traction.
So, any takers on this hypothesis?
The poster is active on the Magle (http://www.magle.dk/music-forums/classical-music-forum/) forum among others, so you can interact with him directly.
Pay no more heed to his ideas: they're about as valid as saying the moon is made of cheese or that there are orange groves on the sun. I used to argue with him about it, but then I realised I was merely casting my rhetorical pearls before swine - a swine.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 02:12:27 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 02:12:27 PM
Quote from: Sorin Eushayson on February 08, 2009, 02:05:14 PM
So that's where Newman is hiding out these days! He used to make his nest at CMM, but finally got himself banned. It was a long time coming: his misinformation and bullying was a plague on our forum, turning many people off from posting there. It seems he's still doing what he does best: stirring up the masses with nothing more than spin and hot air.
Pay no more heed to his ideas: they're about as valid as saying the moon is made of cheese or that there are orange groves on the sun. I used to argue with him about it, but then I realised I was merely casting my rhetorical pearls before swine - a swine.
Sorin,
You should have been on MozartForum back in the days when he tried to take IT over. You can imagine the reserved posters there reacting to him. In truth, I thought it was pretty darned funny... :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
The Young Beethoven - Igor Kipnis - LvB Sonata #8 in c 1st mvmt - Grave
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Hollywood on February 08, 2009, 10:36:10 PM
Post by: Hollywood on February 08, 2009, 10:36:10 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 08, 2009, 02:12:27 PM
Sorin,
You should have been on MozartForum back in the days when he tried to take IT over. You can imagine the reserved posters there reacting to him. In truth, I thought it was pretty darned funny... :)
Boy, do I remember those days! >:( I am one of those reserved posters on the MozartForum and I got to the point where I thought that if I ever met up with that nutcase, I would go Postal! >:D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on February 09, 2009, 12:19:04 AM
Post by: Florestan on February 09, 2009, 12:19:04 AM
Quote from: Holly on February 08, 2009, 08:24:15 AM
The whole foul plot was allegedly organised by the Jesuit Order which, having been banned by the Pope, was anxious to get themselves re-instated and did so by currying favour with the Austrian Emperor by promoting music by German composers at the expense of the Italians. Mozart and Haydn happened to be convenient receivers of quality music composed by a number of others. Thus, Newman argued that Mozart and Haydn wrote virtually nothing of any importance, and it was all the work of others, including especially a man called Andrea Luchesi, who was Kapellmeister at Bonn (where LvB was a student).
Now that's indeed a typically Jesuitic plot: in order to promote German composers at the expense of the Italians, hire an Italian to write German music. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on February 09, 2009, 04:39:50 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on February 09, 2009, 04:39:50 AM
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2009, 01:44:23 PMTalk about tiresome.... However, thinking of that poor fellow sparked an idea for a "Reality" TV show with potential to be the mother of all train wrecks and thus a giant hit earning gazillions of dollars by brainwashing viewers into believing that they, too, can be just like Princess Di if only they use Troll-Away brand deodorant:
Nah, he's already become tiresome. Time for another conspiracy theorist. Hey, what is Sean up to these days.
Just put Sean, Newman, the Corkster, and AC Douglas together and let them duke it out!
On second thought, it would flop. At least one participant would have to be interesting or attractive or the channel would get changed in seconds.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Kuhlau on February 09, 2009, 02:05:39 PM
Post by: Kuhlau on February 09, 2009, 02:05:39 PM
Reading Holly's and Sorin's posts in this thread has reminded me of the exchanges I witnessed between Rod and Robert over at Classical Music Mayhem when I was there briefly as a member. My leaving that forum had nothing to do with the ridiculous arguments the pair seemed to enjoy having (Newman making unbelievable claims, thus goading Corkin into threats of a ban), but because I asked to be deregistered when Rod started editing - inaccurately - my perfectly legitimate posts. He and I then traded a few choice words by email before I put his address into a anti-spam filter. Even then, I kept getting mails once a month from his forum.
As to Newman turning up at Magle, I was among the first to engage him there. This was because I'd always assumed he was the more reasonable of the long-running double-act that is Corkin & Newman. However, now everything Rod told me about Robert in private - Newman's wild conspiracy theories and multiple forum bans - appears to check out. Maybe I should email Rod and apologise for once saying I'd rather have dinner and conversation with Robert than with him ...
FK
As to Newman turning up at Magle, I was among the first to engage him there. This was because I'd always assumed he was the more reasonable of the long-running double-act that is Corkin & Newman. However, now everything Rod told me about Robert in private - Newman's wild conspiracy theories and multiple forum bans - appears to check out. Maybe I should email Rod and apologise for once saying I'd rather have dinner and conversation with Robert than with him ...
FK
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Haffner on February 09, 2009, 03:16:28 PM
Post by: Haffner on February 09, 2009, 03:16:28 PM
He kept private messaging me. I was amazed that he didn't seem to have anything better to do. I tried to be polite but...'nuff said.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: eyeresist on February 09, 2009, 05:01:31 PM
Post by: eyeresist on February 09, 2009, 05:01:31 PM
Quote from: Kuhlau on February 09, 2009, 02:05:39 PMYou can't always immediately tell who the loonies are (as I recently found out).
As to Newman turning up at Magle, I was among the first to engage him there. This was because I'd always assumed he was the more reasonable of the long-running double-act that is Corkin & Newman. However, now everything Rod told me about Robert in private - Newman's wild conspiracy theories and multiple forum bans - appears to check out. Maybe I should email Rod and apologise for once saying I'd rather have dinner and conversation with Robert than with him ...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on February 09, 2009, 05:08:21 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on February 09, 2009, 05:08:21 PM
Quote from: Kuhlau on February 09, 2009, 02:05:39 PM
Reading Holly's and Sorin's posts in this thread has reminded me of the exchanges I witnessed between Rod and Robert over at Classical Music Mayhem when I was there briefly as a member. My leaving that forum had nothing to do with the ridiculous arguments the pair seemed to enjoy having (Newman making unbelievable claims, thus goading Corkin into threats of a ban), but because I asked to be deregistered when Rod started editing - inaccurately - my perfectly legitimate posts. He and I then traded a few choice words by email before I put his address into a anti-spam filter. Even then, I kept getting mails once a month from his forum.
As to Newman turning up at Magle, I was among the first to engage him there. This was because I'd always assumed he was the more reasonable of the long-running double-act that is Corkin & Newman. However, now everything Rod told me about Robert in private - Newman's wild conspiracy theories and multiple forum bans - appears to check out. Maybe I should email Rod and apologise for once saying I'd rather have dinner and conversation with Robert than with him ...
FK
I've known Rod for 7 years, and Newman for about 3. Your final conclusion is a far closer mirror of the reality of the situation than your earlier one. Rod would hate to see me say this, and many who don't know him would disagree, but he is actually a nice guy, albeit ferociously opinionated. Despite the veneer of civility that glosses the Newman persona, I see nothing to value there.
8)
----------------
Listening to:
RV 610 Magnificat in g - Vivaldi, Antonio - RV 610 Magnificat in g pt 08 - Allegro ma non poco: Sicut locutus est
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Kuhlau on February 09, 2009, 10:48:01 PM
Post by: Kuhlau on February 09, 2009, 10:48:01 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 09, 2009, 05:08:21 PM
I've known Rod for 7 years, and Newman for about 3. Your final conclusion is a far closer mirror of the reality of the situation than your earlier one. Rod would hate to see me say this, and many who don't know him would disagree, but he is actually a nice guy, albeit ferociously opinionated. Despite the veneer of civility that glosses the Newman persona, I see nothing to value there.
Dammit. I feel an apology email coming on ...
FK
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on February 09, 2009, 11:05:47 PM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on February 09, 2009, 11:05:47 PM
Quote from: Kuhlau on February 09, 2009, 10:48:01 PM
Dammit. I feel an apology email coming on ...
FK
I need a tissue. :'(
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Kuhlau on February 10, 2009, 03:04:14 AM
Post by: Kuhlau on February 10, 2009, 03:04:14 AM
Anyone? (http://www.magle.dk/music-forums/7921-piano-sonata-kv448.html)
FK
FK
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on February 10, 2009, 04:11:10 AM
Post by: Holly on February 10, 2009, 04:11:10 AM
Quote from: Kuhlau on February 10, 2009, 03:04:14 AM
Anyone? (http://www.magle.dk/music-forums/7921-piano-sonata-kv448.html)
FK
That thread has been locked, as also has the Original (http://www.magle.dk/music-forums/7909-myth-mozart-musical-genius.html) thread. There were a few other posts on the KV 448 thread but they have been deleted, and all that's left remaining is Newman's opening piece. It seems clear that Magle management don't want any of this to develop any further.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: sporkadelic on February 10, 2009, 12:03:09 PM
Post by: sporkadelic on February 10, 2009, 12:03:09 PM
What did these people do before the Web? Ah, the mysteries of the human mind.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Haffner on February 10, 2009, 12:53:31 PM
Post by: Haffner on February 10, 2009, 12:53:31 PM
Quote from: sporkadelic on February 10, 2009, 12:03:09 PM
What did these people do before the Web? Ah, the mysteries of the human mind.
Aye.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 18, 2009, 11:10:24 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 18, 2009, 11:10:24 AM
My first thread here.
Just to confirm that after almost 15 years I'm close to finishing a book on the life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart. Which is of course the best reply to critics, both learned and foolish. I hope my work makes a small contribution to music lovers realising that the icons of Easter lsland have their exact equivalent in the musical realm with the official careers of W.A. Mozart, Joseph Haydn, and even Ludwig van Beethoven - figures about which we are largely ignorant but which tower over the field of music, musicology and cultural history as icons to an absurd, even ridiculous degree. But questioning the 'gods of the state' and challenging the vast industry that surrounds and has always has surrounded them is no easy thing.
Anyway, best wishes and thanks.
R.E. Newman
'The Manufacture of Mozart'
Just to confirm that after almost 15 years I'm close to finishing a book on the life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart. Which is of course the best reply to critics, both learned and foolish. I hope my work makes a small contribution to music lovers realising that the icons of Easter lsland have their exact equivalent in the musical realm with the official careers of W.A. Mozart, Joseph Haydn, and even Ludwig van Beethoven - figures about which we are largely ignorant but which tower over the field of music, musicology and cultural history as icons to an absurd, even ridiculous degree. But questioning the 'gods of the state' and challenging the vast industry that surrounds and has always has surrounded them is no easy thing.
Anyway, best wishes and thanks.
R.E. Newman
'The Manufacture of Mozart'
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on May 18, 2009, 11:37:03 AM
Post by: Christie on May 18, 2009, 11:37:03 AM
Hello Rob.
I find your theory very interesting. I know you will be unable to supply all or even a great deal of your evidence to us here for the purposes of preserving the integrity of your forthcoming book, and also to avoid copyright issues with prospective publishers. However I hope you will be kind enough to give us some "teasers" so to speak with a few suggestions of your argument. The reason I say this is that I have actually, working independently (obviously we don't know each other) come to similar conclusions. My research has led me to the M. F. Shaffer wing of the Institute Library at the Mozarteum, Salzburg, where for the past several years I have been engaged in observation of primary materials related to Herr Mozart's alleged Life-work. I am not publishing my results, and certainly have not begun to incorporate them into anything like the body of work you are working on, but I am thrilled to hear that your research has led you to a similar conclusion. I hope that our exchange here can be mutually supportive and that we can compare records, so to speak, in this matter.
After all it is, as they say, better to have two Goliaths than One.
I hope to hear from you soon.
I find your theory very interesting. I know you will be unable to supply all or even a great deal of your evidence to us here for the purposes of preserving the integrity of your forthcoming book, and also to avoid copyright issues with prospective publishers. However I hope you will be kind enough to give us some "teasers" so to speak with a few suggestions of your argument. The reason I say this is that I have actually, working independently (obviously we don't know each other) come to similar conclusions. My research has led me to the M. F. Shaffer wing of the Institute Library at the Mozarteum, Salzburg, where for the past several years I have been engaged in observation of primary materials related to Herr Mozart's alleged Life-work. I am not publishing my results, and certainly have not begun to incorporate them into anything like the body of work you are working on, but I am thrilled to hear that your research has led you to a similar conclusion. I hope that our exchange here can be mutually supportive and that we can compare records, so to speak, in this matter.
After all it is, as they say, better to have two Goliaths than One.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: matti on May 18, 2009, 11:48:59 AM
Post by: matti on May 18, 2009, 11:48:59 AM
Sometimes it happens. You notice nobody will play wíth you, so you decide... well, to play with yourself. Nothing wrong with that.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 18, 2009, 11:51:03 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 18, 2009, 11:51:03 AM
Quote from: matti on May 18, 2009, 11:48:59 AM
Sometimes it happens. You notice nobody will play wíth you, so you decide... well, to play with yourself.
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 18, 2009, 03:56:14 PM
Post by: karlhenning on May 18, 2009, 03:56:14 PM
Quote from: Woody AllenDon't knock masturbation! It's sex with someone I love.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on May 18, 2009, 08:46:41 PM
Post by: snyprrr on May 18, 2009, 08:46:41 PM
I did actually have a Mozart question. Will the real Mozart thread please stand up?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 19, 2009, 12:52:40 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 19, 2009, 12:52:40 AM
Speaker ....''and there is the distinct possibility that people will have, and may even get used to, more than one version of Mozart''. - (nervous giggling) - (guest speaker fades out as his picture breaks up) -
Producer - 'Quick' ! - (Nervous waving of his hands) - Commercial break - Cornflakes ad -
Return to studio from Cornflakes Ad -
Guest 1 - (nervously) - 'That was a close shave, Fred' !
Guest 2 - ''Attacking experts like that - why, it's scandalous - let's crack a joke '' !!!
Producer - 'Fred ! Steady with that St Nepomuk icon - you almost dropped it !'. - continues -
'And now, even more culture and education.......'
Camera shakily pans to Rome -
'It was here where the boy, from memory, wrote down an entire mass. And wrote an opera... before breakfast'.
lol !
//
:) :)
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/03mar/RICR-090329.php
Producer - 'Quick' ! - (Nervous waving of his hands) - Commercial break - Cornflakes ad -
Return to studio from Cornflakes Ad -
Guest 1 - (nervously) - 'That was a close shave, Fred' !
Guest 2 - ''Attacking experts like that - why, it's scandalous - let's crack a joke '' !!!
Producer - 'Fred ! Steady with that St Nepomuk icon - you almost dropped it !'. - continues -
'And now, even more culture and education.......'
Camera shakily pans to Rome -
'It was here where the boy, from memory, wrote down an entire mass. And wrote an opera... before breakfast'.
lol !
//
:) :)
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/03mar/RICR-090329.php
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 19, 2009, 03:47:30 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 19, 2009, 03:47:30 AM
Quote
Speaker ....''and there is the distinct possibility that people will have, and may even get used to, more than one version of Mozart''. - (nervous giggling) - (guest speaker fades out as his picture breaks up) -
Producer - 'Quick' ! - (Nervous waving of his hands) - Commercial break - Cornflakes ad -
Return to studio from Cornflakes Ad -
Guest 1 - (nervously) - 'That was a close shave, Fred' !
Guest 2 - ''Attacking experts like that - why, it's scandalous - let's crack a joke '' !!!
Producer - 'Fred ! Steady with that St Nepomuk icon - you almost dropped it !'. - continues -
'And now, even more culture and education.......'
Camera shakily pans to Rome -
'It was here where the boy, from memory, wrote down an entire mass. And wrote an opera... before breakfast'.
lol !
//
:) :)
Nothing to see here, folks. Move on.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Opus106 on May 19, 2009, 04:47:10 AM
Post by: Opus106 on May 19, 2009, 04:47:10 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 19, 2009, 03:47:30 AM
Nothing to see here, folks. Move on.
I wouldn't have come here in the first place if you had not posted that. >:(
;)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 19, 2009, 06:38:55 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 19, 2009, 06:38:55 AM
Oh, this is that fruitcake who pops up on sites like this from time to time to peddle his crackpot claims. Too bad his material is so stale that it's not even good for a chuckle, let alone the guffaws it merits.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dundonnell on May 19, 2009, 06:41:35 AM
Post by: Dundonnell on May 19, 2009, 06:41:35 AM
The lunatics are taking over the asylum :(
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on May 19, 2009, 06:53:20 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on May 19, 2009, 06:53:20 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 19, 2009, 06:38:55 AM
Oh, this is that fruitcake who pops up on sites like this from time to time to peddle his crackpot claims. Too bad his material is so stale that it's not even good for a chuckle, let alone the guffaws it merits.
You are darn right....it isn't funny. In fact, it's downright disgusting, and technically it's slanderous. In some parts of the world, this is a criminal act and punishable by law.
>:(
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 19, 2009, 10:54:17 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 19, 2009, 10:54:17 AM
Quote from: Dundonnell on May 19, 2009, 06:41:35 AM
The lunatics are taking over the asylum :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1bgxfxchkQ
I always play this song in my head every time Robert Newman shows up.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 19, 2009, 11:00:30 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 19, 2009, 11:00:30 AM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 19, 2009, 10:54:17 AMPerhaps he returns the favor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1bgxfxchkQ
I always play this song in my head every time Robert Newman shows up.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 19, 2009, 05:28:32 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 19, 2009, 05:28:32 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 19, 2009, 11:00:30 AM
Perhaps he returns the favor.
I'm better then Newman because i know the meaning of self irony.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 02:42:56 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 02:42:56 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 19, 2009, 06:53:20 AM
You are darn right....it isn't funny. In fact, it's downright disgusting, and technically it's slanderous. In some parts of the world, this is a criminal act and punishable by law.
>:(
Salzburg, perhaps ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 06:09:22 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 06:09:22 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 02:42:56 AM
Salzburg, perhaps ?
Yeah, they don't like radical crypto-Marxists trying to undermine the prestige of European history and by extension ruining tourism to their city. Can't blame them.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 06:22:14 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 06:22:14 AM
Popcorn, anyone?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 06:30:55 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 06:30:55 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 06:22:14 AM
Popcorn, anyone?
You wish. Robert Newman is too dull to be trolled effectively.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 06:45:35 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 06:45:35 AM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 06:09:22 AM
Yeah, they don't like radical crypto-Marxists trying to undermine the prestige of European history and by extension ruining tourism to their city. Can't blame them.
Last I heard Mickey Mouse was still attracting lots of tourists. So too Santa Claus in Lapland. That 'Mozart studies' (a supposed science) is unable to accept criticism of its underlying dogmas and that its supporters are hostile ignoramuses of the music and musicians of Mozart's time, well, this speaks for itself. That this same body of Mozartean 'experts' presides over the teaching of music history in schools and universities to a grotesque degree, that the performance of 'Mozart' outshines and often forces off the programme works by other composers, that the industry surrounding this 200 year old nonsense is valued at tens of millions of dollars, and that the history of the subject is riddled with more false attributions than that of any other famous composer, well, what is one to expect except hostility, from its pious consumers ?
Proofs are really not what you are interested in. Let's be honest about that. You want no criticism. You are drifting away without the slightest realisation of what fair, open, criticism actually is. It's alien to you. You want to shut it down. To ban it. To pretend that it does not exist. And all of this in the name of music and high culture. The Mozart industry and its juvenile admirers are a marriage made in Austria, posturing today as history. 'Everything you've heard is true' says Amadeus. And the truth is that everything is a packet of fictions, exaggerations and worse. Stunned to learn of the very existence of a contrary view the corporate myth is that of a giggling genius who, in plain fact, never spent a day at school and who was at no time in his entire life able to study music under anyone for any notable period of time. This is the stuff of Hollywood. The buffoonery of the musical under-achiever. The antidote to which is reality itself.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 07:13:38 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 07:13:38 AM
(http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/thehousenextdoor/2008/Links%20for%20the%20Day/April%202008/April%2026%202008/funny-pictures-melodrama-cat.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 07:20:16 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 07:20:16 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 06:45:35 AM
Let's be honest about that.
Indeed. Why don't we do that? Why not reveal your real purpose is to diminish and destroy western culture, and rake profits in the process by braking into the conspiracy market? Come on, you have nothing to risk at this point. Your book is almost done, and you have already goated enough gullible truthers during the years to guarantee a substantial return. Wouldn't it be fun to take the mask off for a while?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 07:49:06 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 07:49:06 AM
My real purpose is to diminish and destroy western culture ?
To which culture are you refering ? The one which inspires you and your colleagues to make posts that are nothing but insults ? The one which is hostile to cross-examination of Mozart and his iconic status ? But you are the guys who claim that culture is on your side !! Who claim that the evidence is entirely supportive of your view ! The living proof of which is that you act in packs, and have nothing to say except insults ?
The 'diminishing and destruction of western culture' occurs when it is being relentlessly condensed in to a series of god-like figures in a musical pantheon, the members of which are routinely worshipped with all the trappings of a secular religion. Is THAT 'western culture' ? Why, I dare to say you know less of talented composers of the 18th century than does my next-door neighbour's cat ! A fair and impartial reader can see for themselves whose attitude tends to diminish and destroy western culture. And no, I am not a Marxist and never would be. So you see, your scrambled letters are already filled with errors, though you speak like a jesuit crusader, in the name of 'culture' and 'civilization', hardly realising these terms become meaningless because of your attitude.
The issue is rather simple. If, as you claim, the iconic status of Mozart is supported by documentary and other sorts of evidence you will have the chance to show us. But if it is not, you must get used to the fact that all areas of academic study must always be open to cross-examination and criticism, without which they are, as said, the 'diminishing and destruction' of western culture.
Thanks
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 08:09:04 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 08:09:04 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 07:49:06 AM
The 'diminishing and destruction of western culture' occurs when it is being relentlessly condensed in to a series of god-like figures in a musical pantheon
Yes, but that is precisely what separates western culture from the rest of the world you see. We are an individualistic people, and genius is the ultimate expression of our culture-soul. From the moment Homer created the Greeks, western culture has been propelled forward by the fortuitous intercession of its great individualities. Of course, i know that genius is a foreign concept to you. You are a collectivist being, and the very idea of individual expression is odious to you. That is why you wish to destroy it. Nobody who truly understands genius can fail to recognize the music of Mozart to be the single expression of a unique individuality, and no amount of historical distortion and insinuation regarding the authorship of his works can change this understanding. That is why you are being attacked. That, and the fact you haven't provided the single stretch of proof to sustain your hateful lies in all the years your noxious presence has drifted thought out the net, corrupting the most confused of our minds in your wake. Time and time again your arguments have been crushed, your evidence destroyed. Yet, onward you go, unhindered, imperturbable. And why not? Who needs truth when your purpose is to destroy?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: 71 dB on May 22, 2009, 08:19:06 AM
Post by: 71 dB on May 22, 2009, 08:19:06 AM
I don't think cross-examination could do much harm to Mozart. He was a damn fine composer, one of the best.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 08:28:37 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 08:28:37 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 22, 2009, 08:19:06 AM
I don't think cross-examination could do much harm to Mozart. He was a damn fine composer, one of the best.
It doesn't matter. It is enough to plant the idea in order to tarnish the image and perhaps sell a book or two in the process. Newman is not alone in his efforts. Not only is Mozart a fraud, Bach also happen to have plagiarized his wife, haven't you heard? Or that Shakespeare was a homophone and a woman hater, and so on and so forth ad nauseum. Dint by dint, slowly but surely, our cultural identity is corroded. Down with the dead white males they say, and down they are going. And boy, aren't the profits good?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 08:37:39 AM
Post by: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 08:37:39 AM
Quote from: Todd on February 08, 2009, 07:01:01 AM
Which begs the question, of course, of WHO wrote this music, and how such a thing can possibly be true ?
No, it does not beg the question. It raises the question. To beg the question means to assume the thing you are trying to prove. Get it right, people.
On a more substative note, arguments like this --- the Shakpespeare authorship question comes to mind --- rely on the warrantless assumption that the person to whom the works are attributed could not possibly have written them, either in Shakepseare's case because he wasn't educated enough, or, in Mozart's case, as seems to be argued here, that there is too much music for one person to write. I'm also reminded of the earlier debate about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: no, Jeffererson could not possibly have done that, because it goes against everything he stood for, until, of course, it turned out he did.
Always be skeptical of arguments that turn on a priori assumptions about what a person was or was not capable of. My own warrantless assumptions are that (1) it is unlikely that a crew of ghost composers could have turned out so much good music that is also stylistically consistent and (2) that they would have kept their mouths shut about it.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: c#minor on May 22, 2009, 09:27:13 AM
Post by: c#minor on May 22, 2009, 09:27:13 AM
This again, really?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 09:44:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 09:44:09 AM
Civiizations need myths. It's practically the definition of civilization itself - a myth to which the inhabitants subscribe and around which an elite priesthood emerge. Since the time of the Babylonians the creation of myths was an integral part of civilization. The same in ancient Egypt. In Greece. In Rome. Our time is no different. That's fact number one. Its the lazy FOX news enthusiast who believes the TV is telling them truth. And in the field of culture and the arts the situation is the very same.
The textbooks admit, themselves, that dozens of early 'Mozart' works are NOT by Mozart. Have you not learned this ? When will this FACT finally be acknowleged by you ? Literally dozens of symphonies alone. That's fact. But can you, dare you, accept this ? The same is true of the first 7 piano concertos. This too is a FACT. A fact you just have to accept. Now, over half of 'Mozart's' symphonies are today recognised, even by the most conservative 'Mozartean' NOT to be by W.A. Mozart. Get it yet ? Shall I continue ? Do you need references ? What planet are you living on that such FACTS still have not formed part of your understanding or education ? And we are only just starting. The scale of musical misattribution is larger and more consistent with Mozart Frankenstein than with that of any other famous composer in the entire history of western music. That too is a FACT. Falsification, exaggeration, fakery and downright lies surround the cult of Mozart. Those too are shown to be plain fact. The moment you can come to terms with these basic FACTS is the moment you will be able to have a conversation on this subject.
To say I 'haven't provided a single stretch of proof' is contradicted by a mass of evidence. Are you so gullible, so easily seduced, you cannot hear and accept FACTS even when they are presented to you ? If so, it's not for you. You are a consumer of musical mythology and can't/won't accept anything except what you read off the sleeves of commercial C.D.'s.
Mozart never went to school in his life ! He at NO time studied music theory or composition in his entire life ! Such are FACTS too. Inconvenient facts, but FACTS all the same. Now, who is the fool ? So Western people are 'Individualistic people' ?? Why then do they act like a herd of blind sheep with a mountain of plain facts right under their noses ? The answer is, of course, that Mozart is for the musical under-achiever. A fairy story. In which reality is neither welcome nor relevant.
Fortunately, any fair minded person sees this is the truth of it.
The textbooks admit, themselves, that dozens of early 'Mozart' works are NOT by Mozart. Have you not learned this ? When will this FACT finally be acknowleged by you ? Literally dozens of symphonies alone. That's fact. But can you, dare you, accept this ? The same is true of the first 7 piano concertos. This too is a FACT. A fact you just have to accept. Now, over half of 'Mozart's' symphonies are today recognised, even by the most conservative 'Mozartean' NOT to be by W.A. Mozart. Get it yet ? Shall I continue ? Do you need references ? What planet are you living on that such FACTS still have not formed part of your understanding or education ? And we are only just starting. The scale of musical misattribution is larger and more consistent with Mozart Frankenstein than with that of any other famous composer in the entire history of western music. That too is a FACT. Falsification, exaggeration, fakery and downright lies surround the cult of Mozart. Those too are shown to be plain fact. The moment you can come to terms with these basic FACTS is the moment you will be able to have a conversation on this subject.
To say I 'haven't provided a single stretch of proof' is contradicted by a mass of evidence. Are you so gullible, so easily seduced, you cannot hear and accept FACTS even when they are presented to you ? If so, it's not for you. You are a consumer of musical mythology and can't/won't accept anything except what you read off the sleeves of commercial C.D.'s.
Mozart never went to school in his life ! He at NO time studied music theory or composition in his entire life ! Such are FACTS too. Inconvenient facts, but FACTS all the same. Now, who is the fool ? So Western people are 'Individualistic people' ?? Why then do they act like a herd of blind sheep with a mountain of plain facts right under their noses ? The answer is, of course, that Mozart is for the musical under-achiever. A fairy story. In which reality is neither welcome nor relevant.
Fortunately, any fair minded person sees this is the truth of it.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 22, 2009, 09:51:46 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 22, 2009, 09:51:46 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 09:44:09 AM
Mozart never went to school in his life ! He at NO time studied music theory or composition in his entire life ! Such are FACTS too. Inconvenient facts, but FACTS all the same. Now, who is the fool ?
Why, you are. Because these are not all
You, in those two initial claims up there, are the fraud, you frightful bore.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on May 22, 2009, 09:55:19 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on May 22, 2009, 09:55:19 AM
As Seinfeld would exclaim.................Newman!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 09:59:34 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 09:59:34 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 22, 2009, 09:51:46 AM
Why, you are. Because these are not allfactsFACTS, as you so petulantly cry.
You, in those two initial claims up there, are the fraud, you frightful bore.
OK, tell us -
A. Which school Mozart attended between the age of, say, 4 and 21 ?
b. Under which teacher of composition and harmony did Mozart study ? Where ? When. ?
And then I'll stop thinking you're a complete joker ! A 'purveyor of snake oil' !!!
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: mahler10th on May 22, 2009, 10:05:13 AM
Post by: mahler10th on May 22, 2009, 10:05:13 AM
I like myths to be challenged. Thinking outside Mozarts box is refreshing. If there is room for reasonable doubt on analysis, it should be heard, but not believed until evidence is presented.
:P
:P
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:07:28 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:07:28 AM
Yes John, and in this particular case the learned Professor Karl Henning, Ph.D.- Composer & Clarinetist - is going to tell us which school Wolfgang Mozart attended as a child and at which school of music he studied harmony and composition.
Let's sit back, put our feet up, and wait for the oracle to speak ! This will be really interesting, for sure !!! Why, I could almost open a can of beer !!!
:D
Let's sit back, put our feet up, and wait for the oracle to speak ! This will be really interesting, for sure !!! Why, I could almost open a can of beer !!!
:D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 10:19:18 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 10:19:18 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:07:28 AMDude, I'm no music scholar, much less a Mozart specialist, but even I know that Mozart was trained in music from an early age by his father.
Yes John, and in this particular case the learned Professor Karl Henning, Ph.D.- Composer & Clarinetist - is going to tell us which school Wolfgang Mozart attended as a child and at which school of music he studied harmony and composition.
John, this guy is a notorious crank with about as much credibility as Chris Dodd or Barney Frank.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:26:07 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:26:07 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 10:19:18 AM
Dude, I'm no music scholar, much less a Mozart specialist, but even I know that Mozart was trained in music from an early age by his father.
John, this guy is a notorious crank with about as much credibility as Chris Dodd or Barney Frank.
And the man who built the Golden Gates bridge had a son, who could build suspension bridges also, right ?
Look, Mozart's father was a 4th violinist, a former valet, and was, in his lifetime, promoted to vice-kapellmeister. But this only weeks before he left on a giant tour across Europe by carriage. It lasted almost 3 and a half years. Leopold Mozart, his father, was for a total of 7 years of Mozart's childhood on tour with his son, travelling thousands of miles round the roads of Europe. Now, I don't mean to be rude, but my two questions remain unanswered. I mean, you don't just sit down and write symphonies. You have to be properly taught, by a skilled teacher of harmony, orchestration and instrumentation. Bach had to be taught, for years. So did everyone else. And everyone else went to school.
Which is why I must ask the learned Professor to tell us where Mozart went to school, for how long, and under which teacher of music theory and harmony he actually studied, where, and for how long. Reasonable questions, don't you agree ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 22, 2009, 10:26:55 AM
Post by: Holly on May 22, 2009, 10:26:55 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 10:19:18 AM
Dude, I'm no music scholar, much less a Mozart specialist, but even I know that Mozart was trained in music from an early age by his father.
John, this guy is a notorious crank with about as much credibility as Chris Dodd or Barney Frank.
I too thought it was common knowledge that W A Mozart was taught by his father, Leopold, who of course was a composer of some repute. What does Newman have to say about this?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:31:10 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:31:10 AM
'Common knowledge' ? But Mozart's father, in Salzburg, was full time employed by the chapel of Salzburg. And his son, Wolfgang NEVER attended a school for a single day, in his entire life.
I mean, who is kidding who here ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on May 22, 2009, 10:31:18 AM
Post by: Bulldog on May 22, 2009, 10:31:18 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:26:07 AM
Which is why I must ask the learned Professor to tell us where Mozart went to school, under which teacher of music theory and harmony he studied, where, and for how long. Seems like a reasonable question, don't you agree ?
Your basic problem is that you expect others to prove Mozart's compostional skills. Since the consensus is that Mozart was one of the greatest composers, don't you think it reasonable that your obligation is to do the proving that he wasn't?
So I suggest that you take a popular work of Mozart's and prove that he didn't write it. How about the Mass in C minor? Piano Concerto No. 20? The Clarinet Concerto?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:34:07 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:34:07 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on May 22, 2009, 10:31:18 AM
Your basic problem is that you expect others to prove Mozart's compostional skills. Since the consensus is that Mozart was one of the greatest composers, don't you think it reasonable that your obligation is to do the proving that he wasn't?
So I suggest that you take a popular work of Mozart's and prove that he didn't write it. How about the Mass in C minor? Piano Concerto No. 20? The Clarinet Concerto?
Well, I am asking some basic, fundamental questions related to Mozart, his schooling, and such a simple question as the name of his teacher in composition, orchestration and harmony. And it seems to me that nobody has a real answer. We just accept it. Now, I don't ask you to accept anything without evidence. So why should I ?
Now, it may be possible for a young child to be a great bricklayer, or to be a great portrait painter, or to be able to repair car engines. Even to fly a 747. But isn't it fair and reasonable to have details of where he learned to do these things, if from anyone ? They are highly skilled things and they take time, real time, to learn well. You can't do them without being properly taught. Exactly what composers such as Johann Sebastian Bach said.
We believe such things because they are pumped out by the mainstream 'Mozart industry'. But on what actual facts are they based ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: jwinter on May 22, 2009, 10:42:27 AM
Post by: jwinter on May 22, 2009, 10:42:27 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 09:59:34 AM
OK, tell us -
A. Which school Mozart attended between the age of, say, 4 and 21 ?
b. Under which teacher of composition and harmony did Mozart study ? Where ? When. ?
Perhaps I am a hopeless curmudgeon, but I fail to see the relevance of any answer to the above questions to an honest reckoning of Mozart's worth as a composer. It is silliness itself to disregard the clear and obvious genius of Mozart's music (not to support Josquin's usage in other contexts, but in this case the term genius is justified), just because we can't produce a record of which music school he may or may not have attended. It's the same tired argument the anti-Stratfordians use -- we can't find records that Shakespeare ever studied Latin, therefore he couldn't have written Julius Caesar. The logic doesn't hold. Great artists in many fields have been able to master their craft without much formal education on the subject -- it's not the rule, certainly, but it happens. Einstein noodled out the mysteries of the universe while sitting at the patent office -- who's to say that someone with great natural gifts couldn't write a symphony after learning the basics of music from his father and others, and using scores or other materials for personal study? How can you disprove the possibility? Rolling your eyes is not a sufficient rebuttal.
More to the point, how and by whom besides his father young Mozart was tutored (I claim no expertise on that point) is interesting from a musicological standpoint no doubt, but it doesn't add anything to an appreciation of the music in my opinion. Nor do the silly statistics about X percentage of Mozart's music being by someone else -- clearly, unscrupulous publishers did try to pass off some works as early Mozart in the years after his death, but that's very old news, and reflects nothing upon the Magic Flute.
Why do I get the impression that you are just casting about for strawmen to poke at in your upcoming book?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:47:01 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:47:01 AM
OK jwinter,
So your argument is that you have no evidence, but you want us to believe that Mozart is a musical genius. And if we ask these sorts of question we are wrong. Is that your argument ?
If I told you that a baby flew a 747 from Denver to Florida would you believe me ? I don't have the evidence, but, you see, who cares about evidence ?
:D
So your argument is that you have no evidence, but you want us to believe that Mozart is a musical genius. And if we ask these sorts of question we are wrong. Is that your argument ?
If I told you that a baby flew a 747 from Denver to Florida would you believe me ? I don't have the evidence, but, you see, who cares about evidence ?
:D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 10:51:38 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 10:51:38 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:34:07 AMThis is almost as hilarious as Ernie's pretense of rationality or Sean's treatises on anything. There is abundant evidence that Leopold Mozart, a musician and teacher of music, author of a noted treatise on the violin, and the father of Amadeus, was his son's teacher. You are indeed asking others not only to accept your deranged speculation as evidence, but to deny two centuries worth of real evidence in the process.
Well, I am asking some basic, fundamental questions related to Mozart, his schooling, and such a simple question as the name of his teacher in composition, orchestration and harmony. And it seems to me that nobody has a real answer. We just accept it. Now, I don't ask you to accept anything without evidence. So why should I ?
You have been banned from similar forums for the nonsense that follows your moronic trolling. It's only a matter of time here. Personally, I think you're just a harmless fruitcake and that others with a nastier agenda ought be removed first, but it's not my call.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: jwinter on May 22, 2009, 10:55:19 AM
Post by: jwinter on May 22, 2009, 10:55:19 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:47:01 AM
OK jwinter,
So your argument is that you have no evidence, but you want us to believe that Mozart is a musical genius. And if we ask these sorts of question we are wrong. Is that your argument ?
I don't say that you are wrong: I merely say that the origins of genius are not necessarily reducible to any easily grasped explanation. I say again, the argument is equivalent to the argument against Shakespeare. Simply apply Occam's Razor: which is more likely, a centuries-long conspiracy involving many people, or the simple fact that Mozart and Shakespeare were a damned-sight cleverer than we'll ever be able to understand?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:59:22 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:59:22 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 10:51:38 AM
This is almost as hilarious as Ernie's pretense of rationality or Sean's treatises on anything. There is abundant evidence that Leopold Mozart, a musician and teacher of music, author of a noted treatise on the violin, and the father of Amadeus, was his son's teacher. You are indeed asking others not only to accept your deranged speculation as evidence, but to deny two centuries worth of real evidence in the process.
You have been banned from similar forums for the nonsense that follows your moronic trolling. It's only a matter of time here. Personally, I think you're just a harmless fruitcake and that others with a nastier agenda ought be removed first, but it's not my call.
Well, no David Ross - personally I think you're just a harmless fruitcake myself. Since the chance of a baby flying a 747 from Denver to Florida is about the same as a child writing a symphony without intensive study under an expert teacher of harmony, orchestration and instrumentation. Or a child who becomes a brain surgeon. Which begs answers to the original questions -
1. Where, if at all, Mozart went to school before the age of 21
2. Where, if at all, he made detailed study of orchestration, harmony and instrumentation under a recognised/skilled teacher of the same.
Incidentally Leopold Mozart did NOT write a treatise on the violin. This violin treatise was actually stolen/plagiarised in most of its contents from an unpublished violin treatise by an Italian violonist Tartini and was falsely published in the name of Leopold Mozart in 1756, the year of Wolfgang's birth. So, you see, still more fakery and falsehood in this story.
Anyway, your errors are innocent enough.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: c#minor on May 22, 2009, 11:04:14 AM
Post by: c#minor on May 22, 2009, 11:04:14 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 22, 2009, 09:55:19 AM
As Seinfeld would exclaim.................Newman!
haha
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: c#minor on May 22, 2009, 11:10:05 AM
Post by: c#minor on May 22, 2009, 11:10:05 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:59:22 AM
1. Where, if at all, Mozart went to school before the age of 21
2. Where, if at all, he made detailed study of orchestration, harmony and instrumentation under a recognised/skilled teacher of the same.
He attended ITT Tech when he was 12 and there he met the band Meatloaf who schooled him in the ways of orchestration, harmony, and instrumentation. And yes, Mozart could time travel.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on May 22, 2009, 11:12:20 AM
Post by: Bulldog on May 22, 2009, 11:12:20 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 10:34:07 AM
Well, I am asking some basic, fundamental questions related to Mozart, his schooling, and such a simple question as the name of his teacher in composition, orchestration and harmony. And it seems to me that nobody has a real answer. We just accept it. Now, I don't ask you to accept anything without evidence. So why should I ?
Now, it may be possible for a young child to be a great bricklayer, or to be a great portrait painter, or to be able to repair car engines. Even to fly a 747. But isn't it fair and reasonable to have details of where he learned to do these things, if from anyone ? They are highly skilled things and they take time, real time, to learn well. You can't do them without being properly taught. Exactly what composers such as Johann Sebastian Bach said.
We believe such things because they are pumped out by the mainstream 'Mozart industry'. But on what actual facts are they based ?
Here I am ready to read your proof that one or more popular Mozart works were not composed by Mozart, and your response is basically nothing. So far, you're very disappointing. The burden is on you.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 22, 2009, 11:21:32 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 22, 2009, 11:21:32 AM
Mr Newman, do you know the book by Robert Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style? A friend of mine recommended it to me. It is an excellent read.
Quote about the book:
"Gjerdingen's study promises to reframe nearly all the work that scholars have lavished on compositional practice in the eighteenth century by answering a question that no one seems to have asked before now - how were eighteenth-century composers (Italian-born and Italian-trained composers above all) able to produce such massive quantities of music in such a broad spectrum of genres, and to do so with both facility and taste?"--Thomas Bauman, Professor of Musicology, Northwestern University
I personally don't like Mozart as much as I do Beethoven, beacuse I find Mozart at times to be rather formulaic. This books gives one explanation - there were schemata which composers used, which they had internalized. The greatness of Mozart (or 'Mozart') resides in the fact that he plays with them in startlingly original ways.
I await your book to see how you buttress your claims. Do you have a publisher?
Quote about the book:
"Gjerdingen's study promises to reframe nearly all the work that scholars have lavished on compositional practice in the eighteenth century by answering a question that no one seems to have asked before now - how were eighteenth-century composers (Italian-born and Italian-trained composers above all) able to produce such massive quantities of music in such a broad spectrum of genres, and to do so with both facility and taste?"--Thomas Bauman, Professor of Musicology, Northwestern University
I personally don't like Mozart as much as I do Beethoven, beacuse I find Mozart at times to be rather formulaic. This books gives one explanation - there were schemata which composers used, which they had internalized. The greatness of Mozart (or 'Mozart') resides in the fact that he plays with them in startlingly original ways.
I await your book to see how you buttress your claims. Do you have a publisher?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 11:22:16 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 11:22:16 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 09:44:09 AM
Civiizations need myths. It's practically the definition of civilization itself - a myth to which the inhabitants subscribe and around which an elite priesthood emerge. Since the time of the Babylonians the creation of myths was an integral part of civilization. The same in ancient Egypt. In Greece. In Rome. Our time is no different. That's fact number one. Its the lazy FOX news enthusiast who believes the TV is telling them truth. And in the field of culture and the arts the situation is the very same.
More and more you betray your collectivist mindset, by seeing collectivist motives in the minds and hearts of other individuals. But what is this myth you are trying to disprove, exactly? That the individual whom we call Mozart is not really the author of the body of work which we have come to venerate? What difference does that really make? What vested interest does a society have in creating a myth centered around a particular individual or another, when the object of our veneration is the tangible, readily available results of what is obviously the work of a single fertile mind to anybody but the most impoverished of intellects? Is it necessary to the myth that the author is an Austrian musician as opposed to an Italian, or a French man? Don't we have Italian and French geniuses?
Or maybe you are saying that such a stupendous legacy cannot be the work of a single individual. That it must be a composite of different authors, even though they all appear to miraculously employ the same stylistic devices and express the same individual character. But wait, the reason why Mozart is such a venerated figure is that he wrote music of an unprecedented level of quality and originality, not that he wrote a lot of it. The only composer whom even approached the genius of this music at the time was Haydn. Yet, by your argument, there was not one genius, not two, but many, all writing in secret on behalf of this made up historical character. Is this really believable? And why just Mozart? What about Bach? Or Mendelssohn? Or Schubert? More Frauds?
Or maybe it is the fact he was a prodigy that you are trying to disprove. That no child could ever write such music at such an early age and in such quantities. But again, why just Mozart? What about Mendelssohn? Schubert? Chopin? Saint-Saens? Enescu? Kornhold? More frauds? What about the recent Jay Greenberg? Fraud?
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 09:44:09 AM
The textbooks admit, themselves, that dozens of early 'Mozart' works are NOT by Mozart.
What textbooks, and what sources have they employed? You are the scholar here. Surely, it shouldn't be too hard for you to demonstrate those FACTS with hard evidence and the proper documentation.
But even it if was true, so what? What difference does it make whether the child Mozart was or wasn't the author of compositions which are irrelevant to the great masterworks of maturity which his legacy as a genius depends upon in the first place? Compositions which, mind you, are well within the possibility of a child and have been so in the case of numerous other prodigies as well.
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 09:44:09 AM
Literally dozens of symphonies alone. That's fact. But can you, dare you, accept this ? The same is true of the first 7 piano concertos.
By all means, let the EVIDENCE speak for itself.
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 09:44:09 AM
To say I 'haven't provided a single stretch of proof' is contradicted by a mass of evidence. Are you so gullible, so easily seduced, you cannot hear and accept FACTS even when they are presented to you ? If so, it's not for you. You are a consumer of musical mythology and can't/won't accept anything except what you read off the sleeves of commercial C.D.'s.
Nota bene, if you dispute the evidence i provided, it is obvious that you are just incapable of accepting the truth. Why is this starting to sound like a religion? Who's creating myths here?
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 09:44:09 AM
Mozart never went to school in his life ! He at NO time studied music theory or composition in his entire life !
This is a blatant lie. Not only did Mozart receive musical education from his father, whom just so happened not only to be academically trained but also the author of one the most widely distributed method books for violin, in case you'd like to question his credentials as a teacher, but the whole point is moot considering there's tons of evidence concerning a certain child prodigy named Mozart touring Europe, giving performances and creating a sensation, which to me indicates some level of musical education, i would think. In fact, now that i think it, do you actually believe there ever even was an individual named Mozart in the first place? At this point i'm not even sure how large your delusion has grown during the years.
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 09:44:09 AMSo Western people are 'Individualistic people' ?? Why then do they act like a herd of blind sheep with a mountain of plain facts right under their noses ? The answer is, of course, that Mozart is for the musical under-achiever.
Are we attacking the person or the music now? Are you going to claim the music itself isn't a work of genius?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:34:01 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:34:01 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 22, 2009, 11:21:32 AM
Mr Newman, do you know the book by Robert Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style? A friend of mine recommended it to me. It is an excellent read.
Quote about the book:
"Gjerdingen's study promises to reframe nearly all the work that scholars have lavished on compositional practice in the eighteenth century by answering a question that no one seems to have asked before now - how were eighteenth-century composers (Italian-born and Italian-trained composers above all) able to produce such massive quantities of music in such a broad spectrum of genres, and to do so with both facility and taste?"--Thomas Bauman, Professor of Musicology, Northwestern University
I personally don't like Mozart as much as I do Beethoven, beacuse I find Mozart at times to be rather formulaic. This books gives one explanation - there were schemata which composers used, which they had internalized. The greatness of Mozart (or 'Mozart') resides in the fact that he plays with them in startlingly original ways.
I await your book to see how you buttress your claims. Do you have a publisher?
Hello there Jezetha,
Thomas Bauman is asking all the right questions, yes, for sure.
You ask whether I have a publisher. No, not yet. I hope to finish in September and yes, I have many sorts of evidence covering most of the life and official career of Mozart. I hope that you will agree that it provides some remarkable new information. Please let me have your email and I can send you an advanced copy if you like when it is ready, with my regards.
Regards
Robert
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 11:36:27 AM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 11:36:27 AM
I have not yet noticed that our new poster/posters suggest that, for example, Don Giovanni or the 41st Symphony are NOT by Mozart. If they are by him, then he got a superb grasp on his art by the time he was an adult and knew by then how the forms worked......which leads me to wonder how he did it, if he needed to, but failed to, attend a school or study for years to attain mastery of musical forms.
If he was able to produce the later masterpieces without recorded study, why not the earlier ones?
As to a baby flying a jet or whatever, a spurious, specious comparison.
Mike
If he was able to produce the later masterpieces without recorded study, why not the earlier ones?
As to a baby flying a jet or whatever, a spurious, specious comparison.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:37:40 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:37:40 AM
What sort of answer do you want to such a sprawling mass of questions ? The best thing is to say we've had 200 years of Mozart propaganda. Quite enough for a fair minded person to see the story is riddled with holes. And that's even before we start.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:40:50 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:40:50 AM
Quote from: knight on May 22, 2009, 11:36:27 AM
I have not yet noticed that our new poster/posters suggest that, for example, Don Giovanni or the 41st Symphony are NOT by Mozart. If they are by him, then he got a superb grasp on his art by the time he was an adult and knew by then how the forms worked......which leads me to wonder how he did it, if he needed to, but failed to, attend a school or study for years to attain mastery of musical forms.
If he was able to produce the later masterpieces without recorded study, why not the earlier ones?
As to a baby flying a jet or whatever, a spurious, specious comparison.
Mike
Mike, let me ask you a question. How many composers that were contemporary with Mozart do you actually know ? I mean have you actually heard the music of, say, Vanhal, or Myslivececk ? How about Paul Vranicky (Wranitsky), Anton Wranitsky, Paisiello, Andrea Luchesi, Josef Fiala, etc, etc etc. The list runs in to several dozen names. How distinctive IS the style of music YOU know as Mozart ?
Tell us what you think of this piece, by Josef Myslivececk,
Overture
Il Gran Tamerlano
(Italy 1771)
Amazingly 'Mozartean' yes ? And this Myslivececk was a close family friend of the Mozart's for many years. This written when Mozart was only 13 by Myslivececk in Italy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj78iHzcXBk
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 11:44:37 AM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 11:44:37 AM
Well, one of your sprawling answers to my sprawling question would do nicely. But of course, I suppose as the only fair minded person on the board, sweeping aside questions you can't answer will be an acceptable technique.
I will condense the question for you and hope you can grasp it.
A) You posit that to reach mastery, Mozart must have studied somewhere or had a teacher.
B) If he did not have the learning to manage the earlier pieces that are authoritatively attributed to him, how did he make the leap to the mastery of the later acknowledged masterpieces still without any recorded period of study?
Mike
I will condense the question for you and hope you can grasp it.
A) You posit that to reach mastery, Mozart must have studied somewhere or had a teacher.
B) If he did not have the learning to manage the earlier pieces that are authoritatively attributed to him, how did he make the leap to the mastery of the later acknowledged masterpieces still without any recorded period of study?
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 22, 2009, 11:45:30 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 22, 2009, 11:45:30 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:34:01 AM
Hello there Jezetha,
Thomas Bauman is asking all the right questions, yes, for sure.
You ask whether I have a publisher. No, not yet. I hope to finish in September and yes, I have many sorts of evidence covering most of the life and official career of Mozart. I hope that you will agree that it provides some remarkable new information. Please let me have your email and I can send you an advanced copy if you like when it is ready, with my regards.
Regards
Robert
Thanks in advance. Instead of battling it out here and wasting time and energy, I'd rather read the book. I'll send you my email address.
Johan
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:47:21 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:47:21 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 22, 2009, 11:45:30 AM
Thanks in advance. Instead of battling it out here and wasting time and energy, I'd rather read the book. I'll send you my email address.
Johan
Yes Johan,
I will not post here for very long. I have a lot to do also. Please send me your email.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:48:45 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:48:45 AM
Mike, let me ask you a question. How many composers that were contemporary with Mozart do you actually know ? I mean have you actually heard the music of, say, Vanhal, or Myslivececk ? How about Paul Vranicky (Wranitsky), Anton Wranitsky, Paisiello, Andrea Luchesi, Josef Fiala, etc, etc etc. The list runs in to several dozen names. How distinctive IS the style of music YOU know as Mozart ?
Tell us what you think of this piece, by Josef Myslivececk,
Overture
Il Gran Tamerlano
(Italy 1771)
Amazingly 'Mozartean' yes ? And this Myslivececk was a close family friend of the Mozart's for many years. This written when Mozart was only 13 by Myslivececk in Italy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj78iHzcXBk
And others such as -
Giovanni Paisiello
Antonio Salieri
Andrea Luchesi
Paul Wranitsky
Anton Wranitsky
Josef Martin Kraus
Vicenzo Righini
J.B. Vanhal
Josef Fiala
Josef Cartellieri
J.C. Bach
H.A. Gelinek
Theresia von Paradis
etc.
//
Tell us what you think of this piece, by Josef Myslivececk,
Overture
Il Gran Tamerlano
(Italy 1771)
Amazingly 'Mozartean' yes ? And this Myslivececk was a close family friend of the Mozart's for many years. This written when Mozart was only 13 by Myslivececk in Italy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj78iHzcXBk
And others such as -
Giovanni Paisiello
Antonio Salieri
Andrea Luchesi
Paul Wranitsky
Anton Wranitsky
Josef Martin Kraus
Vicenzo Righini
J.B. Vanhal
Josef Fiala
Josef Cartellieri
J.C. Bach
H.A. Gelinek
Theresia von Paradis
etc.
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 11:49:27 AM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 11:49:27 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:40:50 AM
Mike, let me ask you a question. How many composers that were contemporary with Mozart do you actually know ? I mean have you actually heard the music of, say, Vanhal, or Myslivececk ? How about Paul Vranicky (Wranitsky), Anton Wranitsky, Paisiello, Andrea Luchesi, Josef Fiala, etc, etc etc. The list runs in to several dozen names. How distinctive IS the style of music YOU know as Mozart ?
Tell us what you think of this piece, by Josef Myslivececk,
Overture
Il Gran Tamerlano
(Italy 1771)
Amazingly 'Mozartean' yes ? And this Myslivececk was a close family friend of the Mozart's for many years. This written when Mozart was only 13 by Myslivececk in Italy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj78iHzcXBk
I have listened to some of the composers you list, not with forensic attention. But I observe the Socratic method here. You are the proclaimed expert here, but instead of providing answers, you ask questions in return. Berlioz superficially sounds uncannily like his predessor Mehul; but that does not degrade Berlioz claim to originality.....we all of us absorb influences. Did anyone suggest Mozart had no influences upon him? We had this argument around Bach recently, It was a non-starter.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:57:06 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:57:06 AM
Quote from: knight on May 22, 2009, 11:49:27 AM
I have listened to some of the composers you list, not with forensic attention. But I observe the Socratic method here. You are the proclaimed expert here, but instead of providing answers, you ask questions in return. Berlioz superficially sounds uncannily like his predessor Mehul; but that does not degrade Berlioz claim to originality.....we all of us absorb influences. Did anyone suggest Mozart had no influences upon him? We had this argument around Bach recently, It was a non-starter.
Mike
But my question is how many composers of Mozart's time you actually know, other than Haydn ? I've listed various here whose style is pheneomenally similar to that of 'Mozart'. And that's a fact. Why, even Myslivecek in 1771. Hope you heard it.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Seems to me as fair and reasonable question as to ask for the names of the schools Mozart attended. But here too no answer is essential.
The thing is, of course, that Myslivececk in the early 1770's was writing phenomenal music - music almost unheard today. Just a single example. This is more than good. It's phenomenal. And it's just another example of how ignorant we have all been.
The thing is, of course, that Myslivececk in the early 1770's was writing phenomenal music - music almost unheard today. Just a single example. This is more than good. It's phenomenal. And it's just another example of how ignorant we have all been.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 12:04:07 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 12:04:07 PM
I have a disc of arias mixing Mozart and Myslivecek, I think I would not know who wrote what from the obscure pieces; but I am not clear what point that makes. I can't tell all Corelli from Vivaldi. I have occasionally been fooled into thinking I was listening to Handel when I was not.
Has anyone said that there were not stylistic commonalities in pre-Romantic music, when the individual voice then became paramount as the orchestra was treated in a different way?
Mike
Has anyone said that there were not stylistic commonalities in pre-Romantic music, when the individual voice then became paramount as the orchestra was treated in a different way?
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:06:01 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:06:01 PM
Fine. Let's leave it here for now. It's enough that you agree there is a very remarkable similarity in this music with that written (supposedly) by Mozart nearly a decade later. But he's just one person and there are several.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 12:06:44 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 12:06:44 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
The thing is, of course, that Myslivececk in the early 1770's was writing phenomenal music - music almost unheard today. Just a single example. This is more than good. It's phenomenal. And it's just another example of how ignorant we have all been.
What I have heard sounds interesting; I am happy to hear him. I don't believe the argument needs to involve denegrating one composer to elevate another, so I have nothing negative to say about the small amount of Myslivececk that I have heard.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 12:08:28 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 12:08:28 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
Seems to me as fair and reasonable question as to ask for the names of the schools Mozart attended. But here too no answer is essential.
You seem to be focusing on a false dichotomy of your own making. You are clearly stating that proper compositional ability can only be acquired through specific academic training, and then gloat over the fact Mozart did not receive said academic education when the whole idea is based on a fallacy.
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
The thing is, of course, that Myslivececk in the early 1770's was writing phenomenal music - music almost unheard today. Just a single example.
Except there's nothing really special or phenomenal about it. It's an average low classical piece in the typical Mannheim style of the times. It's obvious that you know absolutely nothing about the genius of Mozart or what makes his music unique in an age of extreme stylistic uniformity.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 12:13:14 PM
Post by: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 12:13:14 PM
And the fact that other people were writing good music at the time does not prove Mozart did not write any. It's a nonsequitor.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bwv 1080 on May 22, 2009, 12:15:04 PM
Post by: bwv 1080 on May 22, 2009, 12:15:04 PM
Unlike the rest of you closed-minded people who uncritically accept the music establishment party line, I spent the morning investigating Mr. Newman's allegations and found some shocking facts on my own. Why would a washed up child performer become the greatest composer in Western history? It may make a good movie script, but it beggars logic. Now what else do we know for a fact about WA Mozart? His ties to the freemasons. We also know how the tentacles of freemasonary reached all the way through 18th century society and its plots to subvert the Church. I found one document that refers to a Masonic attempt to spark worldwide revolution through subliminally encoding subversive messages in music. A cabal of freemason composers worked to create the music with Wolfgang serving at the frontman. The signal for the launch of this program was in 1773 when the illuminati were finally successful in obtaining the Papal suppression of the Jesuits, who had been on the verge of discovering the plot. With the way clear, Mozart was appointed that year to the Salzburg Court with the eventual goal of moving to the seat of the Holy Roman Empire itself, from that point a lethal delivery of cultural poison could be made. The key points of the plot centered around creating subversive operas which could be performed for not only nobles, but bourgeois and commoners as well. This we know was done. The plot culminated with in 1789 with the French Revolution. After a few more years when it was apparant that the plan was only a limited success, with no revolution occuring in the Empire or the rest of Europe it was decided by the illuminati that Mozart had served his purpose. Their one last act was to kill their patsy, an act which served to signal the beginning of the Reign of Terror in France. Masonic power waned in the early 19th century with the defeat of Napoleon and the restoration of the Jesuits, the nadir was Pius X's 1903 encyclical Tra le Sollecitudini where he denounced the "Vienesse" (a code word for Freemason) influence on music. The Illuminati made an attempt at reviving the strategy in 1979 when the technology of mass communication had improved by launching the play Amadeus, which was launched with the goal of an eventual movie. An unintended consequence of this move was the collapse of the very same communist revolution in Europe that they had worked so long to forment - rather than spurring revolutionary outbreaks across the Christian world, the movie sparked an uprising against the Bolshevik regimes in Europe. Frustrated with their attempts at mass communication the Illuminati turned in the early 90s to their Eastern brethren who, having created the religion of Islam in the 7th century, had another more interesting weapon at their disposal.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 12:18:57 PM
Post by: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 12:18:57 PM
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 22, 2009, 12:15:04 PM
Unlike the rest of you closed-minded people who uncritically accept the music establishment party line, I spent the morning investigating Mr. Newman's allegations and found some shocking facts on my own. Why would a washed up child performer become the greatest composer in Western history? It may make a good movie script, but it beggars logic. Now what else do we know for a fact about WA Mozart? His ties to the freemasons. We also know how the tentacles of freemasonary reached all the way through 18th century society and its plots to subvert the Church. I found one document that refers to a Masonic attempt to spark worldwide revolution through subliminally encoding subversive messages in music. A cabal of freemason composers worked to create the music with Wolfgang serving at the frontman. The signal for the launch of this program was in 1773 when the illuminati were finally successful in obtaining the Papal suppression of the Jesuits, who had been on the verge of discovering the plot. With the way clear, Mozart was appointed that year to the Salzburg Court with the eventual goal of moving to the seat of the Holy Roman Empire itself, from that point a lethal delivery of cultural poison could be made. The key points of the plot centered around creating subversive operas which could be performed for not only nobles, but bourgeois and commoners as well. This we know was done. The plot culminated with in 1789 with the French Revolution. After a few more years when it was apparant that the plan was only a limited success, with no revolution occuring in the Empire or the rest of Europe it was decided by the illuminati that Mozart had served his purpose. Their one last act was to kill their patsy, an act which served to signal the beginning of the Reign of Terror in France. Masonic power waned in the early 19th century with the defeat of Napoleon and the restoration of the Jesuits, the nadir was Pius X's 1903 encyclical Tra le Sollecitudini where he denounced the "Vienesse" (a code word for Freemason) influence on music. The Illuminati made an attempt at reviving the strategy in 1979 when the technology of mass communication had improved by launching the play Amadeus, which was launched with the goal of an eventual movie. An unintended consequence of this move was the collapse of the very same communist revolution in Europe that they had worked so long to forment - rather than spurring revolutionary outbreaks across the Christian world, the movie sparked an uprising against the Bolshevik regimes in Europe. Frustrated with their attempts at mass communication the Illuminati turned in the early 90s to their Eastern brethren who, having created the religion of Islam in the 7th century, had another more interesting weapon at their disposal.
This is either a brilliant parody or the steamiest pile of manure I have ever read. I'll go with the former. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 22, 2009, 12:19:55 PM
Post by: Florestan on May 22, 2009, 12:19:55 PM
Mr. Newman, can you produce here on GMG evidence for your claims?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:22:38 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:22:38 PM
So we come full circle. There is not a shred of evidence that Mozart actually studied music. There is no more evidence of him studying composition than there is of my next door neighbour's cat qualifying to be a dental surgeon. Nor is there any evidence that Mozart was specially skilled in writing music. The living proof of this can be demonstrated in such works as that which he produced for Padre Martini during his entrance exam to the academy in Bologna Italy. This is filled with errors and is music that shows he had NO real knowledge of harmony or of the rudiments of music theory. And there are dozens of other examples.
Let's stop this nonsense. Babies do not fly 747's. Nor do young boys write symphonies. Let alone good ones. For in both cases they require detailed study of the technical requirements involved. This Mozart never had. Nor did he spend even a single day in a school. That is the plain fact.
Genius ? Not at all. Roadshow ? Of course.
Let's stop this nonsense. Babies do not fly 747's. Nor do young boys write symphonies. Let alone good ones. For in both cases they require detailed study of the technical requirements involved. This Mozart never had. Nor did he spend even a single day in a school. That is the plain fact.
Genius ? Not at all. Roadshow ? Of course.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 12:23:39 PM
Post by: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: Florestan on May 22, 2009, 12:19:55 PM
Mr. Newman, can you produce here on GMG evidence for your claims?
I think he's been doing that, and hitherto, the evidence has cinsisrted of several a priori assumptions about what Mozart could and could not have accomplished. And that other composers were doing good work at the time, which somehow proves that Mozart couldn't.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:24:58 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:24:58 PM
Quote from: Florestan on May 22, 2009, 12:19:55 PM
Mr. Newman, can you produce here on GMG evidence for your claims?
Well, the best answer is to read my findings when they are finished. Since your question is very general and not specific.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:27:49 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:27:49 PM
Quote from: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 12:23:39 PM
I think he's been doing that, and hitherto, the evidence has cinsisrted of several a priori assumptions about what Mozart could and could not have accomplished. And that other composers were doing good work at the time, which somehow proves that Mozart couldn't.
Joe Barron,
The thing about the Mozart story is that we hear only one side. Unlike that of virtually everything else. Don't you agree that things which are taught and widely believed in schools should be subjected to cross-examination ? I trust you do. But in this case the 'industry' has its own myths and they don't like being cross-examined. So it took a long time. But now, at last, we can form our own considered view, having heard both sides.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 22, 2009, 12:29:53 PM
Post by: Florestan on May 22, 2009, 12:29:53 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:24:58 PM
Well, the best answer is to read my findings when they are finished. Since your question is very general and not specific.
Regards
Ok, here are two specific questions:
1. Of all 623 items in the Kochel catalogue, which are written by Mozart himself?
2. Who wrote those works that are not his?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 12:31:53 PM
Post by: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 12:31:53 PM
I'm coming in late so this may have been covered, but doesn't the proponent of the extraordinary hypothesis, in this case that Mozart was not the author of Mozart's music, have the burden of proof, proof being in this case a preponderance of the evidence? Given that Mozart was taken to be the composer by all of his contemporaries (including Beethoven, who had reason to know), how do you meet that burden? It's the conspiracy problem: Everyone is in on it, no one talks, powerful forces in high places arrange to kill the real composer, the hijacked planes are sitting at an airport in Cleveland, the Mossad did it, etc.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:32:36 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:32:36 PM
Quote from: Florestan on May 22, 2009, 12:29:53 PM
Ok, here are two specific questions:
1. Of all 623 items in the Kochel catalogue, which are written by Mozart himself?
2. Who wrote those works that are not his?
Florestan,
In my considered view the real Mozart wrote, at best, around half a dozen works in his entire lifetime of his own. The rest of them supplied by up to around 24 other composers. Sorry I cannot go into great detail here.
Regards
R Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 12:33:05 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 12:33:05 PM
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 22, 2009, 12:15:04 PM
Unlike the rest of you closed-minded people who uncritically accept the music establishment party line, I spent the morning investigating Mr. Newman's allegations and found some shocking facts on my own. Why would a washed up child performer become the greatest composer in Western history? It may make a good movie script, but it beggars logic. Now what else do we know for a fact about WA Mozart? His ties to the freemasons. We also know how the tentacles of freemasonary reached all the way through 18th century society and its plots to subvert the Church. I found one document that refers to a Masonic attempt to spark worldwide revolution through subliminally encoding subversive messages in music. A cabal of freemason composers worked to create the music with Wolfgang serving at the frontman. The signal for the launch of this program was in 1773 when the illuminati were finally successful in obtaining the Papal suppression of the Jesuits, who had been on the verge of discovering the plot. With the way clear, Mozart was appointed that year to the Salzburg Court with the eventual goal of moving to the seat of the Holy Roman Empire itself, from that point a lethal delivery of cultural poison could be made. The key points of the plot centered around creating subversive operas which could be performed for not only nobles, but bourgeois and commoners as well. This we know was done. The plot culminated with in 1789 with the French Revolution.
I did in fact wonder when the shade of Dan Brown would somehow or other be invoked on this thread. Congratulations, go to the back of the class....but don't take your books, you won't be staying there long.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 12:33:15 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 12:33:15 PM
Quote from: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 12:18:57 PMNah...it's the plot of Dan Brown's next best seller.
This is either a brilliant parody or the steamiest pile of manure I have ever read. I'll go with the former. ;D
Edit: I see Mike beat me to the punch by 10 seconds. Great minds, I suppose.... ;)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 22, 2009, 12:37:20 PM
Post by: Florestan on May 22, 2009, 12:37:20 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:32:36 PM
I cannot go into great detail here.
But why? This is exactly what you should do. How can we study your evidence if you provide none?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 12:39:34 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 12:39:34 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:22:38 PM
So we come full circle. There is not a shred of evidence that Mozart actually studied music. There is no more evidence of him studying composition than there is of my next door neighbour's cat qualifying to be a dental surgeon. Nor is there any evidence that Mozart was specially skilled in writing music. The living proof of this can be demonstrated in such works as that which he produced for Padre Martini during his entrance exam to the academy in Bologna Italy. This is filled with errors and is music that shows he had NO real knowledge of harmony or of the rudiments of music theory. And there are dozens of other examples.
There is no evidence Mozart actually studied music, yet, you cite an example of compositions which, while technically defective, are concrete proof he actually studied music at one point. The mind just boggles.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Lethevich on May 22, 2009, 12:40:39 PM
Post by: Lethevich on May 22, 2009, 12:40:39 PM
Quote from: jwinter on May 22, 2009, 10:42:27 AM
It is silliness itself to disregard the clear and obvious genius of Mozart's music (not to support Josquin's usage in other contexts, but in this case the term genius is justified), just because we can't produce a record of which music school he may or may not have attended. It's the same tired argument the anti-Stratfordians use -- we can't find records that Shakespeare ever studied Latin, therefore he couldn't have written Julius Caesar. The logic doesn't hold. Great artists in many fields have been able to master their craft without much formal education on the subject -- it's not the rule, certainly, but it happens. Einstein noodled out the mysteries of the universe while sitting at the patent office -- who's to say that someone with great natural gifts couldn't write a symphony after learning the basics of music from his father and others, and using scores or other materials for personal study?
Another example is Elgar, who learnt a lot just from reading manuscripts in his father's shop.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: 71 dB on May 22, 2009, 12:42:01 PM
Post by: 71 dB on May 22, 2009, 12:42:01 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
The thing is, of course, that Myslivececk in the early 1770's was writing phenomenal music - music almost unheard today. Just a single example. This is more than good. It's phenomenal. And it's just another example of how ignorant we have all been.
So you are just bitter about how unknown Myslivececk is? So you want to take away Mozart's genius? I am listening to Myslivececk on Spotify as I write this. Good music but I think Dittersdorf is better.
Mozart > Dittersdorf > Myslivececk
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 12:42:19 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 12:42:19 PM
Yes, Elgar was self taught, I did think about throwing that one in; but thought certain others might claim it proved the contrary view.
Mike
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 12:42:27 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 12:42:27 PM
Quote from: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 12:31:53 PM
I'm coming in late so this may have been covered, but doesn't the proponent of the extraordinary hypothesis, in this case that Mozart was not the author of Mozart's music, have the burden of proof, proof being in this case a preponderance of the evidence? Given that Mozart was taken to be the composer by all of his contemporaries (including Beethoven, who had reason to know), how do you meet that burden? It's the conspiracy problem: Everyone is in on it, no one talks, powerful forces in high places arrange to kill the real composer, the hijacked planes are sitting at an airport in Cleveland, the Mossad did it, etc.
I'm going to bring this to what i said before. This is not even a case of somebody believing in a conspiracy theory. What Newman is doing is intentionally fraudulent. This is why he cannot be beaten with logic. He has no interesting in reason for his purpose is clearly dishonest from the outset. Have you ever heard of a book called Black Athena?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: 71 dB on May 22, 2009, 12:45:01 PM
Post by: 71 dB on May 22, 2009, 12:45:01 PM
Quote from: Lethe on May 22, 2009, 12:40:39 PM
Another example is Elgar, who learnt a lot just from reading manuscripts in his father's shop.
In fact I think self-learning does good for originality. Perhaps part of Mozart's originality comes from the fact that he wasn't teached too much?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 12:47:42 PM
Post by: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 12:47:42 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:27:49 PM
Joe Barron,
The thing about the Mozart story is that we hear only one side. Unlike that of virtually everything else. Don't you agree that things which are taught and widely believed in schools should be subjected to cross-examination ? I trust you do.
Not when it consists of questionable assumptions and faulty reasoning. You sound like a creationist shouting "teach the controversy," when in fact there is no controversy. At a certain point, some arguments are simply not worth considering. I wouldn't give a Holocaust denier the time of day, no matter how much he might insist I'm being closed-minded and that we need to look at "both sides." On some questions, there is no debate, and you have said nothing so far to convince me there is any other "side" about Mozart. Your attempts to create one have a pungent whiff of desperation. The fact that I'm talking to you now gives you more legitimacy than you deserve.
And so Mozart wrote a piece at 13 that was full of errors, and teenagers can't write good symphonies. So what? Nothing in either of those two statements prevents him from writing good music in his twenties and thirties. Like any artist, he would be capable of learning. And what about Schubert and Mendelssohn? They were writing great music in their teens. Or are they frauds too? Again, it's an if p, then q argument where the p is questionable, and the connection to q is nonexistent.
But I would like to read the book ...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 12:48:04 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 12:48:04 PM
71db, Well the point here was that he was perhaps not so very original......but my argument is that I am not aware of anyone who comes close to his quality over a large body of work, though their style may be similar.
Mike
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:49:04 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:49:04 PM
Quote from: Florestan on May 22, 2009, 12:29:53 PM
Ok, here are two specific questions:
1. Of all 623 items in the Kochel catalogue, which are written by Mozart himself?
2. Who wrote those works that are not his?
Florestan,
In reply to your second question (and I really cannot spend much more time here today), I suggest you examine for an example of the real Mozart the opening bars of the Symphony known till recently in the Koechel catalogue as KV444 (Symphony No. 37). Whose opening adagio is definitely by Mozart but the rest of that work is definitely not. And this slow introduction is musical rubbish. It comes from the 1780's.
Then there are various concertos so poor they are hardly ever performed. There are, altogether, a handful of such clumsy, crude works. Mozart was a provincial composer of no great talent.
He was the 'arranger' but not composer of the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' in 1786 (arranged clumsily by him to Italian text from already existing music by others -i.e. a pre-existing German singspiel) for Vienna, with the assistance of Lorenzo da Ponte. But Mozart was NOT the composer of this opera. And so it goes on. The same is true of other 'Mozart' operas including Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail, Cosi fan Tutte, Don Giovanni and Die Zauberflote. The Requiem is a well known fraud (composed after 1791 by several others) etc. etc. etc.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 12:51:31 PM
Post by: Joe Barron on May 22, 2009, 12:51:31 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:49:04 PM
He was the 'arranger' but not composer of the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' in 1786 (arranged clumsily by him to Italian text from already existing music by others -i.e. a pre-existing German singspiel)
Cosi is not a singspiel. There is nothing singspiely about it in the least.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 12:55:09 PM
Post by: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 12:55:09 PM
Quote from: Lethe on May 22, 2009, 12:40:39 PM
Another example is Elgar, who learnt a lot just from reading manuscripts in his father's shop.
He copied out a Mozart symphony as a template for his own effort.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 12:42:27 PM
I'm going to bring this to what i said before. This is not even a case of somebody believing in a conspiracy theory. What Newman is doing is intentionally fraudulent. This is why he cannot be beaten with logic. He has no interesting in reason for his purpose is clearly dishonest from the outset.
No, I'd say logic and evidence have beaten him already. And his dishonest purpose, if that's what it is, doesn't really matter. The odds are he will never bring forth his case.
No one who really had a case like that would operate this way: I have Earth-shaking evidence for the
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on May 22, 2009, 01:07:20 PM
Post by: Christie on May 22, 2009, 01:07:20 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:22:38 PMMr. Newman.
So we come full circle. There is not a shred of evidence that Mozart actually studied music. There is no more evidence of him studying composition than there is of my next door neighbour's cat qualifying to be a dental surgeon. Nor is there any evidence that Mozart was specially skilled in writing music. The living proof of this can be demonstrated in such works as that which he produced for Padre Martini during his entrance exam to the academy in Bologna Italy. This is filled with errors and is music that shows he had NO real knowledge of harmony or of the rudiments of music theory. And there are dozens of other examples.
Let's stop this nonsense. Babies do not fly 747's. Nor do young boys write symphonies. Let alone good ones. For in both cases they require detailed study of the technical requirements involved. This Mozart never had. Nor did he spend even a single day in a school. That is the plain fact.
Genius ? Not at all. Roadshow ? Of course.
I appreciate your obvious genius for intuition and common sense, but as we know, "common sense" is not always an indicator of the truth. After all Rodrigo was a great composer despite being too blind to see the page.
At the beginning of this thread I very politely introduced myself to you and I made it known that I, in fact, had reached some of the same conclusions as yourself. I have been carefully studying the scores of "Herr Mozart" in Salzburg and worldwide and have even used my position to explore some of the new "manuscripts" which are periodically "discovered" in the basements of clever people around Europe. I am also familiar not merely with Myslivecek and Vranicky but also F. J. Haydn, Paisiello, E.W. Wolf, Frantisek Richter, J.B. Vanhal, Salieri, Kraus, Cannabich, Dussek, Sperger, Pleyel, F. Ignaz von Beck, &c.
Here is my post:
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on May 18, 2009, 11:37:03 AM
Hello Rob.
I find your theory very interesting. I know you will be unable to supply all or even a great deal of your evidence to us here for the purposes of preserving the integrity of your forthcoming book, and also to avoid copyright issues with prospective publishers. However I hope you will be kind enough to give us some "teasers" so to speak with a few suggestions of your argument. The reason I say this is that I have actually, working independently (obviously we don't know each other) come to similar conclusions. My research has led me to the M. F. Shaffer wing of the Institute Library at the Mozarteum, Salzburg, where for the past several years I have been engaged in observation of primary materials related to Herr Mozart's alleged Life-work. I am not publishing my results, and certainly have not begun to incorporate them into anything like the body of work you are working on, but I am thrilled to hear that your research has led you to a similar conclusion. I hope that our exchange here can be mutually supportive and that we can compare records, so to speak, in this matter.
After all it is, as they say, better to have two Goliaths than One.
I hope to hear from you soon.
It would be very greatly appreciated if you could supply some of the evidence which backs up your intuitions and guesswork. This could ultimately be a mutual process to take place on this forum or another. My research is by no means comprehensive and I am still eagerly learning. I think it is only fair that you get a free hearing here, but it would be a shame for you to stoop to squabbling with some of these bickerers. What have you learned? I am curious to know and look forward to your fair reply here. A discussion with these people about both sides of the debate could be beneficial to all of us, especially to you and I.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on May 22, 2009, 01:08:36 PM
Post by: Bulldog on May 22, 2009, 01:08:36 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 11:48:45 AM
Mike, let me ask you a question. How many composers that were contemporary with Mozart do you actually know ? I mean have you actually heard the music of, say, Vanhal, or Myslivececk ? How about Paul Vranicky (Wranitsky), Anton Wranitsky, Paisiello, Andrea Luchesi, Josef Fiala, etc, etc etc. The list runs in to several dozen names. How distinctive IS the style of music YOU know as Mozart ?
Tell us what you think of this piece, by Josef Myslivececk,
Overture
Il Gran Tamerlano
(Italy 1771)
Amazingly 'Mozartean' yes ? And this Myslivececk was a close family friend of the Mozart's for many years. This written when Mozart was only 13 by Myslivececk in Italy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj78iHzcXBk
And others such as -
Giovanni Paisiello
Antonio Salieri
Andrea Luchesi
Paul Wranitsky
Anton Wranitsky
Josef Martin Kraus
Vicenzo Righini
J.B. Vanhal
Josef Fiala
Josef Cartellieri
J.C. Bach
H.A. Gelinek
Theresia von Paradis
etc.
//
I'm very familiar with the music of most of the composers cited above. Not one of them comes close to the quality of Mozart's better works.
For better or worse, Newman doesn't offer anything of substance. There can only be two reasons. One is that he doesn't have any substance. The other is that all substance will be in his promised book (which he has been promising for years now).
The board seems to have more extremists now than ever. Unfortunately, we have other members who indulge them. As for me, I'm getting off this sinking ship.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 01:08:55 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 01:08:55 PM
Now he's talking to himself again. Good grief, will there ever be an end to this?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 01:10:58 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 01:10:58 PM
Quote from: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 12:55:09 PM
And his dishonest purpose, if that's what it is, doesn't really matter. The odds are he will never bring forth his case.
It matters in the sense it contributes to the ongoing erosion of our western legacy. It is imperative that we understand people like Newman have an ulterior motive and that their ideas should not be taken into consideration at all times.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 01:11:22 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 01:11:22 PM
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on May 22, 2009, 01:07:20 PM
A discussion with these people about both sides of the debate could be beneficial to all of us, especially to you and I.
You mean....to you and me.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on May 22, 2009, 01:12:55 PM
Post by: Christie on May 22, 2009, 01:12:55 PM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 01:08:55 PMJosquin, you will notice that my patience with Mr. Newman is not in the healthiest of conditions either. Exciting discoveries are exciting discoveries, and perhaps I should contain myself until his book comes out but I should rather like not to. I had hoped this could be merely a subtext to the post above, reading between lines, as it were, but I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not Mr. Newman.
Now he's talking to himself again. Good grief, will there ever be an end to this?
Mike, thank you.
Should it have been -
Let us go then, you and me
in the poem?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 22, 2009, 01:20:18 PM
Post by: Brian on May 22, 2009, 01:20:18 PM
(http://www.wnff.net/Smileys/wnff/popcorn.gif)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 01:23:11 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 01:23:11 PM
Quote from: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 12:55:09 PM
But not to the hard-headed rationalists here. :D
Yes, you people have your uses from time to time. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 22, 2009, 01:26:08 PM
Post by: Herman on May 22, 2009, 01:26:08 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:22:38 PM
Let's stop this nonsense.
Agreed.
Bye!!! (Don't call us; we'll call you.)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 01:26:17 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 01:26:17 PM
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on May 22, 2009, 01:12:55 PM
Mike, thank you.
Should it have been -
Let us go then, you and me
in the poem?
Well, there the form is a contraction of..... Let us go then, you go and I will go. So the poet got it right.
Your contraction was.....beneficial to all of us, especially to you and to me.
Don't worry, I am easy to find fault with, I rarely type without error.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 01:34:22 PM
Post by: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 01:34:22 PM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 01:10:58 PM
It matters in the sense it contributes to the ongoing erosion of our western legacy. It is imperative that we understand people like Newman have an ulterior motive and that their ideas should not be taken into consideration at all times.
No, that isn't important. What would his ulterior motive matter if he was right? This is me being naive again, probably, but the question of what is true about Mozart's compositions shouldn't be decided according to what is good for Western culture. What's really good for Western culture is preserving the spirit of free inquiry (and the fact of it) against the impulse to decide things according to what's good for whatever cult you ascribe to. However, in addition to being the best policy for its own sake, free inquiry has always been a huge benefit to the West, as well as everywhere else it has taken root. The occasional nut-case makes no difference in the long run.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 01:40:06 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 01:40:06 PM
It seems that in this little conversation/exchange we have established there is really NO evidence for Mozart having attended school. Not during his entire lifetime. Nor, contrary to popular belief, was his father a skilled teacher of music theory, composition, harmony or orchestration. (In fact, his father Leopold Mozart was little more than a failed student of philosophy at the University of Salzburg and a man who fraudulently had published in his name a violin treatise by the Italian virtuoso Tartini). But tradition is such a strong thing with Wolfgang Mozart that most people here still believe the boy wrote a series of symphonies, masses, concertos and operas without ever being under the tuition of a music teacher for any sustained period during his entire life. This contrary to the entire history of western music. And so, not only did he not go to school. Not only did he not study. But he was, of course a 'genius'. And, beyond this dogma, there is nothing to say. Who is fooling who here ?
The onus is on me to show this is crazy. Which, with respect, anyone can already see. Children do NOT write orchestral music of any quality. Nor do adults unless they have studied the same. Nor do they write operas, or concertos. And even if they do so they cannot write them to any standard of performance without undergoing tuitition, lessons and study under those who are expert in such teaching. Take away this simple fact and we are in fantasy land.
We now await details of Mozart's academic and musical education. But we've already waited 200 years. Why worry about another century ? Accept such things and all else is just the same. The Mozart myth is riddled with such nonsense.
Regards
The onus is on me to show this is crazy. Which, with respect, anyone can already see. Children do NOT write orchestral music of any quality. Nor do adults unless they have studied the same. Nor do they write operas, or concertos. And even if they do so they cannot write them to any standard of performance without undergoing tuitition, lessons and study under those who are expert in such teaching. Take away this simple fact and we are in fantasy land.
We now await details of Mozart's academic and musical education. But we've already waited 200 years. Why worry about another century ? Accept such things and all else is just the same. The Mozart myth is riddled with such nonsense.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 22, 2009, 01:44:59 PM
Post by: not edward on May 22, 2009, 01:44:59 PM
An artist's impression of some of the composers who actually wrote the music of that fraud Mozart:
(http://ccphotos.taboca.com/images/life_n_things4/A_Bunch_of_Bananas/thumb.jpg)
(http://ccphotos.taboca.com/images/life_n_things4/A_Bunch_of_Bananas/thumb.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Lethevich on May 22, 2009, 01:46:17 PM
Post by: Lethevich on May 22, 2009, 01:46:17 PM
Damn, I need to go to bed. Can the mods do me a favour and not delete any of the delicious overnight drama until, say, 10am GMT? 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 01:48:08 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 01:48:08 PM
Quote from: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 01:34:22 PM
No, that isn't important. What would his ulterior motive matter if he was right? This is me being naive again, probably, but the question of what is true about Mozart's compositions shouldn't be decided according to what is good for Western culture. What's really good for Western culture is preserving the spirit of free inquiry (and the fact of it) against the impulse to decide things according to what's good for whatever cult you ascribe to. However, in addition to being the best policy for its own sake, free inquiry has always been a huge benefit to the West, as well as everywhere else it has taken root. The occasional nut-case makes no difference in the long run.
Do you know what a libel is? If i tainted the memory of Islamic culture by proposing that Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī was a fraud and a lie, wouldn't that cause a stir among the Islamic world? And if i couldn't produce any evidence for my claim, wouldn't that be considered a slander? Don't you think the Muslims have a right not to have their heroes defamed with baseless accusations? So why should the west be subjected to it? What is the difference between free inquiry and defamation?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 01:49:10 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 01:49:10 PM
I am not so sure we established these things, or to the extent they were established, that they had any real relevance as to the possibility of Mozart writing what is ascribed to him.
We understand that you are going down the route of a lack of confirmation being a proof, but it seems to me to be more an indication of a lack of confirmation, something much more open ended than you suggest.
I assume you are a great Holmes fan, your entire thesis seems to rest upon a dog that did not bark.
Mike
We understand that you are going down the route of a lack of confirmation being a proof, but it seems to me to be more an indication of a lack of confirmation, something much more open ended than you suggest.
I assume you are a great Holmes fan, your entire thesis seems to rest upon a dog that did not bark.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 01:49:56 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 01:49:56 PM
Quote from: edward on May 22, 2009, 01:44:59 PM
An artist's impression of some of the composers who actually wrote the music of that fraud Mozart:
(http://ccphotos.taboca.com/images/life_n_things4/A_Bunch_of_Bananas/thumb.jpg)
There is that horrible moment when we realise that the joke (such as it is) has been on us all the time. You couldn't invent a more ridiculous fairy tale. And yet it's the FOX news of musicology. LOL :)
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 01:50:17 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 01:50:17 PM
Quote from: edward on May 22, 2009, 01:44:59 PM
An artist's impression of some of the composers who actually wrote the music of that fraud Mozart:
(http://ccphotos.taboca.com/images/life_n_things4/A_Bunch_of_Bananas/thumb.jpg)
How did they manage those delicate piano concerti?
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 01:56:00 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 01:56:00 PM
Quote from: knight on May 22, 2009, 01:50:17 PM
How did they manage those delicate piano concerti?
Mike
These great concertos have their own special story. I will send you a copy of the chapter on them before publication. Only 5 of these were actually published (of the 27) during his lifetime, as you may know. And it's quite a long story. Still, yes, these are great works. And their story is remarkable. But he (Mozart) was not their composer.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 22, 2009, 01:57:05 PM
Post by: not edward on May 22, 2009, 01:57:05 PM
Quote from: knight on May 22, 2009, 01:50:17 PMI think you will find that the younger, less ripe bananas were able to contrast their firm nature with the lightness of the piano writing. However, one of the bananas was somewhat overripe and the knowledge that he was no longer fit for human consumption clearly led to the darker thoughts of the D minor and C minor. (Certainly, it is self-evident that those two concerti, so much deeper in partially broken-down sugars, could not have been written by the same banana who wrote the lighter major-key concerti. My researches also indicate that it is possible some of the tarter works in Mozart's alleged oeuvre, such as A Musical Joke, were not written by bananas but in fact a plantain instead and passed off fraudulently as the product of Musa sapientum.)
How did they manage those delicate piano concerti?
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 22, 2009, 02:03:44 PM
Post by: Guido on May 22, 2009, 02:03:44 PM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 01:48:08 PM
Don't you think the Muslims have a right not to have their heroes defamed with baseless accusations?
Nope. What kind of ridiculous nanny state are you advocating? Genius stands up for itself.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 22, 2009, 02:05:05 PM
Post by: Guido on May 22, 2009, 02:05:05 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 01:56:00 PM
These great concertos have their own special story. I will send you a copy of the chapter on them before publication. Only 5 of these were actually published (of the 27) during his lifetime, as you may know. And it's quite a long story. Still, yes, these are great works. And their story is remarkable. But he (Mozart) was not their composer.
Regards
When are you going to publish this fabled book? I'm beginning to believe that it is more fictitious than Mozart's apparent legacy.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 02:13:41 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 02:13:41 PM
Quote from: Guido on May 22, 2009, 02:03:44 PM
Nope. What kind of ridiculous nanny state are you advocating? Genius stands up for itself.
A culture needs to be inspired by its heroes, either wise it becomes apathetic and demoralized.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 02:15:12 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 22, 2009, 02:15:12 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 01:56:00 PM
These great concertos have their own special story. I will send you a copy of the chapter on them before publication. Only 5 of these were actually published (of the 27) during his lifetime, as you may know. And it's quite a long story. Still, yes, these are great works. And their story is remarkable. But he (Mozart) was not their composer.
Regards
I will look forward to that.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on May 22, 2009, 02:41:42 PM
Post by: Christie on May 22, 2009, 02:41:42 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 01:56:00 PMWho was? I am fairly certain of Mozart's composition of at least three, plus slow movements from several others, but my information leads me to conclude, currently, that for example, No. 4 is a work of Georg Matthias Monn which had been dedicated to Leopold. Do you have corroborating information? Does your theory match mine? I am naturally cautious about advancing such explosive theories solely on my own steam, and wish to caution the rest of the forum that I would gladly accept responsibility if I prove incorrect.
These great concertos have their own special story. I will send you a copy of the chapter on them before publication. Only 5 of these were actually published (of the 27) during his lifetime, as you may know. And it's quite a long story. Still, yes, these are great works. And their story is remarkable. But he (Mozart) was not their composer.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 22, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Post by: Brian on May 22, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on May 22, 2009, 02:41:42 PMWell this at least has the benefit of seeing how Mr. Newman reacts to a friendly theory that's obviously a crock ... Monn died 6 years before Wolfie was born ... (I had to Wiki it.)
Who was? I am fairly certain of Mozart's composition of at least three, plus slow movements from several others, but my information leads me to conclude, currently, that for example, No. 4 is a work of Georg Matthias Monn which had been dedicated to Leopold. Do you have corroborating information? Does your theory match mine? I am naturally cautious about advancing such explosive theories solely on my own steam, and wish to caution the rest of the forum that I would gladly accept responsibility if I prove incorrect.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 22, 2009, 02:55:00 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 22, 2009, 02:55:00 PM
Quote from: Brian on May 22, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Well this at least has the benefit of seeing how Mr. Newman reacts to a friendly theory that's obviously a crock ... Monn died 6 years before Wolfie was born ... (I had to Wiki it.)
But he DID compose a splendid cello concerto (in g minor) though. It's a pity his estate didn't get in on the fire sale of great music to be used in the conspiracy.... :-\
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Violinkonzert E-Dur BWV 1042 - Concerto for Violin and Strings in E/3: Allegro assai
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 22, 2009, 03:04:56 PM
Post by: not edward on May 22, 2009, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 22, 2009, 02:55:00 PMHowever, it is worth noting that Monn did write Schoenberg's cello concerto. >:D
But he DID compose a splendid cello concerto (in g minor) though. It's a pity his estate didn't get in on the fire sale of great music to be used in the conspiracy.... :-\
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 22, 2009, 03:05:56 PM
Post by: Brian on May 22, 2009, 03:05:56 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 22, 2009, 02:55:00 PMListening to it now to celebrate "First Listen Friday" - it is indeed a work which Mozart's inventors should have had him write! :D
But he DID compose a splendid cello concerto (in g minor) though. It's a pity his estate didn't get in on the fire sale of great music to be used in the conspiracy.... :-\
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 22, 2009, 03:17:26 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 22, 2009, 03:17:26 PM
Quote from: edward on May 22, 2009, 03:04:56 PM
However, it is worth noting that Monn did write Schoenberg's cello concerto. >:D
The entire idea of 12 tone came directly from the pre-Classical. There was a conspiracy among the Germans of the time to "save it for later". :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Juilliard String Quartet - Bach Art of the Fugue Canon alla Decima (Did Anna Magdalena really write this? Damn, she was good!)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 22, 2009, 03:20:05 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 22, 2009, 03:20:05 PM
Quote from: Brian on May 22, 2009, 03:05:56 PM
Listening to it now to celebrate "First Listen Friday" - it is indeed a work which Mozart's inventors should have had him write! :D
I first heard that work a few years ago, believe it or not, it was rec'd to me by JdP! At the time his handle was Opus 131 though, but we called him Opie... :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Juilliard String Quartet - Bach Art of the Fugue Canon alla Decima
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 03:23:57 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 03:23:57 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 22, 2009, 03:20:05 PM
I first heard that work a few years ago, believe it or not, it was rec'd to me by JdP! At the time his handle was Opus 131 though, but we called him Opie... :)
8)
And people say i never contribute to this board. Though to be frank i used to be a lot less bitter then. And yes, the concerto is a small but fine pearl. It's too bad he died so young.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 03:35:05 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 03:35:05 PM
Quote from: Brian on May 22, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Well this at least has the benefit of seeing how Mr. Newman reacts to a friendly theory that's obviously a crock ... Monn died 6 years before Wolfie was born ... (I had to Wiki it.)
Speaking of death, isn't it a bit strange that all those ghost writers simply disappeared when the actual Mozart died? Maybe the conspirators killed them all to cover their traces. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 22, 2009, 05:00:24 PM
Post by: Brian on May 22, 2009, 05:00:24 PM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 03:35:05 PMWell, after they had faked the Requiem, of course. ;D
Speaking of death, isn't it a bit strange that all those ghost writers simply disappeared when the actual Mozart died? Maybe the conspirators killed them all to cover their traces. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gabriel on May 22, 2009, 05:03:40 PM
Post by: Gabriel on May 22, 2009, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 22, 2009, 03:17:26 PM
The entire idea of 12 tone came directly from the pre-Classical. There was a conspiracy among the Germans of the time to "save it for later". :)
As well as Rejcha was proclaiming that quarter tones should be introduced in music, Gurn! (And this is true!) :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 22, 2009, 05:04:56 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 22, 2009, 05:04:56 PM
Quote from: Gabriel on May 22, 2009, 05:03:40 PM
As well as Rejcha was proclaiming that quarter tones should be introduced in music, Gurn! (And this is true!) :D
As such, does it really have a place here? :D
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Boston Baroque / Pearlman - Bach Concerto #2 in F BWV 1047 1st mvmt
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 22, 2009, 07:00:26 PM
Post by: karlhenning on May 22, 2009, 07:00:26 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 22, 2009, 12:22:38 PM
So we come full circle. There is not a shred of evidence that Mozart actually studied music.
You are comic. He actually studied with his father, who was actually a composer. And you are flogging a thorough irrelevance here. The fact (a fact inconvenient to your whole tedious charade, but a fact) is that Mozart is known to have written masterful works in his maturity. The man who knows what he is doing in his maturity, obviously learned something previous.
Now, on the other hand, there is not a shred of evidence that you are capable of intelligent assimilation of historical information. Nor have you said aught which substantiates your implicit claim that you can judge whether any other person on the planet "can have studied" composition.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 07:17:28 PM
Post by: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 07:17:28 PM
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on May 22, 2009, 02:41:42 PM
Who was? I am fairly certain of Mozart's composition of at least three, plus slow movements from several others, but my information leads me to conclude, currently, that for example, No. 4 is a work of Georg Matthias Monn which had been dedicated to Leopold. Do you have corroborating information? Does your theory match mine? I am naturally cautious about advancing such explosive theories solely on my own steam, and wish to caution the rest of the forum that I would gladly accept responsibility if I prove incorrect.
Alfred E Neuman, I seem to remember that the comic character (no relation to your esteemed self!) bore a close resemblance to a ventriloquists dummy! Imagine that. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 07:23:18 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 07:23:18 PM
I wonder what would Newman think of Art Tatum, a man who was nearly completely blind from birth, who received only high school level musical education, and who trained himself entirely by listening to recordings of other pianists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Cs_zb4q14
Yet, the music is of such a complexity it makes Mozart's own piano works sound like child play in comparison. I believe that's the reason people like this are called prodigies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Cs_zb4q14
Yet, the music is of such a complexity it makes Mozart's own piano works sound like child play in comparison. I believe that's the reason people like this are called prodigies.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 22, 2009, 10:19:26 PM
Post by: Herman on May 22, 2009, 10:19:26 PM
The fundamental fallacy at work here seems to be that the 2nd half of the 18th C should resemble today's world. You cannot compose music unless you have had the correct academic training. However, most artistic professions in the 18th century were transmitted via master-apprentice-like forms. Universities were for gentlemen and noblemen, not for people in the artistic professions. Most actors were born into theatrical families, and the same goes for musicians. As we all know, composers were performers in the first place. By performing music you learned the ropes. That was your training. The was no Curtis Institute or Juilliard School back then, strange as that may seem to some.
Jikes! J.S. Bach did not go to a music dchool. He learned the business from his dad. This would make him a fraud in Mr Newman's eyes, except Mr Newman is, apparently, not interested in Bach. Carl Ph. Emm Bach, again, did not have formal musical training (the way Mr Newman defines it), and yet he was a major composer (or a major fruad).
The other thing bugging Mr Newman is, apparently, that there were plenty of Mozart contemporaries and close predecessors who composed the same kind of formulaic galant music as Mozart did in his juvenile years. And yet they are not as famous as Mozart, on the contrary, they are nearly forgotten. The difference is simple, obviously. They didn't compose the music Mozart composed in his mature years. Had WAM died at KV 200 or some such point, he would not be the genius we have admired since. He would have been a child prodigy whom music historians remembered. Incidentally all those minor galant composers are now being recorded.
These things have in all likelihood been said before. Mr Newman has made career of posting about this, and about his "forthcoming book" and this is going to be my single contribution to this thread. Life is too short to debate fools and extremists.
Jikes! J.S. Bach did not go to a music dchool. He learned the business from his dad. This would make him a fraud in Mr Newman's eyes, except Mr Newman is, apparently, not interested in Bach. Carl Ph. Emm Bach, again, did not have formal musical training (the way Mr Newman defines it), and yet he was a major composer (or a major fruad).
The other thing bugging Mr Newman is, apparently, that there were plenty of Mozart contemporaries and close predecessors who composed the same kind of formulaic galant music as Mozart did in his juvenile years. And yet they are not as famous as Mozart, on the contrary, they are nearly forgotten. The difference is simple, obviously. They didn't compose the music Mozart composed in his mature years. Had WAM died at KV 200 or some such point, he would not be the genius we have admired since. He would have been a child prodigy whom music historians remembered. Incidentally all those minor galant composers are now being recorded.
These things have in all likelihood been said before. Mr Newman has made career of posting about this, and about his "forthcoming book" and this is going to be my single contribution to this thread. Life is too short to debate fools and extremists.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 22, 2009, 10:32:48 PM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 22, 2009, 10:32:48 PM
I wonder - couldn't Mr Newman simply offer us one whole chapter of his book? I know everything about working on something which takes you years (in my case a novel), but there comes a moment when a lot of it is already finished and you can give people much more than just an inkling of what the finished product will look like.
Just a suggestion.
Just a suggestion.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: c#minor on May 22, 2009, 11:00:52 PM
Post by: c#minor on May 22, 2009, 11:00:52 PM
This is the most entertaining thing i've seen in a while. People talking to themselves, creating alter-egos, bananas that can write concertos, what could be next?!?!?!?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: 71 dB on May 23, 2009, 12:18:06 AM
Post by: 71 dB on May 23, 2009, 12:18:06 AM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 03:35:05 PM
Speaking of death, isn't it a bit strange that all those ghost writers simply disappeared when the actual Mozart died? Maybe the conspirators killed them all to cover their traces. ;D
With all this violence and mystery this could become a hit movie. Tom Hanks starring, Ron Howard directing. "The Mozart Note."
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 23, 2009, 01:16:55 AM
Post by: knight66 on May 23, 2009, 01:16:55 AM
Now, especially at the request of Lethe I have left this thread to run free until 10.00GMT today. I hope your sleep was a refreshing one Sarah.
Now I will explain how this is going to proceed.
To Newmans, Neumans all: THIS is the only thread on which these ideas about Mozart or Haydn will be discussed. Should it degenerate into any kind of flame war it will be locked and any new such thread deleted. There will be no rash of these ideas being allowed to spread across the board. It is evident from what happened on other boards ,that that way conflict lies, also banning. We don't like banning, so contain the theories and discussion thereof to this singular place and it might run and run.
Have a great day all.
I am currently listening to my new Salif Keita disc, and you can probably tell, I am somewhat chilled out and prone to generosity this morning.
Knight
Now I will explain how this is going to proceed.
To Newmans, Neumans all: THIS is the only thread on which these ideas about Mozart or Haydn will be discussed. Should it degenerate into any kind of flame war it will be locked and any new such thread deleted. There will be no rash of these ideas being allowed to spread across the board. It is evident from what happened on other boards ,that that way conflict lies, also banning. We don't like banning, so contain the theories and discussion thereof to this singular place and it might run and run.
Have a great day all.
I am currently listening to my new Salif Keita disc, and you can probably tell, I am somewhat chilled out and prone to generosity this morning.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 02:15:56 AM
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 02:15:56 AM
Quote from: knight on May 23, 2009, 01:16:55 AM
Now, especially at the request of Lethe I have left this thread to run free until 10.00GMT today. I hope your sleep was a refreshing one Sarah.
Now I will explain how this is going to proceed.
To Newmans, Neumans all: THIS is the only thread on which these ideas about Mozart or Haydn will be discussed. Should it degenerate into any kind of flame war it will be locked and any new such thread deleted. There will be no rash of these ideas being allowed to spread across the board. It is evident from what happened on other boards ,that that way conflict lies, also banning. We don't like banning, so contain the theories and discussion thereof to this singular place and it might run and run.
Have a great day all.
I am currently listening to my new Salif Keita disc, and you can probably tell, I am somewhat chilled out and prone to generosity this morning.
Knight
Not bad as far as it goes, but what you have overlooked completely is that there is nothing to stop Newman and his "friend" from creating endless threads on the various composers whom he considers wrote material for Mozart and Haydn, e.g. Vanhal, Luchesi, Myslivicek, et al. This is what he did on other Boards to get round similar limitations imposed upon him. Very soon Mayhem breaks out. Ask the Corkster. Or if you like have a chat with Krummhorn at the Magle Forum (the last forum that banned him for overstepping the mark).
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 02:47:55 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 02:47:55 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 23, 2009, 02:15:56 AM
Not bad as far as it goes, but what you have overlooked completely is that there is nothing to stop Newman and his "friend" from creating endless threads on the various composers whom he considers wrote material for Mozart and Haydn, e.g. Vanhal, Luchesi, Myslivicek, et al. This is what he did on other Boards to get round similar limitations imposed upon him. Very soon Mayhem breaks out. Ask the Corkster. Or if you like have a chat with Krummhorn at the Magle Forum (the last forum that banned him for overstepping the mark).
Holly,
You don't like the icon being closely examined, do you ? When presented with dozens, even hundreds of false attributions to Mozart you look at your watch, sigh, and have nothing to say. When it's pointed out to you that your hero did not spend a day at school and when it's pointed out that he never actually studied composition, harmony, orchestration (or any of the necessary techniques learned by each and every composer of merit in musical history) you are again stunned. For the plain fact is that such things are like water off a duck's back. When it is shown that literally dozens of 'Mozart' symphonies show no evidence of being attributable to Mozart, your reaction is the same. When it is demonstrated that entire concertos were attributed to him during his whole lifetime which are not, actually, his, this too has no impact. When it is shown that others were finally discovered in the 20th century to be based on works of others, this too the same. When it is shown that the Requiem is by other composers (something argued soon after its eventual publication) you are again reduced to silence. I mean, at what point do you concede that in the case of Mozart the myth and the reality are two very different things ?
Now, I can make a deal with you. If Mozart is your religion I promise not to criticise it any more. But if you are saying that his reputation is based on verifiable facts then, like all other areas of academic study, you must surely welcome its cross-examination. It seems to me that this is your choice.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 23, 2009, 03:08:44 AM
Post by: knight66 on May 23, 2009, 03:08:44 AM
Holly, Thanks, we are able to delete the kinds of threads you warn about, as they start. As we are not endlessly at watch, folk can alert us to the spam as it arises.
Mike
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 23, 2009, 03:22:59 AM
Post by: Herman on May 23, 2009, 03:22:59 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 02:47:55 AM
When it's pointed out to you that your hero did not spend a day at school and when it's pointed out that he never actually studied composition, harmony, orchestration (or any of the necessary techniques learned by each and every composer of merit in musical history) you are again stunned.
Inaccurate. In return it is pointed out to you that Mozart was taught by his dad. Just like J. S. Bach, another rather successful composer who didn't go to Juilliard.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 04:14:42 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 04:14:42 AM
Quote from: knight on May 23, 2009, 03:08:44 AM
Holly, Thanks, we are able to delete the kinds of threads you warn about, as they start. As we are not endlessly at watch, folk can alert us to the spam as it arises.
Mike
Thank you for this Mike. This may be the only forum which allows this subject to be fairly examined. As to Holly and her reply, this is much looked forward to. But, as to spam, I will immediately report on it myself.
Regards
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 04:19:52 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 04:19:52 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 23, 2009, 03:22:59 AM
Inaccurate. In return it is pointed out to you that Mozart was taught by his dad. Just like J. S. Bach, another rather successful composer who didn't go to Juilliard.
Nonsense !
Have you actually examined the musical entrance exam papers which the 14 year old Mozart wrote for entrance to the Academy at Bologna in Italy ? In October 1770 ?
Leopold Mozart was a violinist. He was awarded a token promotion to the rank of 'Vice Kapellmeister' only weeks before he left Salzburg on a 3 1/2 year absence ! It's nonsense to say he was a competent teacher of harmony, orchestration and composition. He was NOT. So let's deal with facts, not myths.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 23, 2009, 07:16:11 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 23, 2009, 07:16:11 AM
I think it is pointless to really argue with Newman. He is using a typical propagandist technique. Pretend to have an open discussion but in reality ignore all dissenting opinions and keep repeating the same exact points over and over until they become branded into the minds of others. It's the famous "big lie" concept. Essentially, it's like talking to a bot. I think it won't be long until the mods are fed up with him.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 07:25:14 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 07:25:14 AM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 23, 2009, 07:16:11 AMWell, he has nothing to contribute except for limited entertainment value, which he has already exhausted. If mods restrict his idiocy to this thread, and if members ignore him, then eventually he might get tired of talking to himself--though with such a bona fide nut case, he could go on talking to himself for years. Harmless, though--you'd have to be dumber than he is to buy his baloney. Few qualify.
I think it is pointless to really argue with Newman. He is using a typical propagandist technique. Pretend to have an open discussion but in reality ignore all dissenting opinions and keep repeating the same exact points over and over until they become branded into the minds of others. It's the famous "big lie" concept. Essentially, it's like talking to a bot. I think it won't be long until the mods are fed up with him.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 07:40:55 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 07:40:55 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 07:25:14 AM
Well, he has nothing to contribute except for limited entertainment value, which he has already exhausted. If mods restrict his idiocy to this thread, and if members ignore him, then eventually he might get tired of talking to himself--though with such a bona fide nut case, he could go on talking to himself for years. Harmless, though--you'd have to be dumber than he is to buy his baloney. Few qualify.
David Ross is not interested in the subject of Mozart and his iconic status. If the mods intervene to stop his idoiocy on this thread, and if members ignore his personal insults, he might see the rags he is posting here, though with such a bona fide nut case he could no doubt go on talking to himself for years. etc. The genius of Mozart has made such a fool of you that you hardly know what a conversation is.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 07:42:46 AM
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 07:42:46 AM
Mr. Newman's argument is this:
1. Mozart shouldn't have been able to write his music because he wasn't trained and/or because he was somehow limited in his faculties.
2. Therefore, Mozart didn't write his music.
By the same formula, I can cheerily disprove the legacies of Joaquin Rodrigo, Ludwig van Beethoven, Art Tatum, William Shakespeare, all of the Bronte sisters, that autistic kid who does architectural drawings, Francis Bacon, and roughly half of all the philosophers to have written anything worth reading between 1550 and 1900.
Rob Newman, if you choose to read my post, I eagerly await any kind of argument you may be able to present which is different from the one I've just outlined. Try using, for example, evidence. If you use concrete evidence, we might find that you are right and we are wrong! Who knows? Stranger things have happened! :D
1. Mozart shouldn't have been able to write his music because he wasn't trained and/or because he was somehow limited in his faculties.
2. Therefore, Mozart didn't write his music.
By the same formula, I can cheerily disprove the legacies of Joaquin Rodrigo, Ludwig van Beethoven, Art Tatum, William Shakespeare, all of the Bronte sisters, that autistic kid who does architectural drawings, Francis Bacon, and roughly half of all the philosophers to have written anything worth reading between 1550 and 1900.
Rob Newman, if you choose to read my post, I eagerly await any kind of argument you may be able to present which is different from the one I've just outlined. Try using, for example, evidence. If you use concrete evidence, we might find that you are right and we are wrong! Who knows? Stranger things have happened! :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 08:08:40 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 08:08:40 AM
Well, Brian, I don't know why you want to encourage this buffoon, but then I cannot understand why some here encourage Sean and his ilk as well. See ya!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on May 23, 2009, 08:45:42 AM
Post by: bhodges on May 23, 2009, 08:45:42 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 02:47:55 AM
When presented with dozens, even hundreds of false attributions to Mozart you look at your watch, sigh, and have nothing to say. When it's pointed out to you that your hero did not spend a day at school and when it's pointed out that he never actually studied composition, harmony, orchestration (or any of the necessary techniques learned by each and every composer of merit in musical history) you are again stunned. For the plain fact is that such things are like water off a duck's back. When it is shown that literally dozens of 'Mozart' symphonies show no evidence of being attributable to Mozart, your reaction is the same. When it is demonstrated that entire concertos were attributed to him during his whole lifetime which are not, actually, his, this too has no impact. When it is shown that others were finally discovered in the 20th century to be based on works of others, this too the same. When it is shown that the Requiem is by other composers (something argued soon after its eventual publication) you are again reduced to silence. I mean, at what point do you concede that in the case of Mozart the myth and the reality are two very different things ?
"When presented...when it's pointed out to you...when it is shown...when it is demonstrated..."
Yes, yes, very good: we're all waiting for this grand presentation and demonstration. (Personally, I would imagine evidence of such enormous import would leak out, all but bursting through anything holding it in.)
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 08:55:23 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 08:55:23 AM
Quote from: Brian on May 23, 2009, 07:42:46 AM
Mr. Newman's argument is this:
1. Mozart shouldn't have been able to write his music because he wasn't trained and/or because he was somehow limited in his faculties.
2. Therefore, Mozart didn't write his music.
By the same formula, I can cheerily disprove the legacies of Joaquin Rodrigo, Ludwig van Beethoven, Art Tatum, William Shakespeare, all of the Bronte sisters, that autistic kid who does architectural drawings, Francis Bacon, and roughly half of all the philosophers to have written anything worth reading between 1550 and 1900.
Rob Newman, if you choose to read my post, I eagerly await any kind of argument you may be able to present which is different from the one I've just outlined. Try using, for example, evidence. If you use concrete evidence, we might find that you are right and we are wrong! Who knows? Stranger things have happened! :D
Brian,
No. Mozart did not write the music attributed to him for a hundred other reasons. Far more than the fact that he had no musical education. But we start at the beginning and find this is so. Consider the implications of that one fact alone. And then you might see that from this fact all others flow. A whole bookload.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 08:59:01 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 08:59:01 AM
Quote from: bhodges on May 23, 2009, 08:45:42 AM
"When presented...when it's pointed out to you...when it is shown...when it is demonstrated..."
Yes, yes, very good: we're all waiting for this grand presentation and demonstration. (Personally, I would imagine evidence of such enormous import would leak out, all but bursting through anything holding it in.)
--Bruce
And you are right. If you were prepared to trawl through the footnotes, loose admissions, acts of blatant fraud, misattribution, mythology, P.R., fiction, folklore, fraternal exaggeration, etc. etc. you would see reason enough to agree that the career of W.A. Mozart really was manufactured. This beyond reasonable doubt. The net result being the colossus we know today.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 09:00:41 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 09:00:41 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 08:08:40 AM
Well, Brian, I don't know why you want to encourage this buffoon, but then I cannot understand why some here encourage Sean and his ilk as well. See ya!
David,
Please feel free to be as much of a buffoon as you please, right here on this thread. We will then see the scope and scale of the opposition.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 09:14:24 AM
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 09:14:24 AM
Mr Newman
Do you have any documetary evidence of payments made by Mozart for any of the works you allege were written by other composers?
What was the motivation of these other composers to sacrifice their own careers for the sake of someone else? What exactly did they get out of it?
Do you have any documetary evidence of payments made by Mozart for any of the works you allege were written by other composers?
What was the motivation of these other composers to sacrifice their own careers for the sake of someone else? What exactly did they get out of it?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 09:42:17 AM
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 09:42:17 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 08:55:23 AMWhat are those reasons?
No. Mozart did not write the music attributed to him for a hundred other reasons.
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 08:59:01 AMIf you were prepared to lead the way, you would have by now. We are willing to listen if you are willing to actually divulge any data. It's not too late, of course; you could start by giving Holly a direct, factual answer.
If you were prepared to trawl through the footnotes, loose admissions, acts of blatant fraud, misattribution, mythology, P.R., fiction, folklore, fraternal exaggeration, etc. etc.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 08:08:40 AMDavid, I am encouraging this man because the more he's pressed for facts the less likely he is to supply any. Even the friendly caricature Neuman has been utterly unable to get any reply from this man. I think it is because Rob Newman is afraid of him.
Well, Brian, I don't know why you want to encourage this buffoon, but then I cannot understand why some here encourage Sean and his ilk as well. See ya!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:01:39 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:01:39 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 23, 2009, 09:14:24 AM
Mr Newman
Do you have any documetary evidence of payments made by Mozart for any of the works you allege were written by other composers?
What was the motivation of these other composers to sacrifice their own careers for the sake of someone else? What exactly did they get out of it?
Holly,
In reply to your question, the life and career of Mozart lasted for 35 years. During his childhood and youth you will surely admit that the input of MANY other people (including Leopold Mozart, Nannerl Mozart etc) are found in 'autographs' of much of 'his' music. Isn't this true ? Now, if you accept that this is true (and there are hundreds of documentary examples) you will admit that, as far as this part of his life is concerned, your question may have less relevance than at other times of his life. But the plain fact is (and you can see this in sources such as Maynard Solomon's 'Mozart', or in Cliff Eisen, and in dozens of other sources, that the symphonies written before, say 1771 lack ANY evidence of being attributable to Wolfgang Mozart. You don't need to believe me. You can see it for yourself in any study ever made of the subject.
Now, regarding other works. You must surely know that 'Mozart's' first 7 piano concertos (all of these from the time when he was a child also) are actually arrangements of works by other composers. But this too is a documented fact of musical history. JC Bach's sonatas feature in at least 4 of these works. They really are NOT by Mozart. Isn't this true ? So what we have here in these early symphonies and even in these early concertos is music NOT by Mozart at all.
We've started at the beginning. The right place to start. And now there are these facts. In later years Mozart's reputation was created by many, many works he did not actually compose. A continuation on wholesale scale of what we find here, in the works of his childhood and youth. Each work requiring detailed argument.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 10:07:50 AM
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 10:07:50 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:01:39 AMYou must surely know that 'Mozart's' first 7 piano concertos (all of these from the time when he was a child also) are actually arrangements of works by other composers..... Each work requiring detailed argument.Earlier in the thread we had mention of Piano Concerto No 4 (I think?) being a work by Georg Monn. Can you address this? Do you believe, like your friend the other Neuman, that Monn was the composer?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:08:47 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:08:47 AM
Quote from: Brian on May 23, 2009, 09:42:17 AM
What are those reasons?If you were prepared to lead the way, you would have by now. We are willing to listen if you are willing to actually divulge any data. It's not too late, of course; you could start by giving Holly a direct, factual answer.
David, I am encouraging this man because the more he's pressed for facts the less likely he is to supply any. Even the friendly caricature Neuman has been utterly unable to get any reply from this man. I think it is because Rob Newman is afraid of him.
Brian,
I've been on this forum for a few days. I've already made close to 50 posts. So why do you say that I am not giving answers to questions. I had to ask 4 times here where Mozart went to school and what evidence there is that he ever learned composition, orchestration and harmony. Showing that this in itself is clearly untrue.
So please do not say I don't answer questions. The full story of how and why others created the status of Mozart would require you to read my book. I say again (and have already given some of the names) that what you believe to be true about Mozart is not true at all. That his career was, in fact, manufactured. That the track record (even the official track record) testifies to Mozart's reputation being hugely and falsely constructed by the attribution to him of dozens, even hundreds of works written by his contemporaries. On a scale which you must see yourself to appreciate. The hint of which is already contained in successive versions of the Koechel catalogue.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 10:12:30 AM
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 10:12:30 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:01:39 AM
Holly,
In reply to your question, the life and career of Mozart lasted for 35 years. During his childhood and youth you will surely admit that the input of MANY other people (including Leopold Mozart, Nannerl Mozart etc) are found in 'autographs' of much of 'his' music. Isn't this true ? Now, if you accept that this is true (and there are hundreds of documentary examples) you will admit that, as far as this part of his life is concerned, your question may have less relevance than at other times of his life. But the plain fact is (and you can see this in sources such as Maynard Solomon's 'Mozart', or in Cliff Eisen, and in dozens of other sources, that the symphonies written before, say 1771 lack ANY evidence of being attributable to Wolfgang Mozart. You don't need to believe me. You can see it for yourself in any study ever made of the subject.
Now, regarding other works. You must surely know that 'Mozart's' first 7 piano concertos (all of these from the time when he was a child also) are actually arrangements of works by other composers. But this too is a documented fact of musical history. JC Bach's sonatas feature in at least 4 of these works. They really are NOT by Mozart. Isn't this true ? So what we have here in these early symphonies and even in these early concertos is music NOT by Mozart at all.
We've started at the beginning. The right place to start. And now there are these facts. In later years Mozart's reputation was created by many, many works he did not actually compose. A continuation on wholesale scale of what we find here, in the works of his childhood and youth. Each work requiring detailed argument.
Regards
Mr Newman
I am afraid that you have clearly not answered either of my questions. You have not even come close.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:14:46 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:14:46 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 23, 2009, 10:12:30 AM
Mr Newman
I am afraid that you have clearly not answered either of my questions. You have not even come close.
And Holly, if you can't learn ABC how can you learn XYZ ? Do you agree that what I have just written to you of the early works of 'Mozart' is factual, true and documented ???
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 10:16:54 AM
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 10:16:54 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:14:46 AMI am guessing that if we asked you to explain the physics of cannonfire you would begin by telling us about the Big Bang.
And Holly, if you can't learn ABC how can you learn XYZ ? Do you agree that what I have written of the early works of 'Mozart' is factual, true and documented ???
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 23, 2009, 10:17:13 AM
Post by: Herman on May 23, 2009, 10:17:13 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:08:47 AM
why do you say that I am not giving answers to questions. I had to ask 4 times here where Mozart went to school and what evidence there is that he ever learned composition, orchestration and harmony. [...]
So please do not say I don't answer questions.
Among grown-ups asking questions is not a way of "giving answers to questions.
That's why you've had fifty posts amounting to nothing but attention seeking.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:18:44 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:18:44 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 23, 2009, 10:17:13 AM
Among grown-ups asking questions is not a way of "giving answers to questions.
That's why you've had fifty posts amounting to nothing but attention seeking.
Well, Professor, you would have all my attention if you yourself can answer these basic questions. But it seems that the issues themselves always come second in your posts.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: sul G on May 23, 2009, 10:23:26 AM
Post by: sul G on May 23, 2009, 10:23:26 AM
Just chipping in for my first post here for weeks, and I won't come back to this thread, but - seems to me that Herman's last post (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10960.msg310800.html#msg310800) not only answered all the misguided, musically-misinformed trash you're peddling, but pretty conclusively blew it away simply by its first paragraph, which says all that needs to be said, I think. It was the finest post of the thread, I thought. But you ignored it. I wonder why....
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: some guy on May 23, 2009, 10:24:46 AM
Post by: some guy on May 23, 2009, 10:24:46 AM
Those of you who visit other sites have probably already seen the mayhem that Mr. Robert Newman can cause. He goes on forums, pisses everyone off, gets banned, then signs up on another forum and goes through the same routine. Kinda sad, really. But if y'all ignore 'im, well....
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:27:55 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:27:55 AM
Quote from: some guy on May 23, 2009, 10:24:46 AM
Those of you who visit other sites have probably already seen the mayhem that Mr. Robert Newman can cause. He goes on forums, pisses everyone off, gets banned, then signs up on another forum and goes through the same routine. Kinda sad, really. But if y'all ignore 'im, well....
Some guy has just made a great contribution to this thread. Can he please tell us what this has to do with the question of whether Mozart was a fraud ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: sul G on May 23, 2009, 10:28:59 AM
Post by: sul G on May 23, 2009, 10:28:59 AM
I think it was more to do with the question of whether you are....
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:29:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:29:09 AM
Quote from: sul G on May 23, 2009, 10:23:26 AM
Just chipping in for my first post here for weeks, and I won't come back to this thread, but - seems to me that Herman's last post (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10960.msg310800.html#msg310800) not only answered all the misguided, musically-misinformed trash you're peddling, but pretty conclusively blew it away simply by its first paragraph, which says all that needs to be said, I think. It was the finest post of the thread, I thought. But you ignored it. I wonder why....
Who is he talking to ????? Does he know how to address his posts ????
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 23, 2009, 10:29:53 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 23, 2009, 10:29:53 AM
Quote from: some guy on May 23, 2009, 10:24:46 AM
Those of you who visit other sites have probably already seen the mayhem that Mr. Robert Newman can cause. He goes on forums, pisses everyone off, gets banned, then signs up on another forum and goes through the same routine. Kinda sad, really. But if y'all ignore 'im, well....
Good advice, some. We have elected to give Mr. Newman a (carefully constrained) forum here. He is certainly entitled to his beliefs. Those of you who choose to argue with him do so at your own peril (to your sanity, I mean to say). :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Capella Academica Wien / Melkus Haebler - Bach JC Concerto #2 in D for Fortepiano Op 13 2nd mvmt
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: matti on May 23, 2009, 10:30:26 AM
Post by: matti on May 23, 2009, 10:30:26 AM
Mr New(Neu) man, I have neither the energy or interest reading through this huge thread, but as far as I understand you're saying there has been a massive conspiracy PRO Mozart over centuries. Conspiracies do not usually work that way.
Anyhoo, state the facts. Much of the stuff allegedly scribbled down by "Mozart" after, say K 271, will remain treasures for me and the mankind, no matter who composed them.
Anyhoo, state the facts. Much of the stuff allegedly scribbled down by "Mozart" after, say K 271, will remain treasures for me and the mankind, no matter who composed them.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 10:32:03 AM
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 10:32:03 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:14:46 AM
And Holly, if you can't learn ABC how can you learn XYZ ? Do you agree that what I have just written to you of the early works of 'Mozart' is factual, true and documented ???
This non reply of yours proves that you are a complete charlatan. You have no remotely satisfactory answer to two vital questions which underpin your central thesis about Mozart's alleged fakery.
(i) You have no evidence of payments made by Mozart or payments/consideration received by the alleged supplying composers.
(ii) You have not even attempted to offer an explanation to my question as to motive, i.e. why these other composers should wish to sacrifice their careers in such a fundamental way.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:33:58 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:33:58 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 23, 2009, 10:29:53 AM
Good advice, some. We have elected to give Mr. Newman a (carefully constrained) forum here. He is certainly entitled to his beliefs. Those of you who choose to argue with him do so at your own peril (to your sanity, I mean to say). :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Capella Academica Wien / Melkus Haebler - Bach JC Concerto #2 in D for Fortepiano Op 13 2nd mvmt
Gurn Blanston,
You are so right ! Argument is pointless. This is the chance to show again that the average Mozartean believes hogwash, for which there is no evidence at all. And that such evidence as exists forces us to think. The very opposite of being a Mozartean. This new world is called 'criticism' and it's alive and well in every area of academic study. Why, I dare to think that we might even get there in studies of Mozart and his (alleged) achievements.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:36:20 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:36:20 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 23, 2009, 10:32:03 AM
This non reply of yours proves that you are a complete charlatan. You have no remotely satisfactory answer to two vital questions which underpin your central thesis about Mozart's alleged fakery.
(i) You have no evidence of payments made by Mozart or payments/consideration received by the alleged supplying composers.
(ii) You have not even attempted to offer an explanation to my question as to motive, i.e. why these other composers should wish to sacrifice their careers in such a fundamental way.
OK I'm a complete charlatan. Now, will you answer the question about the early works which have been falsely attributed to W.A. Mozart or shall we open another canister of artificial smoke ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 10:40:21 AM
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 10:40:21 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:08:47 AM
Brian,
I've been on this forum for a few days. I've already made close to 50 posts. So why do you say that I am not giving answers to questions. I had to ask 4 times here where Mozart went to school and what evidence there is that he ever learned composition, orchestration and harmony. Showing that this in itself is clearly untrue.
It's only because you are so dumb that you kept on asking the same question after you were told immediately that Leopold Mozart taught his son. As opposed to your typically malevolent and twisted interpretation of facts, there is nothing odd or sinister about this. As you ought to know, before about the mid-19th century there were no conservatoires or academies of music as we know them. The Universities taught mainly Greek and Latin, and music wasn't on the curriculum. Composers of that period acquired their knowledge of musical theory mainly from older more experienced composers, then followed by self-tuition, practice etc.
There are many other famous composers, both before and after WAM, whose formal training was limited. Vivaldi apparently was largely self-taught, as too I understand was Gluck. Schubert received little training, and Berlioz and Schumann were later examples. Several famous Russian composers including Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin, Balakirev received little musical training. Alban Berg received hardy any training. Elgar was completely self-taught in music theory. I gather that Poulenc and Gershwin are later examples although I profess no expertise on their careers.
Another aspect is that according to Beethoven he learned nothing from Haydn. So where did he get his further training from after leaving Bonn?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 23, 2009, 10:42:39 AM
Post by: Guido on May 23, 2009, 10:42:39 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:33:58 AM
Gurn Blanston,
You are so right ! Argument is pointless. This is the chance to show again that the average Mozartean believes hogwash, for which there is no evidence at all. And that such evidence as exists forces us to think. The very opposite of being a Mozartean. This new world is called 'criticism' and it's alive and well in every area of academic study. Why, I dare to think that we might even get there in studies of Mozart and his (alleged) achievements.
It's not even funny how far you are away from academic criticism. Please present some evidence for any of your claims.
For instance - lets choose the clarinet quintet and clarinet concerto, two late masterpieces. Please provide EVIDENCE that we can all see (that doesn't mean you just saying, oh that piece is by so and so, believe me) the 'truth' of the matter.
QuoteVivaldi apparently was largely self-taught, as too I understand was Gluck. Schubert received little training, and Berlioz and Schumann were later examples. Several famous Russian composers including Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin, Balakirev received little musical training. Alban Berg received hardy any training. Elgar was completely self-taught in music theory. I gather that Poulenc and Gershwin are later examples although I profess no expertise on their careers.
Exactly.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 10:45:37 AM
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 10:45:37 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:36:20 AMNo, I won't. I think it is pretty clear from this little episode that you are just a big puff of wind. You can't answer basic questions that are fundamental to your case. It's a pity you don't like Haydn because a suitable title for your brand of nonsense would be "Newman's Creation".
OK I'm a complete charlatan. Now, will you answer the question about the early works which have been falsely attributed to W.A. Mozart or shall we open another canister of artificial smoke ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 23, 2009, 10:48:00 AM
Post by: Herman on May 23, 2009, 10:48:00 AM
Holly, let's leave it at this. Your list of composers without any formal training is conclusive. Let the guy stew.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 10:51:09 AM
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 10:51:09 AM
Holly, you're right about Gershwin. He taught himself to play the piano by placing his fingers onto the keys being played by a "player piano", so that eventually, by sheer memorization, he could figure out how to play the songs the player piano was performing. He taught himself to compose simply by listening to the music of others; thus the need for professionals to orchestrate his Rhapsody in Blue. (Later, by the time of the American in Paris, Cuban Overture and Porgy and Bess, he was proficient enough to orchestrate for himself - because he felt the need to prove that he was indeed writing his own music. Apparently critics thought certain passages were being written for him ... where have we heard that before!?!?)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:52:05 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:52:05 AM
Quote from: Guido on May 23, 2009, 10:42:39 AM
It's not even funny how far you are away from academic criticism. Please present some evidence for any of your claims.
For instance - lets choose the clarinet quintet and clarinet concerto, two late masterpieces. Please provide EVIDENCE that we can all see (that doesn't mean you just saying, oh that piece is by so and so, believe me) the 'truth' of the matter.
Exactly.
Guido,
OK, you want to discuss specific works of 'Mozart'. Fine. Let's agree.
We will study the Clarinet Concerto KV622 and the Clarinet Quintet KV581. Fine. Agreed ? Good idea !! Please confirm.
Regards
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 10:52:55 AM
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 10:52:55 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:33:58 AM(http://www.wnff.net/Smileys/wnff/rofl.gif) (http://www.wnff.net/Smileys/wnff/rofl.gif) (http://www.wnff.net/Smileys/wnff/rofl.gif)
Gurn Blanston,
You are so right ! Argument is pointless.
Mr. Newman,
Guido is not the first to want to study specific works; a Mass has been suggested, and two people have suggested a piano concerto. However, I am willing to go along with Guido and see what you have to say on his selections.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:54:26 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:54:26 AM
Quote from: Brian on May 23, 2009, 10:52:55 AM
(http://www.wnff.net/Smileys/wnff/rofl.gif) (http://www.wnff.net/Smileys/wnff/rofl.gif) (http://www.wnff.net/Smileys/wnff/rofl.gif)
Thanks for your agreement Brian !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:55:58 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:55:58 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 23, 2009, 10:45:37 AM
No, I won't. I think it is pretty clear from this little episode that you are just a big puff of wind. You can't answer basic questions that are fundamental to your case. It's a pity you don't like Haydn because a suitable title for your brand of nonsense would be "Newman's Creation".
Well, seems to me that you don't want to acknowledge the FACTS as they relate to early Mozart. Or am I mistaken ? Well, fine. Stay ignorant if you must.
There are others who are more respectful and I will discuss the subject with them.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:01:56 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:01:56 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 23, 2009, 10:40:21 AM
It's only because you are so dumb that you kept on asking the same question after you were told immediately that Leopold Mozart taught his son. As opposed to your typically malevolent and twisted interpretation of facts, there is nothing odd or sinister about this. As you ought to know, before about the mid-19th century there were no conservatoires or academies of music as we know them. The Universities taught mainly Greek and Latin, and music wasn't on the curriculum. Composers of that period acquired their knowledge of musical theory mainly from older more experienced composers, then followed by self-tuition, practice etc.
There are many other famous composers, both before and after WAM, whose formal training was limited. Vivaldi apparently was largely self-taught, as too I understand was Gluck. Schubert received little training, and Berlioz and Schumann were later examples. Several famous Russian composers including Rimsky-Korsakov, Borodin, Balakirev received little musical training. Alban Berg received hardy any training. Elgar was completely self-taught in music theory. I gather that Poulenc and Gershwin are later examples although I profess no expertise on their careers.
Another aspect is that according to Beethoven he learned nothing from Haydn. So where did he get his further training from after leaving Bonn?
But this is moonshine. In actual fact, Leopold Mozart was NOT a teacher of composition, harmony or orchestration at any time in his entire life. Why do you invent such nonsense ? Is it for home consumption ? Leopold Mozart was a failed student of philosophy at the University of Salzburg who was falsely attributed with writing a violin treatise in 1756, stolen from an Italian virtoso violinist. He joined the orchestra of Salzburg as 4th Violinist. He was NEVER at any time a teacher of music theory, harmony or orchestration and he was awarded the post of 'Deputy Kapellmeister' without ever serving in that capacity in his entire life. He left Salzburg 4 weeks after receiving this purely honorary award. Which caused great resentment in Salzburg. 3 years later he was still absent from Salzburg.
Now who is a banana ? You really believe anything don't you ? Ah 'Mozart was a genius'. THAT explains it, right ?? Lol !
:) :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on May 23, 2009, 11:02:34 AM
Post by: Christie on May 23, 2009, 11:02:34 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:55:58 AMI hope I shall be included in their number. I am very much looking forward to hearing your unfettered views on the specifics.
Well, seems to me that you don't want to acknowledge the FACTS as they relate to early Mozart. Or am I mistaken ? Well, fine. Stay ignorant if you must.
There are others who are more respectful and I will discuss the subject with them.
I appreciate your post above on Leopold. However, who is a banana?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:05:15 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on May 23, 2009, 11:02:34 AM
I hope I shall be included in their number. I am very much looking forward to hearing your unfettered views on the specifics.
I appreciate your post above on Leopold. However, who is a banana?
The banana is the person who first posted a whole bunch of them on this thread. Since that was not you nor I we can forget bananas. Some Mozartean, I guess ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 11:08:36 AM
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 11:08:36 AM
Speaking of bananas
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:18:18 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:18:18 AM
OK, well thanks for these exchanges. They certainly opened my eyes to the situation ! When your colleague (Guido) agrees to discuss the Clarinet Concerto and the Clarinet Quintet I will get back here.
In the meantime thanks and best wishes !
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/03mar/RICR-090329.php
Robert
In the meantime thanks and best wishes !
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/03mar/RICR-090329.php
Robert
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Lethevich on May 23, 2009, 11:23:07 AM
Post by: Lethevich on May 23, 2009, 11:23:07 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:01:39 AM
Now, regarding other works. You must surely know that 'Mozart's' first 7 piano concertos (all of these from the time when he was a child also) are actually arrangements of works by other composers. But this too is a documented fact of musical history. JC Bach's sonatas feature in at least 4 of these works. They really are NOT by Mozart. Isn't this true ? So what we have here in these early symphonies and even in these early concertos is music NOT by Mozart at all.
First you make your babies-flying-jumbo-jets strawman to suggest that children cannot write advanced compositions (such as symphonies), and then you bash him for NOT producing such advanced compositions... WTF?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 23, 2009, 11:24:51 AM
Post by: Guido on May 23, 2009, 11:24:51 AM
Absolutely, lets talk about the clarinet concerto and clarinet quintet.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:26:52 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:26:52 AM
Quote from: Lethe on May 23, 2009, 11:23:07 AM
First you make your babies-flying-jumbo-jets strawman to suggest that children cannot write advanced compositions (such as symphonies), and then you bash him for NOT producing such advanced compositions... WTF?
Well, the two things are the same aren't they ? Babies don't fly jumbo jets and nor do children write advanced compositions such as symphonies without extensive tuition. Simple, right ? But Mozart was a 'genius'. Ah !!! That explains it, right ? :) :) :)
I guess that sorts it that out, right ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:27:39 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:27:39 AM
Quote from: Guido on May 23, 2009, 11:24:51 AM
Absolutely, lets talk about the clarinet concerto and clarinet quintet.
Great !
So Mozart composed both of these works, yes ? No ? Maybe ? Don't Know ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 23, 2009, 11:42:18 AM
Post by: Guido on May 23, 2009, 11:42:18 AM
Well given that every single academic up to now believes that to be true, lets take as our starting assumption that yes, he did compose it.
Now, what evidence might we have to the contrary?
Now, what evidence might we have to the contrary?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:48:23 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:48:23 AM
Quote from: Guido on May 23, 2009, 11:42:18 AM
Well given that every single academic up to now believes that to be true, lets take as our starting assumption that yes, he did compose it.
Now, what evidence might we have to the contrary?
OK, let's start at the beginning. At the time of the Clarinet Quintet and of the Clarinet Concerto there were several composers writing these sorts of work. Have you heard any of them ? If not, let me give you an outstanding example.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 23, 2009, 11:53:41 AM
Post by: Guido on May 23, 2009, 11:53:41 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:48:23 AM
OK, let's start at the beginning. At the time of the Clarinet Quintet and of the Clarinet Concerto there were several composers writing these sorts of work. Have you heard any of them ? If not, let me give you an outstanding example.
Regards
Do, if your example is pertinent to your proof of Mozart's fraudulence. Just set your case out all in one post, then we can discuss it.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:57:49 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:57:49 AM
Quote from: Guido on May 23, 2009, 11:53:41 AM
Do, if your example is pertinent to your proof of Mozart's fraudulence. Just set your case out all in one post, then we can discuss it.
Well, I could write screeds on this subject. Can I at least know if you have heard any clarinet quintet or clarinet concerto from the period of time that Mozart supposedly wrote these two works. Or, let's say, by around 1800 (within 10 years of Mozart's death) ?
A simple yes or no is enough and then I will write an article on the subject for you to see.
OK ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 23, 2009, 12:09:57 PM
Post by: Guido on May 23, 2009, 12:09:57 PM
Yes I may have heard some in the past at school - a clarinettist friend of mine played a lot of that repertoire. Not sure I could name names. Give me an example if you want.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 12:11:50 PM
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 12:11:50 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:26:52 AMSimple, right ? But Mozart was a 'genius'. Ah !!! That explains it, right ? :) :) :)I suppose Mr. Newman is so skeptical about the value of genius because he has so little familiarity with it himself.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 23, 2009, 12:14:02 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 23, 2009, 12:14:02 PM
There is a deal of misdirection going on here in the anti-Mozart camp......
1) Absence of proof is claimed as evidence, when it is merely, absence of proof.
2) Unproven allegations suddenly morph into facts that need then seemingly to be countered.
3) Other composer's compositions are sited as some kind of justification for claiming either that Mozart did not write what was attributed to him, or, that he was nothing special.
4) If repeated often enough, an allegation becomes a fact; however, what are claimed to be allegations long held by Mozart supporters seemingly cannot be facts!
5) Rules that may apply to those of modest talent are deployed as though they were universal and apply to genius.
6) Inconvenient parallels which are illustrated by other posters are ignored as though they were irrelevant.
It is like watching a card trick being performed in a different format. Entertaining, but not to be taken seriously.
One item please folks.....do watch the namecalling. This thread has been providing some much appreciated entertainment, but further personal abuse will endanger it.
Mike
1) Absence of proof is claimed as evidence, when it is merely, absence of proof.
2) Unproven allegations suddenly morph into facts that need then seemingly to be countered.
3) Other composer's compositions are sited as some kind of justification for claiming either that Mozart did not write what was attributed to him, or, that he was nothing special.
4) If repeated often enough, an allegation becomes a fact; however, what are claimed to be allegations long held by Mozart supporters seemingly cannot be facts!
5) Rules that may apply to those of modest talent are deployed as though they were universal and apply to genius.
6) Inconvenient parallels which are illustrated by other posters are ignored as though they were irrelevant.
It is like watching a card trick being performed in a different format. Entertaining, but not to be taken seriously.
One item please folks.....do watch the namecalling. This thread has been providing some much appreciated entertainment, but further personal abuse will endanger it.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 23, 2009, 12:16:13 PM
Post by: Guido on May 23, 2009, 12:16:13 PM
Quote from: knight on May 23, 2009, 12:14:02 PM
There is a deal of misdirection going on here in the anti-Mozart camp......
1) Absence of proof is claimed as evidence, when it is merely, absence of proof.
2) Unproven allegations suddenly morph into facts that need then seemingly to be countered.
3) Other composer's compositions are sited as some kind of justification for claiming either that Mozart did not write what was attributed to him, or, that he was nothing special.
4) If repeated often enough, an allegation becomes a fact; however, what are claimed to be allegations long held by Mozart supporters seemingly cannot be facts!
5) Rules that may apply to those of modest talent are deployed as though they were universal and apply to genius.
6) Inconvenient parallels which are illustrated by other posters are ignored as though they were irrelevant.
It is like watching a card trick being performed in a different format. Entertaining, but not to be taken seriously.
One item please folks.....do watch the namecalling. This thread has been providing some much appreciated entertainment, but further personal abuse will endanger it.
Mike
Lets please not confuse ourselves and say it is anything like as dazzling and beguiling as a good card trick.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 23, 2009, 12:18:57 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 23, 2009, 12:18:57 PM
Where did I suggest it was a good card trick? My nephew performs those and I have no idea how they are done. As illustrated above, the misdirection here is rather easily detected.
Mike
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 12:25:24 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 12:25:24 PM
Well, let me introduce to you the person I believe is the true composer of both the Clarinet Quintet and also of the Clarinet Quintet attributed to Mozart.
Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807).
I will finish here with an excerpt from sleeve notes to the first recording of his concertos and chamber music made in Germany in the last few years.
His works including 3 concertos for Clarinet, various Clarinet Quartets and many other works. Cartellieri is one of those composers whose extraordinary talents have been suppressed for almost 200 years. This same Cartellieri was also a colleague of Beethoven soon after his arrival in Vienna. In fact, Cartellieri shared the first concert in Vienna given by Beethoven in 1795.
Three quotes from sleevenotes to the above mentioned recordings by this great but little known composer -
1. ''I know of numerous works by Cartellieri which would create a sensation with the modern public if they received proper treatment'.
2. 'Both these composers, Beethoven and Cartellieri had absolute mastery over their material'.
3. 'Our unfamiliarity with the so-called 'minor masters' is precisely the problem with which music scholarship is faced'.
Tomorrow evening I will post here as promised a short article arguing why Cartellieri is the true composer of these two works today attributed to Mozart.
Regards
Robert Newman
Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807).
I will finish here with an excerpt from sleeve notes to the first recording of his concertos and chamber music made in Germany in the last few years.
His works including 3 concertos for Clarinet, various Clarinet Quartets and many other works. Cartellieri is one of those composers whose extraordinary talents have been suppressed for almost 200 years. This same Cartellieri was also a colleague of Beethoven soon after his arrival in Vienna. In fact, Cartellieri shared the first concert in Vienna given by Beethoven in 1795.
Three quotes from sleevenotes to the above mentioned recordings by this great but little known composer -
1. ''I know of numerous works by Cartellieri which would create a sensation with the modern public if they received proper treatment'.
2. 'Both these composers, Beethoven and Cartellieri had absolute mastery over their material'.
3. 'Our unfamiliarity with the so-called 'minor masters' is precisely the problem with which music scholarship is faced'.
Tomorrow evening I will post here as promised a short article arguing why Cartellieri is the true composer of these two works today attributed to Mozart.
Regards
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 23, 2009, 12:39:45 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 23, 2009, 12:39:45 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 12:25:24 PM
Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807).
Three quotes from sleevenotes to the above mentioned recordings by this great but little known composer -
1. ''I know of numerous works by Cartellieri which would create a sensation with the modern public if they received proper treatment'.
2. 'Both these composers, Beethoven and Cartellieri had absolute mastery over their material'.
3. 'Our unfamiliarity with the so-called 'minor masters' is precisely the problem with which music scholarship is faced'.
Tomorrow evening I will post here as promised a short article arguing why Cartellieri is the true composer of these two works today attributed to Mozart.
Regards
Robert Newman
What evidence is there that this man's work has been suppressed as against overlooked?
I know you are suggesting that tomorrow is proof day, but as far as I am concerned, the quotes above fall under my misdirection list number 3. Musicologists have reevaluated and rediscovered music sitting in libraries and cathedrals, it has helped to expand our options for listening and our understanding of the organic movements within music; but no one has to my knowledge come forward with a body of 'missing' music that throws any composer into any kind of top rank position. I would be very happy for it to happen; but what is in this thread is merely a sophisticated version of the Wagner V Beethoven kind of thread we so often have, where to praise one, the other has to be denigrated. A cheap way of arguing on behalf of a talent.
But as we have suggested, all competing composers have to be discussed here, no individual threads thank you.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Lethevich on May 23, 2009, 12:42:49 PM
Post by: Lethevich on May 23, 2009, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 12:25:24 PM
Tomorrow evening I will post here as promised a short article arguing why Cartellieri is the true composer of these two works today attributed to Mozart.
Thanks, should be a fun read.
My problem with a lot of these obscure classical era composers often claimed as undiscovered masters is that when I listen to them, they tend to bore me in a way Mozart or Haydn would not (and I find the stylistic fingerprints of these two to be quite distinctive throughout many of their mature works). For example, even Vanhal's very fine minor key symphonies just can't keep up with the scope of Haydn's similar works. There is much of the surface effect, but slightly less of the extensive invention which I can find nowhere else in the period. While I am less keen personally on Mozart, I feel similar when compaing him to others too...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 12:44:38 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 12:44:38 PM
Quote from: knight on May 23, 2009, 12:39:45 PM
What evidence is there that this man's work has been suppressed as against overlooked?
I know you are suggesting that tomorrow is proof day, but as far as I am concerned, the quotes above fall under my misdirection list number 3. Musicologists have reevaluated and rediscovered music sitting in libraries and cathedrals, it has helped to expand our options for listening and our understanding of the organic movements within music; but no one has to my knowledge come forward with a body of 'missing' music that throws any composer into any kind of top rank position. I would be very happy for it to happen; but what is in this thread is merely a sophisticated version of the Wagner V Beethoven kind of thread we so often have, where to praise one, the other has to be denigrated. A cheap way of arguing on behalf of a talent.
But as we have suggested, all competing composers have to be discussed here, no individual threads thank you.
Knight
Well, Knight, I think my article will make a credible case for this scandalously little known Cartellieri being the true composer of both KV581 and also the Concerto KV622. The fact that he requires 'rediscovery' speaks for itself. As does his music. Anyway, thanks.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 23, 2009, 12:54:37 PM
Post by: Herman on May 23, 2009, 12:54:37 PM
It's pretty obvious what you're going to do. You're going to "argue why" rather than present evidence that Cart. should have composed these Mozart works. And basically the argument will be you like Cartellieri better than you like Mozart.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 12:58:32 PM
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 12:58:32 PM
Quote from: Lethe on May 23, 2009, 12:42:49 PM
My problem with a lot of these obscure classical era composers often claimed as undiscovered masters is that when I listen to them, they tend to bore me in a way Mozart or Haydn would not (and I find the stylistic fingerprints of these two to be quite distinctive throughout many of their mature works). For example, even Vanhal's very fine minor key symphonies just can't keep up with the scope of Haydn's similar works. There is much of the surface effect, but slightly less of the extensive invention which I can find nowhere else in the period. While I am less keen personally on Mozart, I feel similar when compaing him to others too...
Yes but the catch is that Newman will say that the works you take for granted are by Haydn, and which you reckon are better than Vanhal's, are not in fact by Haydn at all but by another composer. He won't concede that Haydn or Mozart wrote anything that was decent, so we have no reliable benchmarks at all. It's a sort of clever way of arguing which has plagued discussion for a long time now.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 12:59:59 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 12:59:59 PM
Quote from: Herman on May 23, 2009, 12:54:37 PM
It's pretty obvious what you're going to do. You're going to "argue why" rather than present evidence that Cart. should have composed these Mozart works. And basically the argument will be you like Cartellieri better than you like Mozart.
No, I am going to introduce you to a composer you don't know. I will try to show why he (Cartellieri) is the true composer of the two 'Mozart' works selected by Guido (and not me). And not simply on the grounds that his music is of great quality. A fact which I hope to show also.
Since we're discussing this, you know of course there is no documentary evidence that Mozart is the composer of either the Quintet or the Concerto, since the 'autographs' of both have mysteriously vanished ! How unfortunate !! :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:04:40 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:04:40 PM
Quote from: Holly on May 23, 2009, 12:58:32 PM
Yes but the catch is that Newman will say that the works you take for granted are by Haydn, and which you reckon are better than Vanhal's, are not in fact by Haydn at all but by another composer. He won't concede that Haydn or Mozart wrote anything that was decent, so we have no reliable benchmarks at all. It's a sort of clever way of arguing which has plagued discussion for a long time now.
Holly, the fact is that the field of Haydn attribution is as dogged by error and falsehood as that of Mozart himself (as anyone who has examined both will tell you). No, there are various composers you've never heard and Cartellieri has come up (thanks to the request made by Guido himself). But people can form their own judgement from the evidence. That's how we are supposed to form a considered judgement on these issues, isn't it ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 01:05:09 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 01:05:09 PM
Quote from: Holly on May 23, 2009, 12:58:32 PMSorry, Holly, but there's nothing remotely clever about it. It's just plain inane.
Yes but the catch is that Newman will say that the works you take for granted are by Haydn, and which you reckon are better than Vanhal's, are not in fact by Haydn at all but by another composer. He won't concede that Haydn or Mozart wrote anything that was decent, so we have no reliable benchmarks at all. It's a sort of clever way of arguing which has plagued discussion for a long time now.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 23, 2009, 01:11:09 PM
Post by: not edward on May 23, 2009, 01:11:09 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:01:56 AMLeopold Mozart was a failed student of philosophy at the University of SalzburgReasonably accurate--he did get his bachelor's degree before being expelled for non-attendance.
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:01:56 AMwho was falsely attributed with writing a violin treatise in 1756, stolen from an Italian virtoso violinist.Evidence, please?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 01:13:14 PM
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 01:13:14 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 01:05:09 PMWell you're right of course. I was trying my utmost to show my sweeter side.
Sorry, Holly, but there's nothing remotely clever about it. It's just plain inane.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:14:42 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:14:42 PM
Here is the 3rd Movement of a Flute Concerto in G Major by this same A.C. Cartellieri -
Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807)
Flute Concerto in G Major
3rd Movement
c.1789
Just a sample of a truly remarkable musical talent. Cartellieri also died young.
http://www.mediafire.com/?vznzct1htmm
Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807)
Flute Concerto in G Major
3rd Movement
c.1789
Just a sample of a truly remarkable musical talent. Cartellieri also died young.
http://www.mediafire.com/?vznzct1htmm
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 23, 2009, 01:23:12 PM
Post by: Catison on May 23, 2009, 01:23:12 PM
Reading through these posts has been educational. The funny thing is that if there were really some great conspiracy and the true authorship of Mozart's music was being suppressed, then such shenanigans as are being played out in this thread would be the result. If what Newman claims is actually true, then he would be up against a almost insurmountable force to strike down his thesis and Newman can claim that any of his dissenters are a part of this great conspiracy.
And yet, why is Mr. Newman wasting his time of music forums? Isn't there a great conspiracy to uncover? Just supposing that all of this is true, what does it matter if such-and-such a forum agrees with you? In the grand scheme of music history, has anything ever been established on the internet? Are you here to settle this great mystery?
And what is this? You are supposed to have a book done by the end of the summer, and you don't have a chapter or section or paragraph on the Clarinet Concerto? You have to go away and write an article? Lets hope this is a minor gap in your book, because if it isn't, then good luck.
Let me also suggest you take the comments on this thread seriously, because it is just the internet, it is no doubt a foreshadowing of the ridicule you will receive for anyone professionally associated with the historical Mozart. If you can't answer the questions here, then I hate to see what questions are going to be thrown at you once your book unleashed to the world.
And yet, why is Mr. Newman wasting his time of music forums? Isn't there a great conspiracy to uncover? Just supposing that all of this is true, what does it matter if such-and-such a forum agrees with you? In the grand scheme of music history, has anything ever been established on the internet? Are you here to settle this great mystery?
And what is this? You are supposed to have a book done by the end of the summer, and you don't have a chapter or section or paragraph on the Clarinet Concerto? You have to go away and write an article? Lets hope this is a minor gap in your book, because if it isn't, then good luck.
Let me also suggest you take the comments on this thread seriously, because it is just the internet, it is no doubt a foreshadowing of the ridicule you will receive for anyone professionally associated with the historical Mozart. If you can't answer the questions here, then I hate to see what questions are going to be thrown at you once your book unleashed to the world.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 23, 2009, 01:27:11 PM
Post by: Catison on May 23, 2009, 01:27:11 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:14:42 PM
Here is the 3rd Movement of a Flute Concerto in G Major by this same A.C. Cartellieri -
Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807)
Flute Concerto in G Major
3rd Movement
c.1789
Just a sample of a truly remarkable musical talent. Cartellieri also died young.
http://www.mediafire.com/?vznzct1htmm
Just listened and I agree it is very good. But then again so is Mozart...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 01:31:07 PM
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 01:31:07 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:04:40 PM
Holly, the fact is that the field of Haydn attribution is as dogged by error and falsehood as that of Mozart himself (as anyone who has examined both will tell you). No, there are various composers you've never heard and Cartellieri has come up (thanks to the request made by Guido himself). But people can form their own judgement from the evidence. That's how we are supposed to form a considered judgement on these issues, isn't it ?
Regards Haydn, yes I know I've heard it all before.
Regards Cartellieri, you certainly pull out of the bag of the long-since forgotten some weird and wonderful characters. I must admit that I thought you were going to come up with Carl Stamitz who apparently misplaced a few of his clarinet works. I assume he lost these works somewhere, right? Tut tut, these silly people should take better car of their property, shouldn't they? If not, and the works were kindly produced to order for Mozart, presumably you will provide a motive and proof of purchase and all that? Yes, of course you will.
Anyway I hope we get the full story from you in one instalment tomorrow, and not spread out over 3 like the last time you attempted such a story.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:35:21 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: Catison on May 23, 2009, 01:23:12 PM
Reading through these posts has been educational. The funny thing is that if there were really some great conspiracy and the true authorship of Mozart's music was being suppressed, then such shenanigans as are being played out in this thread would be the result. If what Newman claims is actually true, then he would be up against a almost insurmountable force to strike down his thesis and Newman can claim that any of his dissenters are a part of this great conspiracy.
And yet, why is Mr. Newman wasting his time of music forums? Isn't there a great conspiracy to uncover? Just supposing that all of this is true, what does it matter if such-and-such a forum agrees with you? In the grand scheme of music history, has anything ever been established on the internet? Are you here to settle this great mystery?
And what is this? You are supposed to have a book done by the end of the summer, and you don't have a chapter or section or paragraph on the Clarinet Concerto? You have to go away and write an article? Lets hope this is a minor gap in your book, because if it isn't, then good luck.
Let me also suggest you take the comments on this thread seriously, because it is just the internet, it is no doubt a foreshadowing of the ridicule you will receive for anyone professionally associated with the historical Mozart. If you can't answer the questions here, then I hate to see what questions are going to be thrown at you once your book unleashed to the world.
I must give you credit for your post, much of which makes perfect sense. But you might like to take on board some information which you seem to have forgotten. The misattribution to Mozart is not imaginary but a plain fact of Mozart studies, and has been for almost 200 years. Secondly, the making of composers with iconic status is sure to result in the suppression and obsuring of other talented composers, as we see over and over again in cases such as Vanhal, Myslivececk, Luchesi, Cartellieri and literally dozens of others. And, instead of saying that members here are part of a conspiracy I actually think the opposite. A conspiracy is carried out secretly and not in public, and we all here are wanting to throw light on these issues, not hide them. Thirdly, I'm not 'wasting time' on this or any other forum. I'm acting responsibly, conscientiously, in sharing my findings with those of others. And have been for years. At some expense, I might add. None of which brings me profit and much of which consists of saying things which, amazingly, are unknown though they are basic and verifiable facts that anyone can find in a music dictionary. The industry surrounding Mozart is so huge, so alluring, that we really are discussing an industry. One which tends to make us ignorantly accept things we would never accept by any fair standard of criticism.
As regards not having to hand an article on the Clarinet Quintet and also the Clarinet Concerto, you can see for yourself that these were NOT chosen by me, but were selected by a poster to the forum, right here, less than 3 hours ago. Can't do better than that, can I ?
As far as ridicule is concerned, I've done my homework. So let's see whose attitude is ridiculous and whose is not. But thanks for reminding us that any deviation from the Mozart industry is sure to be ridiculed. It's a fact I'm reminded of all the time.
Best wishes
RN
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:37:14 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:37:14 PM
Quote from: Holly on May 23, 2009, 01:31:07 PM
Regards Haydn, yes I know I've heard it all before.
Regards Cartellieri, you certainly pull out of the bag of the long-since forgotten some weird and wonderful characters. I must admit that I thought you were going to come up with Carl Stamitz who apparently misplaced a few of his clarinet works. I assume he lost these works somewhere, right? Tut tut, these silly people should take better car of their property, shouldn't they? If not, and the works were kindly produced to order for Mozart, presumably you will provide a motive and proof of purchase and all that? Yes, of course you will.
Anyway I hope we get the full story from you in one instalment tomorrow, and not spread out over 3 like the last time you attempted such a story.
Yes, and let's hope you can finally answer us about early 'Mozart' in one request too ! Not spread out and obscured in this mammoth post. But believe me I won't hold my breath !
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 23, 2009, 01:38:13 PM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 23, 2009, 01:38:13 PM
Quote from: Catison on May 23, 2009, 01:27:11 PM
Just listened and I agree it is very good. But then again so is Mozart...
Listened to it, too - perfectly agreeable music (and by a very young composer at that). But do you have the opening movement? There ought to be more meat there...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:39:17 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:39:17 PM
Quote from: Catison on May 23, 2009, 01:27:11 PM
Just listened and I agree it is very good. But then again so is Mozart...
Yes indeed !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:40:27 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:40:27 PM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 23, 2009, 01:38:13 PM
Listened to it, too - perfectly agreeable music (and by a very young composer at that). But do you have the opening movement? There ought to be more meat there...
I will post the Second Movement. The Adagio. This is truly beautiful. Will take a few minutes.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 01:55:24 PM
Post by: Holly on May 23, 2009, 01:55:24 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:37:14 PM
Yes, and let's hope you can finally answer us about early 'Mozart' in one request too ! Not spread out and obscured in this mammoth post. But believe me I won't hold my breath !
:)
What mammoth post? I know that your imagination is well-oiled and somewhat out of control at times but no way was my last post a mammoth one. Have you been drinking again? I thought you were under orders not to overdo it. At any rate, you ought to appreciate that, just as you have so generously given up much of your free time to entertain us, so we're providing you with a free service checking out your various theories before you go public in your forthcoming book. We wouldn't you to go off half-cock and look stupid, at least I wouldn't. By the way, is your book going to be confined to Mozart and Haydn, or will it include chapters on your view about the alleged CIA conspiracy behind 9/11, the alleged faked moonwalks back in the 60's, and all that kind of stuff too?
Hasta la vista.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:56:41 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:40:27 PM
I will post the Second Movement. The Adagio. This is truly beautiful. Will take a few minutes.
Regards
No, it can't be done so easily. So I must leave it at that. Sorry. Can't post the Adagio to this concerto. There are various wonderful chamber works by Cartellieri, several concertos, even a great C Minor Symphony, several oratorios, etc. Of the concertos there is one for flute (whose 3rd movement you've heard) and no less than 3 for clarinet, including one for 2 clarinets. With around 10 clarinet quartets and various sextets. The earliest concerto, I believe, is the very piece today attributed to Mozart. So that, in total there seem to have been 4 such concertos. But anyway, I will post on this tomorrrow.
R
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:59:53 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:59:53 PM
Quote from: Holly on May 23, 2009, 01:55:24 PM
What mammoth post? I know that your imagination is well-oiled and somewhat out of control at times but no way was my last post a mammoth one. Have you been drinking again? I thought you were under orders not to overdo it. At any rate, you ought to appreciate that, just as you have so generously given up much of your free time to entertain us, so we're providing you with a free service checking out your various theories before you go public in your forthcoming book. We wouldn't you to go off half-cock and look stupid, at least I wouldn't. By the way, is your book going to be confined to Mozart and Haydn, or will it include chapters on your view about the alleged CIA conspiracy behind 9/11, the alleged faked moonwalks back in the 60's, and all that kind of stuff too?
Hasta la vista.
Sorry to disappoint you but no, my book does not deal with the conspiracy of 9/11 (not even the official one). And no, your post has avoided being mammoth in size. But the thread would be ten times longer if we were relying on finally getting your answer to the question on early Mozart. Don't worry. Par for the course in Hollywood.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 23, 2009, 02:00:28 PM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 23, 2009, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:56:41 PM
No, it can't be done so easily. So I must leave it at that. Sorry. Can't post the Adagio to this concerto.
Pity. It would have put more flesh on Cartellieri.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on May 23, 2009, 02:22:04 PM
Post by: snyprrr on May 23, 2009, 02:22:04 PM
An answer to the JC Bach attr. in the early Mozart p.c. would be nice.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 23, 2009, 02:25:45 PM
Post by: Catison on May 23, 2009, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:35:21 PM
As regards not having to hand an article on the Clarinet Quintet and also the Clarinet Concerto, you can see for yourself that these were NOT chosen by me, but were selected by a poster to the forum, right here, less than 3 hours ago. Can't do better than that, can I ?
I think you've miss my point. As a researcher who is himself about to be published, I know it is important not only to write in order to put forth an argument, but also to anticipate any counterargument and fill all possible holes one may find, warranted or not. This is part of being a persuasive author. However, surely you understand that the great clarinet works, written during Mozart's final years, are an important part of his legacy. Indeed, I know a few people for whom these works are his legacy. If you are going to try to discredit Mozart, why do you have such a glaring hole in your book? Who cares if some of Mozart's early works, even if the majority, are wrongly attributed? Mozart's legacy, it is true, is certainly tied up in his being a prodigy, but without works like the Clarinet Concerto and Clarinet Quintet, he would be a forgotten footnote of a prodigy. If you are going to strike at the myth of Mozart, shouldn't these works be the primary target? This is why I am asking, why such a glaring omission?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 23, 2009, 05:46:47 PM
Post by: karlhenning on May 23, 2009, 05:46:47 PM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 23, 2009, 07:16:11 AM
I think it is pointless to really argue with Newman. He is using a typical propagandist technique. Pretend to have an open discussion but in reality ignore all dissenting opinions and keep repeating the same exact points over and over until they become branded into the minds of others. It's the famous "big lie" concept. Essentially, it's like talking to a bot.
Quoted for truth.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 23, 2009, 05:49:02 PM
Post by: karlhenning on May 23, 2009, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 10:36:20 AM
OK I'm a complete charlatan.
Quoted for truth.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 06:10:33 PM
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 06:10:33 PM
(http://yourargumentisinvalid.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/the_cat_is_pushing_a_watermelon_out_of_a_lake.thumbnail.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 06:46:02 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 06:46:02 PM
I found a website listing what the author claims are the world's wackiest conspiracy theories:
Quote * The driver shot JFK. (the late William Cooper)
* The Beatles were designed and sent to the U.S. by the British Psychological Warfare Division, to undermine the morals of American teenagers. (Lyndon LaRouche)
* Christ's Crucifixion was staged. (Hugh Schonfield) Christ eloped with Mary Magdalene, and one or both of them fled to France to raise their family. (Baigent/Leigh/Lincoln)
* Christ and his disciples were a magic-mushroom cult. (Dead Sea Scrolls scholar John Allegro)
* HIV/AIDS was created in a lab.
* HIV does not cause AIDS.
* Man never landed on the moon. It's not even possible. But there is an alien base there. (see Wikipedia; for an artful and very funny parody of how these theories can be patched together from unrelated material, watch the mockumentary Dark Side of the Moon)
* The Zapruder film is entirely fake, even though it contradicts the findings of the Warren Commission. (Jim Fetzer)
* Stephen King killed John Lennon. (Steve Lightfoot)
* WWII was staged. It never really happened. The Illuminati employed elaborate special effects, stage magic, and phony journalism to scare the world into pacifism. (Donald Holmes)
* Queen Elizabeth I was a man. The real Elizabeth died as a child.
* George H.W. Bush was really George Scherff Sr., a Nazi sent to destroy America as a teenager and adopted by Prescott Bush (Scherff was also an assistant to Nikola Tesla, and stole all Tesla's inventions after he was murdered by Otto Skorzeny and Reinhard Gehlen). Hitler was still alive in Montana in 1997, and Josef Mengele is keeping himself alive and youthful with a regimen of hormones and cannibalism. Oh, and Curious George was inspired by a young George Scherff Jr.; that's probably why Alan J. Shalleck was murdered by two men he met through a gay sex network one day before the movie premiered. (this information comes from a man named Eric Berman, who claims he heard it straight from his girlfriend's dad, Otto Skorzeny, in Florida during the late '90s. Skorzeny died in Madrid in 1975.)
* One promoter of the Scherff-Bush story adds that Josef Mengele was the real Zodiac, the Boston Strangler(s), and the anthrax letter mailer. (http://www.thebushconnection.com/)
* The 1939 War of the Worlds radio broadcoast was a psychological warfare study funded by C.D. Jackson on behalf of the Rockefeller Foundation, designed to find out how Americans would react to an enemy invasion. Funny... in a trailer for his mockumentary F is for Fake, Orson Welles did say the WoW broadcast had "secret sponsors". (Daniel Hopsicker)
* A really old one that just won't die: Jews drink the blood and eat the flesh of Gentile children during Passover. Some Catholics still revere the relics of Medieval child saints supposedly slaughtered and devoured by Jews.
* The doomed Franklin Expedition was sent to the Arctic not only to find the Northwest Passage, but to secretly investigate UFO sightings that had been reported since the 1700s. The men were captured, experimented upon, and eaten by giant aliens. (Jeffrey Blair Latta)
* Hitler and some associates escaped to the Arctic in a submarine, to live with super-advanced aliens who reside within the hollow earth. (This story originated with Edward Bulwer-Lytton's novel The Coming Race, was treated as fact by the pre-Nazi Vril Society, was bolstered by the forged "secret diary" of Admiral Byrd, and was adopted by the likes of Ernst Zundel)
* Denver International Airport was built expressly to conceal a vast underground complex, headquarters of the New World Order elite. Clues are hidden in the airport's peace-themed mural.
* Scientology: Billions of years ago the intergalactic overlord Xenu used a film to brainwash our souls ("Thetans") into believing in the world's major religions, which he invented.
* Gnosticism: The entire material world is an evil trap created by the imposter God of the Bible.
* Nation of Islam: White people were created in a lab.
* Jesuits sank the Titanic to kill some of the world's richest, most powerful Jews.
* The early Middle Ages (614-911 A.D.) never occurred. Everything that supposedly happened during those years was either a misunderstanding, an event from a different era, or an outright lie - Charlemagne, for instance, is a fictional figure. And we are actually living in the 1700s. (Herbert Illig's phantom time hypothesis)
* Shortly before he left office, Bill Clinton secretly signed into law the National Economic Security and Reformation Act (NESARA). This act would have completely restructured the U.S. government by - among other things - forgiving all personal credit card debt and mortgages, abolishing the IRS, restoring constitutional law, and somehow ensuring world peace - but the Supreme Court placed a gag order on it, and threatened death to any government official who breathed word of its existence. NESARA activists around the world are agitating to get the act announced and instituted.
* Aspartame, flouride, genetically modified foods, and vaccines are used specifically to keep us sick and open to suggestion, and/or as part of a secret depopulation plan designed by the world's elite.
* Atlanta child murder theories: Victims were used for CDC research into Interferon; KKK Klansmen posed as cops to wipe out young black men (Dick Gregory); white scientists needed the boys' foreskins to produce a cure for cancer and/or a youth serum. (Dick Gregory again)
* Jeffrey Dahmer was an actor hired by the Ambrosia Chocolate company to pose as a cannibal killer so no one would object to the factory being torn down and another one built with illegal tax breaks (posted by "manoftruth" on online forums devoted to Rush and Bon Jovi, along with rants on Wicca and Jews; his name might be Mark Zahn, but who knows?).
* The composer Mozart was a fake, planted by the Paris Masonic Lodge in an effort to undermine confidence in Emperor Joseph II's musical acumen and thus destabilize the regime, making it vulnerable to French conquest; the compositions attributed to him were actually written by several obscure composers who were paid in lethal doses of pure cocaine smuggled in by organ grinders' monkeys. The plot was masterminded by a defrocked priest who claimed to have written several opera librettos before becoming a grocer in New York. (Newman!)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: greg on May 23, 2009, 07:12:04 PM
Post by: greg on May 23, 2009, 07:12:04 PM
Hi, Rob Newman.
My name is Greg.
Oh, a popsicle?
No, thank you, I'm not allowed to talk to strangers.
Okay, bye.
My name is Greg.
Oh, a popsicle?
No, thank you, I'm not allowed to talk to strangers.
Okay, bye.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
Post by: Brian on May 23, 2009, 08:52:38 PM
Quote from: Bahamut on May 23, 2009, 07:12:04 PMMore like:
Hi, Rob Newman.
My name is Greg.
Oh, a popsicle?
No, thank you, I'm not allowed to talk to strangers.
Okay, bye.
Hi, Rob Newman.
My name is Greg.
Oh, my popsicle is a hoax?
No, thank you, I'm not allowed to talk to strangers.
Okay, bye.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: 71 dB on May 23, 2009, 11:48:10 PM
Post by: 71 dB on May 23, 2009, 11:48:10 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 01:35:21 PMThe making of composers with iconic status is sure to result in the suppression and obsuring of other talented composers, as we see over and over again in cases such as Vanhal, Myslivececk, Luchesi, Cartellieri and literally dozens of others.
I do agree with this statement myself. I think composers like Vanhal, Dittersdorf and Hofmann weren't that many steps behind Haydn and Mozart in quality. People may say Haydn's music is more inventive than Vanhal's but personally I find Vanhal's symphonies more energetic. Some random composers shoudn't be chosen as the template for good music. There are many ways to achieve greatness.
I'm not familiar with Cartellieri. Thank you for bringing his name up! These forgotten masters deserve to be re-discovered.
That said, I still believe Haydn and Mozart wrote their own music. You do much better job at promoting obscure composers than discrediting Mozart if I may say so.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Que on May 23, 2009, 11:50:51 PM
Post by: Que on May 23, 2009, 11:50:51 PM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 23, 2009, 11:48:10 PM
You do much better job at promoting obscure composers than discrediting Mozart if I may say so.
Ha!! :) :) Now there is a valuable suggestion. 8)
Q
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 23, 2009, 11:55:55 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 23, 2009, 11:55:55 PM
Yes, I agree with 71dB there too. There is a saying along the lines of....the best is enemy of the good. I think that may well apply to composers who are certainly worth listening out for, but who have been unfortunately overlooked due to the hegemony of the musical giants.
As well as specific works, perhaps folk could suggest specific CDs we could try.
Mike
As well as specific works, perhaps folk could suggest specific CDs we could try.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 24, 2009, 12:07:27 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 24, 2009, 12:07:27 AM
Quote from: knight on May 23, 2009, 11:55:55 PM
Yes, I agree with 71dB there too. There is a saying along the lines of....the best is enemy of the good. I think that may well apply to composers who are certainly worth listening out for, but who have been unfortunately overlooked due to the hegemony of the musical giants.
That applies to all of the arts. Art is a (fluid) meritocracy, not a democracy. By 'fluid' I mean - reputations can always be contested. Although there comes a point with some composers, writers, painters and so on where their greatness has become a fact of life, due to universal admiration. 'Genius' isn't evenly distributed, which may irritate some.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 24, 2009, 12:22:44 AM
Post by: Herman on May 24, 2009, 12:22:44 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 23, 2009, 11:48:10 PM
I do agree with this statement myself. I think composers like Vanhal, Dittersdorf and Hofmann weren't that many steps behind Haydn and Mozart in quality. People may say Haydn's music is more inventive than Vanhal's but personally I find Vanhal's symphonies more energetic. so.
This is one of the great ironies of music history IMO. Mozart's genius only came to full flower in the second half of his career, and even then he wasn't shy of quickly writing some formulaic stuff to make a quick buck. However if you listen to classic FM you'll find that there is still a large audience for the early galant formula Mozart. Undemanding foot-tapping happy-go-lucky and sentimental music. Similarly a lot of people prefer those ra-ta-ta-ta motoric drive Haydn symphonies over his more lyrical and sublime work, for which you don't really need HAydn, since lots of lesser contemporaries churned out the same kind of ra-ta-ta stuff.
Frankly I suspect the author of this thread is one of those people who much prefers the classical formula music as written by any number of composers of the era, and his agenda is to eliminate Mozart achievement as a way to deny tout court there is such a thing as sublimity in classical era music.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: 71 dB on May 24, 2009, 12:45:29 AM
Post by: 71 dB on May 24, 2009, 12:45:29 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 24, 2009, 12:22:44 AMSimilarly a lot of people prefer those ra-ta-ta-ta motoric drive Haydn symphonies over his more lyrical and sublime work
This is offtopic but could you give me examples of ra-ta-ta motoric symphonies and more lyrical and sublime symphonies by Haydn? I am in the HUGE process of getting familiar with those 100+ symphonies so this might help me "organizing" them stylistically in my mind.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 24, 2009, 02:35:39 AM
Post by: Holly on May 24, 2009, 02:35:39 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 23, 2009, 11:01:56 AM
In actual fact, Leopold Mozart was NOT a teacher of composition, harmony or orchestration at any time in his entire life. Why do you invent such nonsense ? Is it for home consumption ? Leopold Mozart was a failed student of philosophy at the University of Salzburg who was falsely attributed with writing a violin treatise in 1756, stolen from an Italian virtoso violinist. He joined the orchestra of Salzburg as 4th Violinist. He was NEVER at any time a teacher of music theory, harmony or orchestration and he was awarded the post of 'Deputy Kapellmeister' without ever serving in that capacity in his entire life. He left Salzburg 4 weeks after receiving this purely honorary award. Which caused great resentment in Salzburg. 3 years later he was still absent from Salzburg.
I do not pretend to be an expert in the biographical details of Leopold Mozart but the following Wiki article presents a more rounded account of his musical skills than the highly skewed version scandalously trotted out above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Mozart
This article refers to Groves dictionary but I don't have that. The Wiki article explains that Leopold began his musical studies while a student at Augsburg, and became a skilled violinist and organist. He began his professional career as a musician in 1740 (age 21), at which time he began composing music. Three years later he was appointed 4th violinist in the Archbishop of Salzburg's Court establishment, and his duties did indeed include composition and the teaching of violin, later piano. In 1758 he was promoted to second violinist in 1758, and in 1760 to Deputy Kapellmeister. The article goes to list numerous works accredited to him by a contemporary.
The main point is that Leopold was clearly far from being the musical buffoon portrayed by Newman. The exact status of Leopold Mozart as a composer and teacher is irrelevant provided he was sufficiently capable of teaching his offspring all they needed to know. There is no reason to believe otherwise given the musical status that Leopold achieved and his own musical legacy. In any event, had W A Mozart been tutored instead by the very best available resources at the time (whoever they may have been), rather than by Leopold, there is no reason to presume that this was neither necessary or sufficient to exploit fully W A Mozart's genius.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 03:43:02 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 03:43:02 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 24, 2009, 02:35:39 AM
I do not pretend to be an expert in the biographical details of Leopold Mozart but the following Wiki article presents a more rounded account of his musical skills than the highly skewed version scandalously trotted out above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Mozart
This article refers to Groves dictionary but I don't have that. The Wiki article explains that Leopold began his musical studies while a student at Augsburg, and became a skilled violinist and organist. He began his professional career as a musician in 1740 (age 21), at which time he began composing music. Three years later he was appointed 4th violinist in the Archbishop of Salzburg's Court establishment, and his duties did indeed include composition and the teaching of violin, later piano. In 1758 he was promoted to second violinist in 1758, and in 1760 to Deputy Kapellmeister. The article goes to list numerous works accredited to him by a contemporary.
The main point is that Leopold was clearly far from being the musical buffoon portrayed by Newman. The exact status of Leopold Mozart as a composer and teacher is irrelevant provided he was sufficiently capable of teaching his offspring all they needed to know. There is no reason to believe otherwise given the musical status that Leopold achieved and his own musical legacy. In any event, had W A Mozart been tutored instead by the very best available resources at the time (whoever they may have been), rather than by Leopold, there is no reason to presume that this was neither necessary or sufficient to exploit fully W A Mozart's genius.
Well, this last post of yours only confirms the truth. Leopold Mozart was a musician of no great talent, who, when Wolfgang was 2 years old, was still a Second Violinist. And who was raised to become a deputy Kapellmeister only as a token gesture, this weeks before they took their first tour. The number of days Leopold Mozart was actively involved at Salzburg as a deputy Kapellmeister was the same number that W.A. Mozart was himself a real 'Kapellmeister' - ZERO. For the Mozart's were on tour for 7 years of Wolfgang's childhood. There is no record whatsoever of Leopold Mozart being a teacher of harmony, orchestration or instrumentation, to anyone. He had joined the Salzburg Hofkapelle in 1743 as a humble 4th violinist, rising to 2nd Violin only 18 whole years later !! I mean, how clear can facts be ?
These are the plain facts of the case. It is also a plain fact 'his' Violin Treatise of 1756 is a much plagiarised version of an unpublished work on violin by the Italian virtuoso violinist Giuseppe Tartini - a fact known all across Europe by anyone who has actually cared to examine the matter.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 24, 2009, 04:05:23 AM
Post by: Holly on May 24, 2009, 04:05:23 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 03:43:02 AM
Well, this last post of yours only confirms the truth. Leopold Mozart was a musician of no great talent, who, when Wolfgang was 2 years old, was still a Second Violinist. And who was raised to become a deputy Kapellmeister only as a token gesture, this weeks before they took their first tour. The number of days Leopold Mozart was actively involved at Salzburg as a deputy Kapellmeister was the same number that W.A. Mozart was himself a real 'Kapellmeister' - ZERO. For the Mozart's were on tour for 7 years of Wolfgang's childhood. There is no record whatsoever of Leopold Mozart being a teacher of harmony, orchestration or instrumentation, to anyone. He had joined the Salzburg Hofkapelle in 1743 as a humble 4th violinist, rising to 2nd Violin only 18 whole years later !! I mean, how clear can facts be ?
These are the plain facts of the case. It is also a plain fact 'his' Violin Treatise of 1756 is a much plagiarised version of an unpublished work on violin by the Italian virtuoso violinist Giuseppe Tartini - a fact known all across Europe by anyone who has actually cared to examine the matter.
Why was it imperative that Mozart's tutor had to be a musician of "great talent", even assuming that Leopold does not fit this description which I do not necessarily accept merely on your say so?
Beethoven's nominal tutor was Luchesi, but can you be sure that Luchesi actually imparted any useful knowledge to LvB, or was it all down to Neefe instead? At any rate, what makes you think that Luchesi was any greater than Leopold as a teacher and composer? And wasn't it the case that W A Mozart was at one time being seriously considered for the post of the Bonn Kapellmeister, rather than Luchesi who sneaked into the job based on some dodgy deal involving his brother-in-law and the Elector?
Quite simply, you have not demonstrated any good reason why W A Mozart could not have developed all the necessary skills with which he is noted on the basis of initial teaching by his father and by later self-development.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: 71 dB on May 24, 2009, 05:00:27 AM
Post by: 71 dB on May 24, 2009, 05:00:27 AM
How about Leopold Mozart's own compositions? If he was able to compose crappy symphonies himself why wouldn't he be able to teach his own son to compose?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: greg on May 24, 2009, 05:08:22 AM
Post by: greg on May 24, 2009, 05:08:22 AM
Quote from: Brian on May 23, 2009, 08:52:38 PM;D
More like:
Hi, Rob Newman.
My name is Greg.
Oh, my popsicle is a hoax?
No, thank you, I'm not allowed to talk to strangers.
Okay, bye.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 05:55:21 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 05:55:21 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 24, 2009, 04:05:23 AM
Why was it imperative that Mozart's tutor had to be a musician of "great talent", even assuming that Leopold does not fit this description which I do not necessarily accept merely on your say so?
Beethoven's nominal tutor was Luchesi, but can you be sure that Luchesi actually imparted any useful knowledge to LvB, or was it all down to Neefe instead? At any rate, what makes you think that Luchesi was any greater than Leopold as a teacher and composer? And wasn't it the case that W A Mozart was at one time being seriously considered for the post of the Bonn Kapellmeister, rather than Luchesi who sneaked into the job based on some dodgy deal involving his brother-in-law and the Elector?
Quite simply, you have not demonstrated any good reason why W A Mozart could not have developed all the necessary skills with which he is noted on the basis of initial teaching by his father and by later self-development.
Well, Holly, which of the two sides of this discussion is dealing in facts, and which is dealing in groundless speculation and flat denial ? I understand you wish to examine this issue only as a staunch defender of the Mozart story. But we already see how this forces you in a position of suppressing the evidence, such as Leopold's very limited abilities, the timeframe under which Wolfgang supposedly studied composition for any concerted period of time during his entire life, the blatant theft/plagiarisation of the Violin Treatise of Tartini, and the plain fact that even in 1770 the surviving entrance exam of Mozart at Bologna is riddled with musical crudities which betray his real ignorance of harmony and voice parts, even at the age of 14. You naturally wish to 'give the benefit of the doubt' to Mozart. But are you being fair on yourself that you surrender the business of presenting evidence and accepting evidence from those who disagree with you for these plain reasons ? It is not, of course, because you are motivated by fairness or objectivity. But because your perspective is that given to you by wearing 'Mozartean spectacles', so to speak. You believe, sincerely, you are serving reality. That what is under attack here is reality itself. When, in fact, all that is happening is a frank exchange of facts. Facts which, without you making huge speculations, indicate very differently from what you suppose. So that if evidence is of any significance it forms little, if any part of your view. And it shows.
You say Beethoven's 'nominal' tutor was Luchesi. Holly, if Luchesi was not the real tutor of Beethoven you are making him the first Kapellmeister in music history who was NOT the tutor of music pupils at a Hofkapelle ! Since the teaching of pupils IS a principal job of a Kapellmeister. But has that too escaped you ? Furthermore, the association of Ch. G Neefe with the education of Beethoven was confined to one single year (1783-4) at which time Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was taking leave for 1 year in Italy. Why then is Neefe portrayed as Beethoven's 'teacher' when, in plain fact, it was Andrea Luchesi who was, for close to 20 years, the Kapellmeister at Bonn ? And how is it, Holly, the name of Luchesi has been so often airbrushed out of Beethoven biography when, in plain fact, he, Luchesi was of immense importance ? Indeed, the very first work said to have been written by Beethoven was made in association with Kapellmeister Luchesi, who is recorded as helping him in a funeral cantata for the Bonn based English diplomat, George Cressner. What sort of editing out of history are you happy with ? No, you hear of Neefe but common sense floats out of the window here on a massively distorted scale.
For your information, Luchesi was invited to become Kapellmeister at Bonn because of his recognised musical abilities. Invited by Count Durazzo, ambassador of Austria in Italy. And a Luchesi who was to transform the wayward reputation of Bonn within a decade of his arrival, the Hofkapelle and its music rising to be rated as the 3rd best in Germany at the time of Luchesi's retirement. This from a position of poor standard due to incompetent leadership under the drunken Beethoven. But of these things you seem blissfully ignorant. Ignorant too that the two cantatas of state today attributed falsely to Beethoven (the cantata on Joseph's death and that on the accession of his successor) were works of state performed at Frankfurt, and not the products of any music school student. Here too common sense has disappeared and you become a consumer not of fact but of airbrushed and almost ludicruous versions of history.
It was Mozart who, in 1782, wrote that he expected to become Kapellmeister at Bonn through his friend the later Elector and brother of the Emperor Joseph 2nd. But Max Franz was unable to keep this promise. And rightly. Since Luchesi was by this time a citizen of Bonn, and had married and lived there. Working in fact for almost 20 years. This fact unrecorded and ignored by German musicology ever since - with few exceptions. What is this but blatant manipulation of 'history'. As for Luchesi himself, well, he too airbrushed out of music history at this hugely critical time in music history. Small wonder that Italian musicians are enraged at this duplicity !
No, it's your understanding which is wrong, since facts themselves have a nasty tendency to remind you. Which you must either come to terms with or continue to ignore by wearing your 'Mozartean spectacles'.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 24, 2009, 06:11:43 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 24, 2009, 06:11:43 AM
Everyone--
Don't you realize that by responding to this crackpot as if his absurd allegations required reasoned refutation you are only lending him the credence he craves? His complete disregard for facts and truth, his rejection of two centuries of Mozart studies by legitimate scholars, and his repeated insistence on the veracity of his crackpot claims, with no support other than his own proclamations, half-truths, innuendo, and outright lies, merits nothing but ridicule. He's like the Michael Moore of Mozart!
Don't you realize that by responding to this crackpot as if his absurd allegations required reasoned refutation you are only lending him the credence he craves? His complete disregard for facts and truth, his rejection of two centuries of Mozart studies by legitimate scholars, and his repeated insistence on the veracity of his crackpot claims, with no support other than his own proclamations, half-truths, innuendo, and outright lies, merits nothing but ridicule. He's like the Michael Moore of Mozart!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on May 24, 2009, 06:13:52 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on May 24, 2009, 06:13:52 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 24, 2009, 06:11:43 AM
Everyone--
Don't you realize that by responding to this crackpot as if his absurd allegations required reasoned refutation you are only lending him the credence he craves?
Just keep in mind that Mr. Newman may have some "multiple personalities" working on GMG, feeding him questions to help him on his smear campaign.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 06:35:40 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 06:35:40 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 24, 2009, 06:13:52 AM
Just keep in mind that Mr. Newman may have some "multiple personalities" working on GMG, feeding him questions to help him on his smear campaign.
Yes, such as, perhaps, ChamberNut right here on this forum ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 06:38:40 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 06:38:40 AM
In reply to Guido's question -
/
ANTONIO CASIMIR CARTELLIERI
To confer iconic status on an revered artist or composer has consequences. One of which, over time, is the inevitable distortion and diminishment of the role of his own contemporaries, another the blurring of social, religious and artistic times in which lived and often a lack of appreciation of the interaction between all of these. The great significance of Mozart's musical contemporaries has tended to be diminished, marginalised, or often turned in to cardboard caricatures or props at the expense of the ever expanding myth of the hero himself and have, in still other cases, been suppressed or ignored altogether. A classic case in point is the life and career of the composer Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807).
This problem of 'hero status' is not easily resolved. In fact, it's not until it's acknowledged to be a problem we are able to see there's something of an inevitability about the effects of hero worship. Far less appreciated is that biographical distortion is a side-effect of this ongoing 'canonisation' process. Especially so in the case of Mozart. Since we are, in Mozart's case, dealing with both biography and also with propaganda constructed to support his iconic status in the decades following his early death in December 1791. We are able to detect an underlying cause of biographical corruption in the constructing of a pantheon of great composers of which Mozart is widely believed to be a member. This being a process, we must agree, which can have strange effects which tend, over time, to play tricks on our ability to appreciate reality itself. Some might call this phenomenon 'the fruits of idolatry'. We might compare it to strange, visual effects on the horizon of hot desert, where a mirage can form, obscuring and visibly distorting the object we have in view, detaching it from its true context, so that, in extreme cases, it appears to float in a haze without context and with little prospect of appreciating from where it came nor its true distance from us, the observer. In the case of music history, the benefits of learning our subject by reference to members of a pantheon of hero composers are real but they may be offset and seriously diminished as a consequence of the existence of a pantheon itself. So the whole notion of 'great composers' can and should be seen as both a solution but also as a real problem.
ANTONIO CASIMIR CARTELLIERI, THE QUINTET KV581 AND THE CONCERTO KV622 - ATTRIBUTED (BY TRADITION) TO W.A. MOZART
That these two great works (KV581 and KV622) should traditionally be attributed to Mozart and have for 200 years been published in his name should be counterbalanced by appreciating that neither were published in his lifetime. Their eventual publication first occurring years after his death. That is, after 1800, when Andre, publisher at Offenbach is said to have first acquired their autographs together with many others - this after protracted negotiations that lasted almost a decade with Mozart's widow, Constanze. This improbable scenario, together with the fact these autographs have long since disappeared (in circumstances which stretch our credulity to breaking point) may be said to be the rough outline of the history of these two great works from a Mozartean perspective. We might add that the average music lover has little, if any, appreciation of works already existing in the same forms (clarinet quintets and clarinet concertos) composed by Mozart's musical contemporaries. Indeed, a hallmark of 'Mozart research' (whatever that means) being the extent to which he and his musical reputation exists within a context which is minimalist in context, consisting of cardboard cutouts to the drama with which we are all familiar in 'Amadeus' - figures who play only an incidental and largely insignificant token appearance in the unfolding Mozart drama. It's possible to note that dozens of talented composers have fallen victim to the rise of this Mozart myth. Amongst them important composers such as J.B. Vanhal, J.C. Bach, J, Myslivececk, A. Luchesi, G. Paisiello, J. Fiala, A. Salieri, Giovanni Paisiello, H.A. Gelinek, Forster, Theresia von Paradis, Viotti, and a whole host of others, all of whom are known to have interacted with Mozart and all able to be proved of considerable importance in creating the music today attributed to him. These are able to provide a little known context within which the subject of these two pieces can be considered. Amongst which I would like to include and briefly present as a candidate for him being their true composer Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807).
In order to do so briefly I'd like first to call to your attention two events that occurred 18 and 19 years after Mozart's death. Events which, at first, you might think have little if any relevance to this question. But which, I hope, will provide much needed context in attempts to resolve this issue of the determining the composer of both these great works. First being the well known dedication associated with published versions of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, the 'Eroica', Op. 55. A work completed (so we are told) around 1803/4. Now, this famous symphony has long been associated by biographers with Napoleon Bonaparte. But the dedication itself dates from almost 5 years after its completion , first appearing in the London edition of the full score in early 1809. A dedication to a fallen hero. A testimony, in fact, to an event which had only recently occurred. Not that of the death of Napoleon. But, rather, the death of little known musical colleague, friend and long time working associate of Beethoven himself, Antonio Casimir Cartellieri.
The second event I'd like to briefly refer to was the first recorded performance given in England in 1810 of 'Mozart's' Clarinet Concerto, this commented on in a London newspaper of the time as being, 'the latest product of that factory of Andre at Offenbach and not, in fact by Mozart at all'.
Now, let it be agreed from the outset that the main composer of both this Quintet and this Concerto were one and the same person. This, stylistically, analytically, seems beyond dispute. Let it further be agreed there exists in Mozart's hand, a short introductory section of this Concerto (a work intended for Basset Horn, but not Clarinet). And let it further be agreed clarinetist Anton Stadler, friend of Mozart, has long been associated with this piece and even with loss of both autographs. (The general belief being that he, Stadler, premiered the work in Prague and elsewhere in Bohemia during the year of its composition, in 1791. (The same Stadler is also generally credited with having participated in the premiere, years earlier, of the Serenade for 13 Woodwinds, KV361). So association of Stadler with both the Quintet and the Clarinet is not disputed. Nor can it be disputed the short Mozart 'sketch' of this Concerto begs an explanation. Just as does a sketch in Mozart's hand of the 'Paris' symphony (KV297) - a sketch to the finale of that piece seen by various researchers as being a late attempt by Mozart to produce a new version near the end of his life, around 1789 - long, long, after its Paris premiere of 1778.
Which brings us to Cartellieri. A boy who (apparently) ran away from home and is first recorded as being a music student of Antonio Salieri, in Vienna ! Writing there a string quartet (which still survives dedicated to him). And who, after a period with Count Oborsky (associated with Mozart's career) eventually comes to Vienna again and, in 1795, had already written major works. A Cartellieri so talented (and yet so almost completely unknown today) who was rated so highly he shared the first concert ever given by Beethoven in the Austrian capital, in 1795. And so phenomenally gifted in the works performed on that single occasion that he was quickly recruited from Oborsky by Prince Lobkowitz, at whose palaces (in Vienna and later in Bohemia) he was to work for the rest of his short life. The composer of concertos (4 alone for clarinet) and symphonies, chamber music and much else, including two remarkable oratorios, one of them performed to general astonishment in Vienna. Again a symphony in C Minor, this years before that of Beethoven, who was to be very closely associated with him from 1795 onwards. The same Lobkowitz who was a patron to Mozart. The same Lobkowitz who for years after Mozart's death staged early performances of 'Mozart' operas at a specially built theatre on his estates in Bohemia. The same Lobkowitz who was patron of the churches in Prague where many of 'Mozart's' church works were stored after Mozart's death. And a Cartellieri who worked on editing and revising music of the Lobkowitz archives for the rest of his own life - the public acclaim going to Beethoven. That the 'Mozart' concerto is in fact an early work of Cartellieri is further indicated by the amazing skill and depth of Cartellieri's music. A sample of which has already been posted here, the early concerto in G Major for Flute. I dare to say that if you were to listen to quartets, sonatas, sextets, concertos and even symphonies of Cartellieri (these amazingly not known for almost 200 years) you would readily agree that Cartellieri was of huge value to one of Mozart's most famous patrons, Prince Lobkowitz. (In fact, it was at the Palace of Lobkowtiz in 1795 where Beethoven and Cartellieri gave their joint concert in Vienna that year). And it was in to the service of Lobkowitz that Cartellieri's son entered in to musical service after the sudden death of his father, in 1807. (Employed as a music librarian and deputy Kapellmeister. The same place as many Mozart manuscripts were stored).
That Cartellieri is the true composer of the Quintet and also the Concerto becomes more and more likely if you listen to his music. That these two works finally appeared in print in 'Mozart's' name only in the first years of the 19th century is, again, indicator of the fact that much work was done on 'Mozart's' music by the likes of Cartellieri before it ever came to first publication, and this posthumously, for Mozart had of course died in 1791. So the decade of 'negotiations' for sale of 'his' manuscripts is little more than an elaborate ruse. For, in this decade 1791-1801 we witnessed the manufacture of dozens, even hundreds of works today falsely attributed to Mozart.
Finally (since this post must be short) the 4 clarinet concertos of Cartellieri (and the many clarinet quartets) have only recently been recorded for the first time. Created in direct response to demand. Add to this the remarkable fact that 'consultant' for Cartellieri's clarinet works was none other than, yes, the very same Anton Stadler. The Anton Stadler associated, as already said with 'Mozart's' Clarinet Concerto and 'Mozart's' Clarinet Quintet.
The full story of these and other works would require a post of far greater length that I have little time to provide. Suffice to say that, in my considered view, the true composer of both works was not W.A. Mozart, by Antonio Casimir Cartellieri, yet another composer whose name and achievements are today virtually unknown, obscured by the Mozart industry and consigned to the dungeons of our appreciation. But which, I hope, you will at least hear some of before forming a judgement on this issue.
Regards
/
ANTONIO CASIMIR CARTELLIERI
To confer iconic status on an revered artist or composer has consequences. One of which, over time, is the inevitable distortion and diminishment of the role of his own contemporaries, another the blurring of social, religious and artistic times in which lived and often a lack of appreciation of the interaction between all of these. The great significance of Mozart's musical contemporaries has tended to be diminished, marginalised, or often turned in to cardboard caricatures or props at the expense of the ever expanding myth of the hero himself and have, in still other cases, been suppressed or ignored altogether. A classic case in point is the life and career of the composer Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807).
This problem of 'hero status' is not easily resolved. In fact, it's not until it's acknowledged to be a problem we are able to see there's something of an inevitability about the effects of hero worship. Far less appreciated is that biographical distortion is a side-effect of this ongoing 'canonisation' process. Especially so in the case of Mozart. Since we are, in Mozart's case, dealing with both biography and also with propaganda constructed to support his iconic status in the decades following his early death in December 1791. We are able to detect an underlying cause of biographical corruption in the constructing of a pantheon of great composers of which Mozart is widely believed to be a member. This being a process, we must agree, which can have strange effects which tend, over time, to play tricks on our ability to appreciate reality itself. Some might call this phenomenon 'the fruits of idolatry'. We might compare it to strange, visual effects on the horizon of hot desert, where a mirage can form, obscuring and visibly distorting the object we have in view, detaching it from its true context, so that, in extreme cases, it appears to float in a haze without context and with little prospect of appreciating from where it came nor its true distance from us, the observer. In the case of music history, the benefits of learning our subject by reference to members of a pantheon of hero composers are real but they may be offset and seriously diminished as a consequence of the existence of a pantheon itself. So the whole notion of 'great composers' can and should be seen as both a solution but also as a real problem.
ANTONIO CASIMIR CARTELLIERI, THE QUINTET KV581 AND THE CONCERTO KV622 - ATTRIBUTED (BY TRADITION) TO W.A. MOZART
That these two great works (KV581 and KV622) should traditionally be attributed to Mozart and have for 200 years been published in his name should be counterbalanced by appreciating that neither were published in his lifetime. Their eventual publication first occurring years after his death. That is, after 1800, when Andre, publisher at Offenbach is said to have first acquired their autographs together with many others - this after protracted negotiations that lasted almost a decade with Mozart's widow, Constanze. This improbable scenario, together with the fact these autographs have long since disappeared (in circumstances which stretch our credulity to breaking point) may be said to be the rough outline of the history of these two great works from a Mozartean perspective. We might add that the average music lover has little, if any, appreciation of works already existing in the same forms (clarinet quintets and clarinet concertos) composed by Mozart's musical contemporaries. Indeed, a hallmark of 'Mozart research' (whatever that means) being the extent to which he and his musical reputation exists within a context which is minimalist in context, consisting of cardboard cutouts to the drama with which we are all familiar in 'Amadeus' - figures who play only an incidental and largely insignificant token appearance in the unfolding Mozart drama. It's possible to note that dozens of talented composers have fallen victim to the rise of this Mozart myth. Amongst them important composers such as J.B. Vanhal, J.C. Bach, J, Myslivececk, A. Luchesi, G. Paisiello, J. Fiala, A. Salieri, Giovanni Paisiello, H.A. Gelinek, Forster, Theresia von Paradis, Viotti, and a whole host of others, all of whom are known to have interacted with Mozart and all able to be proved of considerable importance in creating the music today attributed to him. These are able to provide a little known context within which the subject of these two pieces can be considered. Amongst which I would like to include and briefly present as a candidate for him being their true composer Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807).
In order to do so briefly I'd like first to call to your attention two events that occurred 18 and 19 years after Mozart's death. Events which, at first, you might think have little if any relevance to this question. But which, I hope, will provide much needed context in attempts to resolve this issue of the determining the composer of both these great works. First being the well known dedication associated with published versions of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, the 'Eroica', Op. 55. A work completed (so we are told) around 1803/4. Now, this famous symphony has long been associated by biographers with Napoleon Bonaparte. But the dedication itself dates from almost 5 years after its completion , first appearing in the London edition of the full score in early 1809. A dedication to a fallen hero. A testimony, in fact, to an event which had only recently occurred. Not that of the death of Napoleon. But, rather, the death of little known musical colleague, friend and long time working associate of Beethoven himself, Antonio Casimir Cartellieri.
The second event I'd like to briefly refer to was the first recorded performance given in England in 1810 of 'Mozart's' Clarinet Concerto, this commented on in a London newspaper of the time as being, 'the latest product of that factory of Andre at Offenbach and not, in fact by Mozart at all'.
Now, let it be agreed from the outset that the main composer of both this Quintet and this Concerto were one and the same person. This, stylistically, analytically, seems beyond dispute. Let it further be agreed there exists in Mozart's hand, a short introductory section of this Concerto (a work intended for Basset Horn, but not Clarinet). And let it further be agreed clarinetist Anton Stadler, friend of Mozart, has long been associated with this piece and even with loss of both autographs. (The general belief being that he, Stadler, premiered the work in Prague and elsewhere in Bohemia during the year of its composition, in 1791. (The same Stadler is also generally credited with having participated in the premiere, years earlier, of the Serenade for 13 Woodwinds, KV361). So association of Stadler with both the Quintet and the Clarinet is not disputed. Nor can it be disputed the short Mozart 'sketch' of this Concerto begs an explanation. Just as does a sketch in Mozart's hand of the 'Paris' symphony (KV297) - a sketch to the finale of that piece seen by various researchers as being a late attempt by Mozart to produce a new version near the end of his life, around 1789 - long, long, after its Paris premiere of 1778.
Which brings us to Cartellieri. A boy who (apparently) ran away from home and is first recorded as being a music student of Antonio Salieri, in Vienna ! Writing there a string quartet (which still survives dedicated to him). And who, after a period with Count Oborsky (associated with Mozart's career) eventually comes to Vienna again and, in 1795, had already written major works. A Cartellieri so talented (and yet so almost completely unknown today) who was rated so highly he shared the first concert ever given by Beethoven in the Austrian capital, in 1795. And so phenomenally gifted in the works performed on that single occasion that he was quickly recruited from Oborsky by Prince Lobkowitz, at whose palaces (in Vienna and later in Bohemia) he was to work for the rest of his short life. The composer of concertos (4 alone for clarinet) and symphonies, chamber music and much else, including two remarkable oratorios, one of them performed to general astonishment in Vienna. Again a symphony in C Minor, this years before that of Beethoven, who was to be very closely associated with him from 1795 onwards. The same Lobkowitz who was a patron to Mozart. The same Lobkowitz who for years after Mozart's death staged early performances of 'Mozart' operas at a specially built theatre on his estates in Bohemia. The same Lobkowitz who was patron of the churches in Prague where many of 'Mozart's' church works were stored after Mozart's death. And a Cartellieri who worked on editing and revising music of the Lobkowitz archives for the rest of his own life - the public acclaim going to Beethoven. That the 'Mozart' concerto is in fact an early work of Cartellieri is further indicated by the amazing skill and depth of Cartellieri's music. A sample of which has already been posted here, the early concerto in G Major for Flute. I dare to say that if you were to listen to quartets, sonatas, sextets, concertos and even symphonies of Cartellieri (these amazingly not known for almost 200 years) you would readily agree that Cartellieri was of huge value to one of Mozart's most famous patrons, Prince Lobkowitz. (In fact, it was at the Palace of Lobkowtiz in 1795 where Beethoven and Cartellieri gave their joint concert in Vienna that year). And it was in to the service of Lobkowitz that Cartellieri's son entered in to musical service after the sudden death of his father, in 1807. (Employed as a music librarian and deputy Kapellmeister. The same place as many Mozart manuscripts were stored).
That Cartellieri is the true composer of the Quintet and also the Concerto becomes more and more likely if you listen to his music. That these two works finally appeared in print in 'Mozart's' name only in the first years of the 19th century is, again, indicator of the fact that much work was done on 'Mozart's' music by the likes of Cartellieri before it ever came to first publication, and this posthumously, for Mozart had of course died in 1791. So the decade of 'negotiations' for sale of 'his' manuscripts is little more than an elaborate ruse. For, in this decade 1791-1801 we witnessed the manufacture of dozens, even hundreds of works today falsely attributed to Mozart.
Finally (since this post must be short) the 4 clarinet concertos of Cartellieri (and the many clarinet quartets) have only recently been recorded for the first time. Created in direct response to demand. Add to this the remarkable fact that 'consultant' for Cartellieri's clarinet works was none other than, yes, the very same Anton Stadler. The Anton Stadler associated, as already said with 'Mozart's' Clarinet Concerto and 'Mozart's' Clarinet Quintet.
The full story of these and other works would require a post of far greater length that I have little time to provide. Suffice to say that, in my considered view, the true composer of both works was not W.A. Mozart, by Antonio Casimir Cartellieri, yet another composer whose name and achievements are today virtually unknown, obscured by the Mozart industry and consigned to the dungeons of our appreciation. But which, I hope, you will at least hear some of before forming a judgement on this issue.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 06:58:44 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 06:58:44 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 24, 2009, 06:11:43 AM
Everyone--
Don't you realize that by responding to this crackpot as if his absurd allegations required reasoned refutation you are only lending him the credence he craves? His complete disregard for facts and truth, his rejection of two centuries of Mozart studies by legitimate scholars, and his repeated insistence on the veracity of his crackpot claims, with no support other than his own proclamations, half-truths, innuendo, and outright lies, merits nothing but ridicule. He's like the Michael Moore of Mozart!
Well, thank you David Ross. We look forward to your crackpot reply to this subject. Or, even better, none at all ! :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 24, 2009, 07:33:06 AM
Post by: Holly on May 24, 2009, 07:33:06 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 05:55:21 AM
You say Beethoven's 'nominal' tutor was Luchesi. Holly, if Luchesi was not the real tutor of Beethoven you are making him the first Kapellmeister in music history who was NOT the tutor of music pupils at a Hofkapelle ! Since the teaching of pupils IS a principal job of a Kapellmeister. But has that too escaped you ? Furthermore, the association of Ch. G Neefe with the education of Beethoven was confined to one single year (1783-4) at which time Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was taking leave for 1 year in Italy. Why then is Neefe portrayed as Beethoven's 'teacher' when, in plain fact, it was Andrea Luchesi who was, for close to 20 years, the Kapellmeister at Bonn ? And how is it, Holly, the name of Luchesi has been so often airbrushed out of Beethoven biography when, in plain fact, he, Luchesi was of immense importance ? Indeed, the very first work said to have been written by Beethoven was made in association with Kapellmeister Luchesi, who is recorded as helping him in a funeral cantata for the Bonn based English diplomat, George Cressner. What sort of editing out of history are you happy with ? No, you hear of Neefe but common sense floats out of the window here on a massively distorted scale.
Can you point to any concrete evidence that LvB was actually taught anything by Luchesi? It's not good enough merely to assume it, as you do. As far as I know, Beethoven never referred to him in correspondence or in any notes or other material. At least Beethoven said that he never learned anything from Haydn. Maybe he thought that Luchesi was such a useless composer that it wasn't worth commenting on him. If you cannot conjure up any hard material to show a connection perhaps you could tell us about any traits of Luchesi's musical style that LvB emulated in his music. You ought to be able to do this if your thesis is correct that great composers can only result from having benefitted from an education provided by great tutors.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 07:46:43 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 07:46:43 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 24, 2009, 07:33:06 AM
Can you point to any concrete evidence that LvB was actually taught anything by Luchesi? It's not good enough merely to assume it, as you do. As far as I know, Beethoven never referred to him in correspondence or in any notes or other material. At least Beethoven said that he never learned anything from Haydn. Maybe he thought that Luchesi was such a useless composer that it wasn't worth commenting on him. If you cannot conjure up any hard material to show a connection perhaps you could tell us about any traits of Luchesi's musical style that LvB emulated in his music. You ought to be able to do this if your thesis is correct that great composers can only result from having benefitted from an education provided by great tutors.
I can point to concrete evidence by the truck load that what we are traditionally taught of the 'holy trinity' of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven is riddled with errors, examples of suppression, and the wholesale omission of Italian, French and Bohemian composers in the creation of their status. But in answer to your specific question, yes, for in 1772 was publication at Bonn of sonatas by Luchesi, the contents of which clearly and indisputably anticipate 'Beethoven's style' by well over a decade. I can point you to many, many Italianate works of Beethoven from the Bonn period which were learned by Beethoven during his time at Bonn. And I can of course appeal to common sense. I can also point you to the destruction of many of Beethoven's Conversation Books, this shortly after his death, which has left us with a void, biographically, in many aspects of Beethoven's early life, and which only slowly have German, Italian and other researchers been filling in recent decades. Why, the subject may even be of interest to you (?). In which case I can refer you to the archives of Bonn library, to the remnants of the Bonn Hofkapelle archives at the Estense Library in Modena, and to the documented achievements of Luchesi at Bonn Hofkappelle and (later) at the German National Theatre in Bonn, this founded in the last years of Luchesi's life there in that same city. To indicate that Luchesi was not the principle music teacher of Beethoven is so silly that it's only rivalled by the nonsense that it was Ch. G. Neefe - a blatant lie found in textbook after textbook.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 24, 2009, 07:49:45 AM
Post by: Herman on May 24, 2009, 07:49:45 AM
Not a scintilla of evidence. Just as I predicted: Mr Newmna thinks Cartilieri is really cool, much cooler than Mozart, and so some of Mozart's coolest works just have to be by Cartelierri.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 07:53:40 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 07:53:40 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 24, 2009, 07:49:45 AM
Not a scintilla of evidence. Just as I predicted: Mr Newmna thinks Cartilieri is really cool, much cooler than Mozart, and so some of Mozart's coolest works just have to be by Cartelierri.
The crystal clear relationship between Lobkowitz and Mozart, between Lobkowitz and Cartellieri, between Cartellieri and clarinet concertos/chamber music, between the known posthumous work on 'Mozart' works by Lobkowitz, and by the very contents of Cartellieri's music (much of it totally unknown to you) are of course clear evidence that evidence is not something in which you are remotely interested, it seems. To say nothing of Anton Stadler. No, of course, let's ignore it all. LOL !!
Was there ever a generation of musical 'couch potatoes' like this one ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 24, 2009, 07:59:13 AM
Post by: Herman on May 24, 2009, 07:59:13 AM
My dear fellow, again you have some data, but no sense of history. Of course all these people knew each other, did (music) business together. Look a little further and there are dozens other people in that socio-artistic web. It was a small world. Your data however give no indication there was something sinister going on. Actually your little piece gives every indication the clarinet cto and quartet were written by Mozart - the Stadtler business. The fact that countless other composers also wrote clarinet pieces doesn't mean they also wrote Mozart's cto. It just means the clarinet (or it's near predecessor) was a hot instrument at the time.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 24, 2009, 08:04:01 AM
Post by: Brian on May 24, 2009, 08:04:01 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 24, 2009, 12:22:44 AMThis reminds me of a quotation from Hurwitz:
This is one of the great ironies of music history IMO. Mozart's genius only came to full flower in the second half of his career, and even then he wasn't shy of quickly writing some formulaic stuff to make a quick buck. However if you listen to classic FM you'll find that there is still a large audience for the early galant formula Mozart. Undemanding foot-tapping happy-go-lucky and sentimental music. Similarly a lot of people prefer those ra-ta-ta-ta motoric drive Haydn symphonies over his more lyrical and sublime work, for which you don't really need HAydn, since lots of lesser contemporaries churned out the same kind of ra-ta-ta stuff.
"The classical period was one of those moments in history where the style itself was so powerful that composers of relatively modest ability, with a little luck and a few good ideas, could write some outstanding music."
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 08:06:21 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 08:06:21 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 24, 2009, 07:59:13 AM
My dear fellow, again you have some data, but no sense of history. Of course all these people knew each other, did (music) business together. Look a little further and there are dozens other people in that socio-artistic web. It was a small world. Your data however give no indication there was something sinister going on. Actually your little piece gives every indication the clarinet cto and quartet were written by Mozart - the Stadtler business. The fact that countless other composers also wrote clarinet pieces doesn't mean they also wrote Mozart's cto. It just means the clarinet (or it's near predecessor) was a hot instrument at the time.
Well, in that case read my book. Since the making of posts on any subject begs an understanding of the true context of Mozart's career, the scale of exaggeration and false attribution which have always featured in it. The documented procurement (even by Mozart's widow) of works to be published in Mozart's name, the case of composers such as Anton Eberl (who twice publicly protested at works appearing in Mozart's name of his own), the affair of the Requiem, the falsification of the story that Figaro was a work by Mozart (when, in fact, it was merely a botched arrangement of a work already existing in German), and countless other examples, only some of which are reflected in the embarrasing and successive versions of the Koechel catalogue. The fact that virtually no symphony of 'Mozart's' prior to 1771 shows any sign of being attributable to Mozart. And so on. This is a catalogue of lies, deceipt and falsification, pawned off to the gullible for 200 years and today dominating the 'Easter Island' of icons, of which Mozart is one. This for control of musicology and of music 'education', so-called.
Which I make no apology in drawing the attention of music lovers to.
Anyway, thanks for reading and for allowing me to post on this here.
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 24, 2009, 09:59:52 AM
Post by: Herman on May 24, 2009, 09:59:52 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 08:06:21 AM
Well, in that case read my book.
It doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 10:06:13 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 10:06:13 AM
Herman,
If you had bothered to read this thread you would have known that it will be finished in September. By which time you may be able to read this thread, and the book !
Right ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 24, 2009, 10:14:04 AM
Post by: knight66 on May 24, 2009, 10:14:04 AM
Well, I have read the 'proof' quite carefully and what it amounts to is that all these composers knew one another, they all sat round the dinner table and Mozart proceeded to steal all the food from their plates. None of them said a word about it. They just starved in silence.
Proximity and the equivalent of brushing past people on the stairs does not amount to some kind of conspiracy.
Let's be referred to the material these lesser known people wrote, that has been recorded, and expand our enjoyment without all the Dan Brown trails of false clues.
Finally, do please stop claiming that we all 'know' or 'acknowledge' as facts aspects of your arguments. This is like trying to subliminally implant an idea as a fact; something that though you argue against it, it is your technique of choice.
Mike
Proximity and the equivalent of brushing past people on the stairs does not amount to some kind of conspiracy.
Let's be referred to the material these lesser known people wrote, that has been recorded, and expand our enjoyment without all the Dan Brown trails of false clues.
Finally, do please stop claiming that we all 'know' or 'acknowledge' as facts aspects of your arguments. This is like trying to subliminally implant an idea as a fact; something that though you argue against it, it is your technique of choice.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: drogulus on May 24, 2009, 10:26:12 AM
Post by: drogulus on May 24, 2009, 10:26:12 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 08:06:21 AM
Well, in that case read my book.
Thanks, but I'll pass.
You'd be amazed at the weird things that turn up on the Web when you try to figure out who people are or why it's so hard to find out.
Yow!! Is this guy pretending to be you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/mkbPjean9aA
Then there's this fellow who also thinks he's Rob Newman:
No Planet B - Part Eight
or, The History of the World Backwards
July 2006
The Anti-Social Movement
A gathering swell of anti-sociability breaks over Britian from the late 1800's to the early 1700's and beyond.
Everybody blames each other for the rise in illness, the shorter lives and why it all went wrong. People leave the cities after arguing with neighbours and go and live in isolated cottages.
But most representative of the AntiSocial Movement is that people are now deliberately affecting or inventing an unintelligible local dialect, so as to discourage conversation and enquiry. Not only do people in different areas have different accents but in the same street.
'Peter, old man, what's going on? You didn't talk like this yesterday.'
''Appen I did, 'appen I's dusna. Ret recky tae ken. Bahoobe! And I'll thank 'ee to caw me Gallamumphrey for now on.'
Crime
Rough Music
'Why are we still devoting huge amounts of resources to ID theft and computer fraud,' asks a Constable Of the Peace, 'when nowadays the crimes people are really concerned about are cony-catchers, bully-cocks and flimpers? They are worried by organised crime on the coaches in the form of bung-nippers rolling the leer, not to mention queer-bit makers with their fletches, queer-cole and fleet notes. It's all a result of technology die-off. What were once high-street spy-cameras are now maypoles.
Samuel Johnson laments decline of the English language
Sir, the English language is in decline. Allow me to quote you a transcript of a conversation from the twenty-first century. People then would think nothing of using as many as twenty similies in a single sentence:
'I was like getting off the bus and he was like on the pavement and I was like 'is he blanking me?' cos if he is that's like 'oh my days!'
1764 Opera
Mozart gives a press conference at which he declares that his new opera will stay true to the key operatic principles: nostalgia for British rock acts of the 1980s! The grand opening of Mozart's new opera is held at La Scala, Milan. In 1764 the curtain rises for the first time on Don Giovanni or Rip It Up And Start Again - Featuring the Music of Orange Juice.
LIGHTS: THEATRICAL
IL COMMENDATORE:
Don Giovanni, a cenar teco
M'invitasti, e son venuto!
DON GIOVANNI:
When I first saw you, something stirred within me,
You were standing sultry in the rain.
If I could have hed you I would have held you,
Rip it up and start again!
Rip it up and start again!
Rip it up and start again!
Source: http://www.robnewman.com/history8.html
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 24, 2009, 10:27:32 AM
Post by: Holly on May 24, 2009, 10:27:32 AM
Quote from: knight on May 24, 2009, 10:14:04 AM
Well, I have read the 'proof' quite carefully and what it amounts to is that all these composers knew one another, they all sat round the dinner table and Mozart proceeded to steal all the food from their plates. None of them said a word about it. They just starved in silence.
It always come back to the same basic questions: why did these various alleged suppliers of music to Mozart agree to do such a thing in the first place, and what documentary evidence exists to show any actual payments made by Mozart or received by any of the supplying composers? So far as I know, Newman has never been able to answer either of these questions. He doesn't have any evidence whatsoever about payments made/received, and the best he has ever come up with as to a motive is that the whole plot was inspired and orchestrated by a bunch of dodgy Jesuits, who possibly threatened hell and damnation to any would-be composer who failed to oblige with a nice piece of work on a gratis basis. That's the best one ever gets. Not credible is it?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 10:42:05 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 10:42:05 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 24, 2009, 10:27:32 AM
It always come back to the same basic questions: why did these various alleged suppliers of music to Mozart agree to do such a thing in the first place, and what documentary evidence exists to show any actual payments made by Mozart or received by any of the supplying composers? So far as I know, Newman has never been able to answer either of these questions. He doesn't have any evidence whatsoever about payments made/received, and the best he has ever come up with as to a motive is that the whole plot was inspired and orchestrated by a bunch of dodgy Jesuits, who possibly threatened hell and damnation to any would-be composer who failed to oblige with a nice piece of work on a gratis basis. That's the best one ever gets. Not credible is it?
It always comes back to the same basic answers. That regardless of how many inconsistencies may be shown to exist in the Mozart fairytale there are always people who simply can't see the wood for the trees. From childhood onwards the holes in the story are so massive, so consistent, so completely at odds with documented reality we can only regret there are people who still believe this stuff. Look, there is not a shred of evidence Mozart composed ANY of the symphonies said to be his before he was 17 years old. None. There is instead a massive amount of evidence he did not. There is again no evidence he wrote the first 7 'Mozart' piano concertos. Because he did NOT. There is NO evidence he even studied music theory, harmony, orchestration and the necessary fundamentals of music, even by the time he was in Italy at the age of 14. When, when, when, will DOCUMENTARY FACTS finally register with you ? And if you still can't accept these plainest facts, from documentary evidence, what hope is there for you to learn anything ? The Mozart story is a story of collusion, of the fraternal manufacture of a Musical Superman, and so riddled with exaggerations and false attributions that only kids actually believe the stuff. The average music professor has never actually studied the subject. He reads textbooks based on other textbooks. He allows the multi million dollar 'industry' to con you. And this is just as true of music history as it is of politics, finance, banking and any other area of human activity. That's the fact. The net result of which is a dumbed down group of people who know less of music and its history than does the average rock and roll enthusiast. Witness the attitude to examining these issues ! We are not here examining a 'genius' but one of the most relentless and ruthless frauds in the entire history of music. A fraud which continued well beyond his childhood and youth. In to his mature Vienna period. And even for years after his death. Aided and abetted by an entire group of composers whose life and careers are virtually unknown to you until your own critics bring the details of them to you in bite sized chunks - for years, and years and years ! Your candyfloss image of Mozart, 'musical genius' is nothing more than an early exercise in corporate fraud in the cultural realm, sustained until today, by the tourist industry, the chocolate industry, the movie industry and by those who are not only ignorant but the very cause of ignorance.
People do things for different motivations. Some for money. Others for prestige. Others out of warped philosophical or religious convictions. Still others out of a sense of duty and sacrifice to others. But in the case of Mozart the exploitation began with the very person you adore and who you seem unable to criticise in any sensible way, W.A. Mozart.
Thanks for the time
R.E. Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 24, 2009, 11:08:19 AM
Post by: Holly on May 24, 2009, 11:08:19 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 10:42:05 AM
The average music professor has never actually studied the subject. He reads textbooks based on other textbooks. He allows the multi million dollar 'industry' to con you. And this is just as true of music history as it is of politics, finance, banking and any other area of human activity. That's the fact.
I thought I would highlight the second of the two sentences above in case people are so bored reading your long-winded replies that they missed this nugget. You reckon that the general public is just as misinformed about politics, finance, banking and any other area of human activity as it is about Mozart? Your condition is worse than I feared.
All this further repetition of your main allegations apart, when are you going to provide some convincing information as to motive, and evidence of payments made? Please tell us why the various composers agreed to writing music for Mozart and Haydn to pass of as theirs. It's no good simply saying there were various reasons. What were these reasons exactly, composer by composer? And tell us if it was all done free of charge, or if you don't know the answer kindly tell us so.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 24, 2009, 11:19:22 AM
Post by: Guido on May 24, 2009, 11:19:22 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 06:38:40 AM
In reply to Guido's question -
/
ANTONIO CASIMIR CARTELLIERI
To confer iconic status on an revered artist or composer has consequences. One of which, over time, is the inevitable distortion and diminishment of the role of his own contemporaries, another the blurring of social, religious and artistic times in which lived and often a lack of appreciation of the interaction between all of these. The great significance of Mozart's musical contemporaries has tended to be diminished, marginalised, or often turned in to cardboard caricatures or props at the expense of the ever expanding myth of the hero himself and have, in still other cases, been suppressed or ignored altogether. A classic case in point is the life and career of the composer Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807).
This problem of 'hero status' is not easily resolved. In fact, it's not until it's acknowledged to be a problem we are able to see there's something of an inevitability about the effects of hero worship. Far less appreciated is that biographical distortion is a side-effect of this ongoing 'canonisation' process. Especially so in the case of Mozart. Since we are, in Mozart's case, dealing with both biography and also with propaganda constructed to support his iconic status in the decades following his early death in December 1791. We are able to detect an underlying cause of biographical corruption in the constructing of a pantheon of great composers of which Mozart is widely believed to be a member. This being a process, we must agree, which can have strange effects which tend, over time, to play tricks on our ability to appreciate reality itself. Some might call this phenomenon 'the fruits of idolatry'. We might compare it to strange, visual effects on the horizon of hot desert, where a mirage can form, obscuring and visibly distorting the object we have in view, detaching it from its true context, so that, in extreme cases, it appears to float in a haze without context and with little prospect of appreciating from where it came nor its true distance from us, the observer. In the case of music history, the benefits of learning our subject by reference to members of a pantheon of hero composers are real but they may be offset and seriously diminished as a consequence of the existence of a pantheon itself. So the whole notion of 'great composers' can and should be seen as both a solution but also as a real problem.
ANTONIO CASIMIR CARTELLIERI, THE QUINTET KV581 AND THE CONCERTO KV622 - ATTRIBUTED (BY TRADITION) TO W.A. MOZART
That these two great works (KV581 and KV622) should traditionally be attributed to Mozart and have for 200 years been published in his name should be counterbalanced by appreciating that neither were published in his lifetime. Their eventual publication first occurring years after his death. That is, after 1800, when Andre, publisher at Offenbach is said to have first acquired their autographs together with many others - this after protracted negotiations that lasted almost a decade with Mozart's widow, Constanze. This improbable scenario, together with the fact these autographs have long since disappeared (in circumstances which stretch our credulity to breaking point) may be said to be the rough outline of the history of these two great works from a Mozartean perspective. We might add that the average music lover has little, if any, appreciation of works already existing in the same forms (clarinet quintets and clarinet concertos) composed by Mozart's musical contemporaries. Indeed, a hallmark of 'Mozart research' (whatever that means) being the extent to which he and his musical reputation exists within a context which is minimalist in context, consisting of cardboard cutouts to the drama with which we are all familiar in 'Amadeus' - figures who play only an incidental and largely insignificant token appearance in the unfolding Mozart drama. It's possible to note that dozens of talented composers have fallen victim to the rise of this Mozart myth. Amongst them important composers such as J.B. Vanhal, J.C. Bach, J, Myslivececk, A. Luchesi, G. Paisiello, J. Fiala, A. Salieri, Giovanni Paisiello, H.A. Gelinek, Forster, Theresia von Paradis, Viotti, and a whole host of others, all of whom are known to have interacted with Mozart and all able to be proved of considerable importance in creating the music today attributed to him. These are able to provide a little known context within which the subject of these two pieces can be considered. Amongst which I would like to include and briefly present as a candidate for him being their true composer Antonio Casimir Cartellieri (1772-1807).
In order to do so briefly I'd like first to call to your attention two events that occurred 18 and 19 years after Mozart's death. Events which, at first, you might think have little if any relevance to this question. But which, I hope, will provide much needed context in attempts to resolve this issue of the determining the composer of both these great works. First being the well known dedication associated with published versions of Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, the 'Eroica', Op. 55. A work completed (so we are told) around 1803/4. Now, this famous symphony has long been associated by biographers with Napoleon Bonaparte. But the dedication itself dates from almost 5 years after its completion , first appearing in the London edition of the full score in early 1809. A dedication to a fallen hero. A testimony, in fact, to an event which had only recently occurred. Not that of the death of Napoleon. But, rather, the death of little known musical colleague, friend and long time working associate of Beethoven himself, Antonio Casimir Cartellieri.
The second event I'd like to briefly refer to was the first recorded performance given in England in 1810 of 'Mozart's' Clarinet Concerto, this commented on in a London newspaper of the time as being, 'the latest product of that factory of Andre at Offenbach and not, in fact by Mozart at all'.
Now, let it be agreed from the outset that the main composer of both this Quintet and this Concerto were one and the same person. This, stylistically, analytically, seems beyond dispute. Let it further be agreed there exists in Mozart's hand, a short introductory section of this Concerto (a work intended for Basset Horn, but not Clarinet). And let it further be agreed clarinetist Anton Stadler, friend of Mozart, has long been associated with this piece and even with loss of both autographs. (The general belief being that he, Stadler, premiered the work in Prague and elsewhere in Bohemia during the year of its composition, in 1791. (The same Stadler is also generally credited with having participated in the premiere, years earlier, of the Serenade for 13 Woodwinds, KV361). So association of Stadler with both the Quintet and the Clarinet is not disputed. Nor can it be disputed the short Mozart 'sketch' of this Concerto begs an explanation. Just as does a sketch in Mozart's hand of the 'Paris' symphony (KV297) - a sketch to the finale of that piece seen by various researchers as being a late attempt by Mozart to produce a new version near the end of his life, around 1789 - long, long, after its Paris premiere of 1778.
Which brings us to Cartellieri. A boy who (apparently) ran away from home and is first recorded as being a music student of Antonio Salieri, in Vienna ! Writing there a string quartet (which still survives dedicated to him). And who, after a period with Count Oborsky (associated with Mozart's career) eventually comes to Vienna again and, in 1795, had already written major works. A Cartellieri so talented (and yet so almost completely unknown today) who was rated so highly he shared the first concert ever given by Beethoven in the Austrian capital, in 1795. And so phenomenally gifted in the works performed on that single occasion that he was quickly recruited from Oborsky by Prince Lobkowitz, at whose palaces (in Vienna and later in Bohemia) he was to work for the rest of his short life. The composer of concertos (4 alone for clarinet) and symphonies, chamber music and much else, including two remarkable oratorios, one of them performed to general astonishment in Vienna. Again a symphony in C Minor, this years before that of Beethoven, who was to be very closely associated with him from 1795 onwards. The same Lobkowitz who was a patron to Mozart. The same Lobkowitz who for years after Mozart's death staged early performances of 'Mozart' operas at a specially built theatre on his estates in Bohemia. The same Lobkowitz who was patron of the churches in Prague where many of 'Mozart's' church works were stored after Mozart's death. And a Cartellieri who worked on editing and revising music of the Lobkowitz archives for the rest of his own life - the public acclaim going to Beethoven. That the 'Mozart' concerto is in fact an early work of Cartellieri is further indicated by the amazing skill and depth of Cartellieri's music. A sample of which has already been posted here, the early concerto in G Major for Flute. I dare to say that if you were to listen to quartets, sonatas, sextets, concertos and even symphonies of Cartellieri (these amazingly not known for almost 200 years) you would readily agree that Cartellieri was of huge value to one of Mozart's most famous patrons, Prince Lobkowitz. (In fact, it was at the Palace of Lobkowtiz in 1795 where Beethoven and Cartellieri gave their joint concert in Vienna that year). And it was in to the service of Lobkowitz that Cartellieri's son entered in to musical service after the sudden death of his father, in 1807. (Employed as a music librarian and deputy Kapellmeister. The same place as many Mozart manuscripts were stored).
That Cartellieri is the true composer of the Quintet and also the Concerto becomes more and more likely if you listen to his music. That these two works finally appeared in print in 'Mozart's' name only in the first years of the 19th century is, again, indicator of the fact that much work was done on 'Mozart's' music by the likes of Cartellieri before it ever came to first publication, and this posthumously, for Mozart had of course died in 1791. So the decade of 'negotiations' for sale of 'his' manuscripts is little more than an elaborate ruse. For, in this decade 1791-1801 we witnessed the manufacture of dozens, even hundreds of works today falsely attributed to Mozart.
Finally (since this post must be short) the 4 clarinet concertos of Cartellieri (and the many clarinet quartets) have only recently been recorded for the first time. Created in direct response to demand. Add to this the remarkable fact that 'consultant' for Cartellieri's clarinet works was none other than, yes, the very same Anton Stadler. The Anton Stadler associated, as already said with 'Mozart's' Clarinet Concerto and 'Mozart's' Clarinet Quintet.
The full story of these and other works would require a post of far greater length that I have little time to provide. Suffice to say that, in my considered view, the true composer of both works was not W.A. Mozart, by Antonio Casimir Cartellieri, yet another composer whose name and achievements are today virtually unknown, obscured by the Mozart industry and consigned to the dungeons of our appreciation. But which, I hope, you will at least hear some of before forming a judgement on this issue.
Regards
I'm astonished. I know it's taken you a long time to type this out, but is this it? This isn't even circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely nothing about what you have presented here that looks sinister.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 24, 2009, 11:29:21 AM
Post by: Holly on May 24, 2009, 11:29:21 AM
Quote from: Guido on May 24, 2009, 11:19:22 AM
I'm astonished. I know it's taken you a long time to type this out, but is this it? This isn't even circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely nothing about what you have presented here that looks sinister.
I wish I could say the same. Why do you think he has such a bad reputation for peddling nonsense? I have seen the same thing almost exactly several times previously, and know all his tricks and more or less exactly what to expect when he is asked questions. In fact he has been slightly better here than on previous "outings" elsewhere where he usually resorts to asking the questioner to justify their belief in Mozart. The only way to deal with him is to keep plugging away at the same question, and when things get very difficult that's when to expect assistance from a "white knight" who sudenly turns up out of the blue to lend support.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 24, 2009, 11:36:17 AM
Post by: Guido on May 24, 2009, 11:36:17 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 24, 2009, 11:29:21 AM
I wish I could say the same. Why do you think he has such a bad reputation for peddling nonsense? I have seen the same thing almost exactly several times previously, and know all his tricks and more or less exactly what to expect when he is asked questions. In fact he has been slightly better here than on previous "outings" elsewhere where he usually resorts to asking the questioner to justify their belief in Mozart. The only way to deal with him is to keep plugging away at the same question, and when things get very difficult that's when to expect assistance from a "white knight" who sudenly turns up out of the blue to lend support.
Oh no, you misunderstand me. I was talking about his evidence that Mozart's clarinet works were not in fact written by him.
There's not much to fear if this is the worst he can do!!! Sort of comically bad evidence!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 24, 2009, 11:37:36 AM
Post by: Guido on May 24, 2009, 11:37:36 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 24, 2009, 11:29:21 AM
The only way to deal with him is to keep plugging away at the same question, and when things get very difficult that's when to expect assistance from a "white knight" who sudenly turns up out of the blue to lend support.
Why bother?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 11:45:38 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 11:45:38 AM
Quote from: Guido on May 24, 2009, 11:19:22 AM
I'm astonished. I know it's taken you a long time to type this out, but is this it? This isn't even circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely nothing about what you have presented here that looks sinister.
OK, so it has to look 'sinister' before you accept it, right ? What exactly do you want ?
Before I posted this article (perhaps you forget ?) you were asked if you had actually listened to any clarinet music from the time of Mozart. You spoke vaguely about having heard some. But no details were provided of whose music you had actually heard. I assume this has not changed since last evening. Which means, I believe, you cannot tell us anything about this subject, other than the belief that you have heard some - by composers unknown to you. This is your own state of knowledge on this issue.
And now, because I have not presented any 'sinister' information, it's not accepted by you. The fact that you didn't even know of Cartellieri seems to have been, well, completely ignored by you.
Let me leave it here - I think it's fair to say your lack of any knowledge, even basic knowledge, on the music and musicians of Mozart's own time is the most 'sinister' thing of this entire thread. And, as to the subject of clarinet music of Mozart's time - the same applies. And you want somebody to not only educate you on things you know nothing about but also convince you that what you believe is wrong ? And what, exactly, DO you believe on the clarinet music of Mozart's time if you don't know anything about the whole subject in the first place ? :) :) LOL !!!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 11:55:49 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 11:55:49 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 24, 2009, 11:29:21 AM
I wish I could say the same. Why do you think he has such a bad reputation for peddling nonsense? I have seen the same thing almost exactly several times previously, and know all his tricks and more or less exactly what to expect when he is asked questions. In fact he has been slightly better here than on previous "outings" elsewhere where he usually resorts to asking the questioner to justify their belief in Mozart. The only way to deal with him is to keep plugging away at the same question, and when things get very difficult that's when to expect assistance from a "white knight" who sudenly turns up out of the blue to lend support.
Quote of the week from Holly -
'The only way to deal with Newman is to keep plugging away at the same question, and when things get very difficult that's when to expect assistance from a 'white knight' who suddenly turns up out of the blue to lend support'.
Well, it seems Holly, that this knight has not appeared to save you from repeating once again the following questions -
1. Can you give us any evidence a single symphony of 'Mozart' written during his childhood is actually by him ?
2. Can you, Holly, give us any evidence of Mozart going to school during his entire childhood and youth ?
3. Can you Holly, give us any evidence of Mozart spending any time in detailed study of orchestration, composition, harmony under any recognised teacher of these subjects during his entire childhood, youth or adulthood ?
and finally -
4. Can you, Holly, at the 5th time of asking, tell us on what grounds you believe the musical works attributed to Mozart are free from the most fantastic exaggeration and falsehood in the entire history of western music ?
Maybe THIS time we will finally get an answer ?
Earth calling Holly - Earth Calling Holly !!!
:) :) :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 24, 2009, 12:04:07 PM
Post by: Herman on May 24, 2009, 12:04:07 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:08:59 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:08:59 PM
Quote from: Herman on May 24, 2009, 12:04:07 PM
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.
I never said it does prove it. But one thing is sure Herman. The man who writes terrific music is a writer of terrific music. Right ? Which sort of narrows down the field, right ? Add this fact to your study of the subject. Learn a little of Cartellieri and his career. Study the various links already given.......and......who knows......you might actually learn something. Which is the point of this thread. Not least that there were MAJOR composers around you've never even heard of. One of which wrote clarinet music, concertos etc. Associated with Anton Stadler, the very man associated with these same two works. Patronised by a Mozart patron. etc etc etc.
Now I can't teach you how to suck eggs, for sure. But boy, I'm trying hard !! Hope that doesn't offend you !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: jhar26 on May 24, 2009, 12:10:05 PM
Post by: jhar26 on May 24, 2009, 12:10:05 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 11:55:49 AMIt isn't up to Holly or anyone else here to provide evidence that Mozart wrote the music credited to him - it's up to you to prove that he didn't.
Quote of the week from Holly -
'The only way to deal with Newman is to keep plugging away at the same question, and when things get very difficult that's when to expect assistance from a 'white knight' who suddenly turns up out of the blue to lend support'.
Well, it seems Holly, that this knight has not appeared to save you from repeating once again the following questions -
1. Can you give us any evidence a single symphony of 'Mozart' written during his childhood is actually by him ?
2. Can you, Holly, give us any evidence of Mozart going to school during his entire childhood and youth ?
3. Can you Holly, give us any evidence of Mozart spending any time in detailed study of orchestration, composition, harmony under any recognised teacher of these subjects during his entire childhood, youth or adulthood ?
and finally -
4. Can you, Holly, at the 5th time of asking, tell us on what grounds you believe the musical works attributed to Mozart are free from the most fantastic exaggeration and falsehood in the entire history of western music ?
Maybe THIS time we will finally get an answer ?
Earth calling Holly - Earth Calling Holly !!!
:) :) :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:13:37 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:13:37 PM
Quote from: jhar26 on May 24, 2009, 12:10:05 PM
It isn't up to Holly or anyone else here to provide evidence that Mozart wrote the music credited to him - it's up to you to prove that he didn't.
Really ? And I thought you had all the evidence ? Must have been mistaken ! You don't have any, do you ?
A simple trip down 'sensible lane' tells us we can't prove a negative, only a positive. Now, prove to us (if you can) that Mozart did these things.
- SILENCE - PICTURE BREAKS UP - COMMERCIAL BREAK - LOL !! WHAT'S NEW :)
Private Message - Rustling of Papers - Nervous Laughs - Telephone Rings - 'Will somebody please come to the rescue of Mozart, this is getting embarrasing' - ;D
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 24, 2009, 12:21:32 PM
Post by: Brian on May 24, 2009, 12:21:32 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:13:37 PMOkay.
Private Message - Rustling of Papers - Telephone Rings - 'Will somebody please come to the rescue of Mozart, this is getting embarrasing' - ;D
Here is PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE that Mozart was present at the premiere of his opera Don Giovanni:
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:26:37 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:26:37 PM
Quote from: Brian on May 24, 2009, 12:21:32 PM
Okay.
Here is PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE that Mozart was present at the premiere of his opera Don Giovanni:
Well that's convinced me, for sure !!!! :) :) :) Must be correct Brian. The trailer of 'Amadeus' tells us 'Everything you've heard is true' !!! So thank you ! Thank you for rescuing our Mozart from that horrible Robert Newman. Our 'genius' is safe again from such nasty criticism. Please accept, with the grateful compliments of the educated world an Oscar, or, well, a Nobel Prize, or, sorry, membership of the Order of the Golden Spur - the same as was given to Mozart during his visit to Rome. Why, your chest must swell with pride !!!! :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: jhar26 on May 24, 2009, 12:29:56 PM
Post by: jhar26 on May 24, 2009, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:13:37 PMDon't be silly. You are challenging the universally accepted version of events, so it's up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.
Really ? And I thought you had all the evidence ? Must have been mistaken ! You don't have any, do you ?
A simple trip down 'sensible lane' tells us we can't prove a negative, only a positive. Now, prove to us (if you can) that Mozart did these things.
- SILENCE - PICTURE BREAKS UP - COMMERCIAL BREAK - LOL !! WHAT'S NEW :)
Private Message - Rustling of Papers - Nervous Laughs - Telephone Rings - 'Will somebody please come to the rescue of Mozart, this is getting embarrasing' - ;D
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:31:56 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:31:56 PM
Quote from: jhar26 on May 24, 2009, 12:29:56 PM
Don't be silly. You are challenging the universally accepted version of events, so it's up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.
Well, actually, all that's happening is that I'm asking for evidence in support of the 'universally accepted version of events'. Since I've been studying this subject for many years and maybe you've found some ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 24, 2009, 12:32:24 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 24, 2009, 12:32:24 PM
No one dragged you here to discuss this subject.
There is an orthodox view on the authorship of Mozart's works. You are the one who wants to displace that, but instead of evidence, you provide innuendo then claim it is up to those who hold the orthodox view to prove their stance. This is a curious approach.
Ever thought of applying for a job as a spin doctor in Westminster?
Mike
There is an orthodox view on the authorship of Mozart's works. You are the one who wants to displace that, but instead of evidence, you provide innuendo then claim it is up to those who hold the orthodox view to prove their stance. This is a curious approach.
Ever thought of applying for a job as a spin doctor in Westminster?
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 24, 2009, 12:32:54 PM
Post by: Guido on May 24, 2009, 12:32:54 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 11:45:38 AM
OK, so it has to look 'sinister' before you accept it, right ? What exactly do you want ?
Before I posted this article (perhaps you forget ?) you were asked if you had actually listened to any clarinet music from the time of Mozart. You spoke vaguely about having heard some. But no details were provided of whose music you had actually heard. I assume this has not changed since last evening. Which means, I believe, you cannot tell us anything about this subject, other than the belief that you have heard some - by composers unknown to you. This is your own state of knowledge on this issue.
And now, because I have not presented any 'sinister' information, it's not accepted by you. The fact that you didn't even know of Cartellieri seems to have been, well, completely ignored by you.
Let me leave it here - I think it's fair to say your lack of any knowledge, even basic knowledge, on the music and musicians of Mozart's own time is the most 'sinister' thing of this entire thread. And, as to the subject of clarinet music of Mozart's time - the same applies. And you want somebody to not only educate you on things you know nothing about but also convince you that what you believe is wrong ? And what, exactly, DO you believe on the clarinet music of Mozart's time if you don't know anything about the whole subject in the first place ? :) :) LOL !!!
Is this a joke? By sinister I meant that none of the information that you presented us with even slightly points to Mozart not being the real composer of the clarinet works... Why is my ignorance of Cartellieri's music at all pertinent here? I am also ignorant of Holbrooke's music, but that doesn't mean that I think he wrote pieces for Finzi, or that his entire oeuvre was written by Foulds, Scott, Moeran and Bridge. My having heard or not heard the music of Cartellieri does not strengthen or weaken the argument that you have presented, which is so vague and stillborn that it is difficult to imagine that you can even conceive of what good evidence for anything is. To go from your statements here, to the conclusion "therefore Mozart didn't compose the clarinet concerto" shows a lack of acumen that is almost too staggering to comprehend.
I don't even know why I'm writing this - it's difficult to say who is madder: the madman, or the man who chooses to argue with him.
You obviously have a lot of time on your hands - why not learn to play an instrument to a high degree of proficiency and then actually champion Cartellieri or any of the other forgotten greats that you love so much? Wouldn't that be a constructive and fulfilling life? Instead of bringing ire and anger, you could bring joy and beauty. Just an idea.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:41:00 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:41:00 PM
Thanks for the suggestion. I have one for you. Next time you wish to form a judgement on an issue of music and its history take the unusual step of learning about the context of what you are studying, since a complete ignorance of context leaves you one and only one source on which to form a judgement. Which ends in stupidity. And we become, almost without knowing it, as stupid as those Mozartean worshippers and their mud idols. This Cartellieri thread being the plainest possible proof of that fact.
Joy and beauty go hand in hand with upholding truth and reality.
Regards
Joy and beauty go hand in hand with upholding truth and reality.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 24, 2009, 12:47:21 PM
Post by: Guido on May 24, 2009, 12:47:21 PM
I haven't passed judgement on the issue, as should be plain from my post - only on the evidence which you have presented which is of such paucity that I am incredulous that you would think it good evidence for your hypothesis. Unlike you, I have no strong feelings on this subject, but accusing me of being stupid is hardly going to convince me of your cause (nor does it lend any credence to your theory.) This thread is so dull... I think I'll stop posting in it now.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Guido on May 24, 2009, 12:50:28 PM
Post by: Guido on May 24, 2009, 12:50:28 PM
One final post: will you please take up an instrument though and play these forgotten works? I strongly agree with you in principal that there is much fine music outside of the standard repertory and we need more champions of these old guys. Quite why you care what anonymous strangers on an internet forum think of your theory is beyond me. Write the book - there are plenty of publishers who would want to publish a story as sexy and scandalous as this!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 24, 2009, 12:51:35 PM
Post by: Herman on May 24, 2009, 12:51:35 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:13:37 PM
Really ? And I thought you had all the evidence ? Must have been mistaken ! You don't have any, do you ?
A simple trip down 'sensible lane' tells us we can't prove a negative, only a positive. Now, prove to us (if you can) that Mozart did these things.
This is it. You are indeed a fraud. You came here claiming you had all the evidence o prove your point, and now this.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:52:54 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:52:54 PM
Quote from: knight on May 24, 2009, 12:32:24 PM
No one dragged you here to discuss this subject.
There is an orthodox view on the authorship of Mozart's works. You are the one who wants to displace that, but instead of evidence, you provide innuendo then claim it is up to those who hold the orthodox view to prove their stance. This is a curious approach.
Ever thought of applying for a job as a spin doctor in Westminster?
Mike
Yes, there is an orthodox view on the authorship of Mozart's works. But it seems to me that the same standards you've just given must be seen to apply to it, namely 'evidence'. Which is really what I've been asking for.
Have I ever thought of applying for a job as a spin doctor in Westminster ? Yes, but they said they weren't interested in looking for any evidence. Which made me so disappointed that I've been studying Mozart ever since.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:54:28 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:54:28 PM
Quote from: Guido on May 24, 2009, 12:47:21 PM
I haven't passed judgement on the issue, as should be plain from my post - only on the evidence which you have presented which is of such paucity that I am incredulous that you would think it good evidence for your hypothesis. Unlike you, I have no strong feelings on this subject, but accusing me of being stupid is hardly going to convince me of your cause (nor does it lend any credence to your theory.) This thread is so dull... I think I'll stop posting in it now.
I predict that in a minute or so from now you will post again !! :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on May 24, 2009, 12:55:14 PM
Post by: snyprrr on May 24, 2009, 12:55:14 PM
Is there no help for the widow's son?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 24, 2009, 12:55:52 PM
Post by: Brian on May 24, 2009, 12:55:52 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:31:56 PMOkay. Now I have some challenges for you.
Well, actually, all that's happening is that I'm asking for evidence in support of the 'universally accepted version of events'. Since I've been studying this subject for many years and maybe you've found some ?
I'm asking for evidence in support of the 'universally accepted version of events'.
Rob Newman, please provide EVIDENCE that:
1. There are no WMDs in Iraq.
2. John F. Kennedy is dead.
3. Bill Clinton is heterosexual.
4. Alexander the Great existed.
Do you see the problems with these questions, and consequently, yours? They prove nothing. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:57:07 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:57:07 PM
Quote from: Herman on May 24, 2009, 12:51:35 PM
This is it. You are indeed a fraud. You came here claiming you had all the evidence o prove your point, and now this.
Where did I claim I had all the evidence ? Care to show us ?? Or is it just that when YOU are asked for evidence you are embarrased to find you don't have any at all ? As anyone can see. Call in the 'spin doctors' and say that everyone is a fraud except you.
LOL :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:59:46 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:59:46 PM
Quote from: Brian on May 24, 2009, 12:55:52 PM
Okay. Now I have some challenges for you.
I'm asking for evidence in support of the 'universally accepted version of events'.
Rob Newman, please provide EVIDENCE that:
1. There are no WMDs in Iraq.
2. John F. Kennedy is dead.
3. Bill Clinton is heterosexual.
4. Alexander the Great existed.
Do you see the problems with these questions, and consequently, yours? They prove nothing. :)
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. The opposite is true of the things taught and believed of W.A. Mozart, whose disciples can't give us straight answers to all sorts of basic questions on where he was taught, when, by who, etc. The list is massive. And we've hardly started.
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 01:04:46 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 01:04:46 PM
Quote from: Guido on May 24, 2009, 12:50:28 PM
One final post: will you please take up an instrument though and play these forgotten works? I strongly agree with you in principal that there is much fine music outside of the standard repertory and we need more champions of these old guys. Quite why you care what anonymous strangers on an internet forum think of your theory is beyond me. Write the book - there are plenty of publishers who would want to publish a story as sexy and scandalous as this!
And, sure enough, you DID post again !! :)
As far as publishing a book on the nonsense being taught to students of music on its history is concerned (this dominated by the corporate mythology of Mozart) I think the sexiest and most scandalous story is that of our own stupendous ignorance and inability to see the wood for the trees. The chief victims of which are ourselves. Mozart is the FOX News of Classical Music.
Thanks to the owners and moderators of this forum for allowing this debate/discussion. It says a lot for you and I'm grateful. And thanks for all who have contributed.
Best wishes
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 24, 2009, 01:24:31 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 24, 2009, 01:24:31 PM
Quote from: Holly on May 24, 2009, 11:29:21 AMHuh? Whatever for? He's like a bag lady who wanders the streets muttering to herself. Expecting him to make sense or to respond rationally to thoughtful discourse is like expecting a bullfrog to sing "Der Hölle Rache."
The only way to deal with him is to keep plugging away at the same question....
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 01:26:20 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 01:26:20 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 24, 2009, 01:24:31 PM
Huh? Whatever for? He's like a bag lady who wanders the streets muttering to herself. Expecting him to make sense or to respond rationally to thoughtful discourse is like expecting a bullfrog to sing "Der Hölle Rache."
Thank you David Ross. And best wishes to you also.
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 24, 2009, 01:37:47 PM
Post by: Brian on May 24, 2009, 01:37:47 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 24, 2009, 01:24:31 PM(http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~aarong/from-andrew/wb/frog2.gif)
Huh? Whatever for? He's like a bag lady who wanders the streets muttering to herself. Expecting him to make sense or to respond rationally to thoughtful discourse is like expecting a bullfrog to sing "Der Hölle Rache."
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on May 24, 2009, 01:40:46 PM
Post by: snyprrr on May 24, 2009, 01:40:46 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 01:04:46 PM
Thanks to the owners and moderators of this forum for allowing this debate/discussion. It says a lot for you and I'm grateful. And thanks for all who have contributed.
Best wishes
Robert Newman
Here, here...hats off to the mods.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 24, 2009, 02:56:04 PM
Post by: karlhenning on May 24, 2009, 02:56:04 PM
Quote from: Herman on May 24, 2009, 07:49:45 AM
Not a scintilla of evidence. Just as I predicted: Mr Newman thinks Cartilieri is really cool, much cooler than Mozart, and so some of Mozart's coolest works just have to be by Cartelierri.
You know how to call 'em, Herman!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 24, 2009, 02:58:11 PM
Post by: karlhenning on May 24, 2009, 02:58:11 PM
Quote from: Guido on May 24, 2009, 11:36:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 24, 2009, 02:58:42 PM
Post by: karlhenning on May 24, 2009, 02:58:42 PM
Quote from: Herman on May 24, 2009, 12:04:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe Barron on May 24, 2009, 04:00:07 PM
Post by: Joe Barron on May 24, 2009, 04:00:07 PM
IOH
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: greg on May 24, 2009, 08:04:23 PM
Post by: greg on May 24, 2009, 08:04:23 PM
Dude, get a life.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 24, 2009, 11:08:03 PM
Post by: Florestan on May 24, 2009, 11:08:03 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:59:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 25, 2009, 12:51:00 AM
Post by: Holly on May 25, 2009, 12:51:00 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 12:56:43 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 12:56:43 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 25, 2009, 12:51:00 AM
composers with whom he has no quarrel (e.g. Bach, Handel, Schubert).
Do you mean he has quarrels with Haydn and Beethoven as well? :o
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 01:27:17 AM
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 01:27:17 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 02:06:33 AM
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 02:06:33 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 25, 2009, 12:51:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 03:16:38 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 03:16:38 AM
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 02:06:33 AM
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
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 04:01:34 AM
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 04:01:34 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 03:16:38 AM
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.
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 03:16:38 AM
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.
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 03:16:38 AM
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.
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 03:16:38 AM
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?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 04:27:12 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 04:27:12 AM
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
''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
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 04:33:29 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 04:33:29 AM
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?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 04:35:04 AM
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 04:35:04 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 04:56:51 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 04:56:51 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 04:33:29 AM
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
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 04:57:51 AM
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 04:57:51 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 04:35:04 AM
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...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 05:03:44 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 05:03:44 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 04:35:04 AM
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
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 05:05:48 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 05:05:48 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 04:57:51 AM
strange, eerie silence...
Why ? 5 minutes and you feel like that ? :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 05:12:14 AM
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 05:12:14 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 04:56:51 AM
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
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 05:13:25 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 05:13:25 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 04:56:51 AM
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?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 05:14:23 AM
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 05:14:23 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 05:03:44 AM
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.
So there we go.
1 you admitted you don't have any evidence, "you can't prove a negative".
2 You keep mentioning your book, judt to impress people, but there is no book. Nor will there ever be. You wrote some twaddle, and that's it.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 05:24:25 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 05:24:25 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 05:13:25 AM
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?
The living proof that this is true is the Mozart industry we see today. Whose massive scale, status, and prestige dominates opera, music performance, the teaching of music history, etc etc. And, at the very same time, the wholesale suppression of literally dozens of other composers. These things are not imaginary but real.
Every icon has the effect of corrupting our knowledge, our appreciation, our understanding of reality. And Mozart is no different.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 05:27:17 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 05:27:17 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 05:14:23 AM
So there we go.
1 you admitted you don't have any evidence, "you can't prove a negative".
2 You keep mentioning your book, judt to impress people, but there is no book. Nor will there ever be. You wrote some twaddle, and that's it.
1. No, I don't admit that I have no evidence. I have tons of evidence. But you have none when we ask basic questions and when we examine their reliability. That's the difference. So that you end up with a 'consensus view' but are unable to say on what factual basis it is based.
2. I won't keep mentioning my book. In fact, if you like, I won't mention it again. I did so today in reply to questions.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 05:34:32 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 05:34:32 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 05:24:25 AM
The living proof that this is true is the Mozart industry we see today. Whose massive scale, status, and prestige dominates opera, music performance, the teaching of music history, etc etc. And, at the very same time, the wholesale suppression of literally dozens of other composers. These things are not imaginary but real.
This doesn't answer my question: how does merging twenty-four real and great composers into a single one, and a very poor at that, serve the purpose of boasting the musical genius of the Holy Roman Empire?
Moreover, do you imply that at a time when no such things as music history, recording industry, concert halls, and music industry existed, some Illuminati or whatever you called them devised a scheme by which two hundreds years later all these would be dominated by the Mozart fraud?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 05:50:20 AM
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 05:50:20 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 05:27:17 AM
1. No, I don't admit that I have no evidence. I have tons of evidence.
You have been pressed from page 3 to provide evidence, rather than "argue why" you think Mozart's opera's, symphonies and piano ctos (it would be intriguing why the keyboard sonatas and chamberworks generally seem to be OK, even though they clearly were composed by the same creative spirit - but on the other hand it is not intriguing, it's just one more dumb thing) were not composed by Mozart. On page 15 you reject the onus of evidence, because you van't "prove a negative", in other words you don't have any evidence.
Quote from: robnewman on May 24, 2009, 12:13:37 PM
A simple trip down 'sensible lane' tells us we can't prove a negative, only a positive. Now, prove to us (if you can) that Mozart did these things.
- SILENCE - PICTURE BREAKS UP - COMMERCIAL BREAK - LOL !! WHAT'S NEW :)
You've also been mentioning a book from page 3. This book is just a bunch of sccribbles and thoughts, rather than something accepted by a professional publisher.
The conclusion is inevitable. You are the fraud.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:00:38 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:00:38 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 05:34:32 AM
This doesn't answer my question: how does merging twenty-four real and great composers into a single one, and a very poor at that, serve the purpose of boasting the musical genius of the Holy Roman Empire?
Moreover, do you imply that at a time when no such things as music history, recording industry, concert halls, and music industry existed, some Illuminati or whatever you called them devised a scheme by which two hundreds years later all these would be dominated by the Mozart fraud?
Do you want me to write the entire book here in reply ? I think I've given a fair, general outline.
But let's stop for a musical break.
J.S. Bach
Cantata No. 206/1
Chorus
http://www.mediafire.com/?mzxfmojqx3j
//
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:02:33 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:02:33 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 05:50:20 AM
You have been pressed from page 3 to provide evidence, rather than "argue why" you think Mozart's opera's, symphonies and piano ctos (it would be intriguing why the keyboard sonatas and chamberworks generally seem to be OK, even though they clearly were composed by the same creative spirit - but on the other hand it is not intriguing, it's just one more dumb thing) were not composed by Mozart. On page 15 you reject the onus of evidence, because you van't "prove a negative", in other words you don't have any evidence.
You've also been mentioning a book from page 3. This book is just a bunch of sccribbles and thoughts, rather than something accepted by a professional publisher.
The conclusion is inevitable. You are the fraud.
Then, let's make a deal. You don't talk to me and vice versa.
Thanks
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 06:08:15 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 06:08:15 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:00:38 AM
Do you want me to write the entire book here in reply ?
No, but you could offer a sample, as Jezetha suggested, a sample that offer evidence, because that's what conspicuously lack in your allegations.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:16:05 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:16:05 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 05:12:14 AM
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.
Yes, it took ages for Symphonies 39, 40 and 41 to become part of the symphonic repertoire. Exactly. But the same is true for 90% of 'Mozart's' music.
Yes, and very few people benefit from elitism of any kind. Which is reason enough to justify writing a book about it.
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:20:10 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:20:10 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 06:08:15 AM
No, but you could offer a sample, as Jezetha suggested, a sample that offer evidence, because that's what conspicuously lack in your allegations.
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 ?
I can write on this if you like. But not today.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 06:21:56 AM
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 06:21:56 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:16:05 AM
Yes, it took ages for Symphonies 39, 40 and 41 to become part of the symphonic repertoire. Exactly. But the same is true for 90% of 'Mozart's' music.
And that is one more nail in your theory's coffin: it would make sense to "steal" a couple of wonderful symphonies and tour the big cities with it, making money, getting famous. But to "steal" these works (of which BTW Brahms owned the autograph - yet another nail in the coffin) and do nothing profitable with 'em, that doesn't make sense.
Interesting you should propose a "deal" and within a couple of minutes you undo your deal.
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:02:33 AM
Then, let's make a deal. You don't talk to me and vice versa.
You're not in the position to make deals.
The deal has been proposed by various longstanding members: having admitted you cannot prove your Mozart case you quit arguing it, and instead you tell us what's so special about composers like Cantilierri &c.
In other words: you stop the negative and focus on the positive.
And as the moderators have insisted: you stay in this one thread.
That's the deal.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: greg on May 25, 2009, 06:22:11 AM
Post by: greg on May 25, 2009, 06:22:11 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:20:10 AMStop answering questions with questions.
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 ?
I can write on this if you like. But not today.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 06:22:36 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 06:22:36 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:20:10 AM
OK, well here we go again. How about the 'Haffner' Symphony ? Symphony No. 35. You believe this is by Mozart, don't you ?
Show me evidence that it is not by him and I'll recant.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:28:19 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:28:19 AM
Quote from: Bahamut on May 25, 2009, 06:22:11 AM
Stop answering questions with questions.
I promise to do so the moment you stop believing things without having reason to do so other than the fact that it's widely believed.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:30:56 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:30:56 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 06:22:36 AM
Show me evidence that it is not by him and I'll recant.
Show me evidence that we are not Chinese. Since most people in the world today are.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on May 25, 2009, 06:31:18 AM
Post by: Scarpia on May 25, 2009, 06:31:18 AM
"Newman" has not presented one iota of evidence that any but Mozart wrote the works attributed to him (except for a few early works from his childhood which are known to be transcriptions or in which Wolfgang may have had help from papa). Why does anyone bother to engage in discussion on this absurd topic? Does anyone think that "Newman" will ever be convinced that his claim is ludicrous or that he will every concede a point to anyone? Continuing this does nothing but stoke "Newman"'s vanity. The best revenge would be to let this silly thread sink to its proper level.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:36:21 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:36:21 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on May 25, 2009, 06:31:18 AM
"Newman" has not presented one iota of evidence that any but Mozart wrote the works attributed to him (except for a few early works from his childhood which are known to be transcriptions or in which Wolfgang may have had help from papa). Why does anyone bother to engage in discussion on this absurd topic? Does anyone think that "Newman" will ever be convinced that his claim is ludicrous or that he will every concede a point to anyone? Continuing this does nothing but stoke "Newman"'s vanity. The best revenge would be to let this silly thread sink to its proper level.
Scarpia,
Care to show us a single genuine Mozart symphony before, say, the age of 16 ? Just one.
Don't want to make it difficult but I wouldn't buy a used car from you with your attitude.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Opus106 on May 25, 2009, 06:37:59 AM
Post by: Opus106 on May 25, 2009, 06:37:59 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:28:19 AM
I promise to do so the moment you stop believing things without having reason to do so other than the fact that it's widely believed.
And what you are propagating, or, rather, attempting to propagate, is not even widely believed. If you would so kindly provide us with something concrete (read: GIVE US THAT DAMNED EVIDENCE!) so that we may let go the belief in a "centuries-old hoax," it would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:41:44 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:41:44 AM
Quote from: opus67 on May 25, 2009, 06:37:59 AM
And what you are propagating, or, rather, attempting to propagate, is not even widely believed. If you would so kindly provide us with something concrete (read: GIVE US THAT DAMNED EVIDENCE!) so that we may let go the belief in a "centuries-old hoax," it would be appreciated.
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 ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 25, 2009, 06:53:48 AM
Post by: Holly on May 25, 2009, 06:53:48 AM
Herman, earlier today your advice to me was:
Since then I see that you have made FIVE futher posts which have achieved precisely nothing. So can you please tell me where you are coming from?
Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 01:27:17 AM
I suggest we let this topic die a peaceful death. Mr Newman has admitted he has no evidence, and that's it.
Since then I see that you have made FIVE futher posts which have achieved precisely nothing. So can you please tell me where you are coming from?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Opus106 on May 25, 2009, 06:55:23 AM
Post by: Opus106 on May 25, 2009, 06:55:23 AM
QuoteYou 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 ?
;D Wow, you must've just come out of elementary school! Grow up, man.
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:41:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 25, 2009, 07:00:52 AM
Post by: Holly on May 25, 2009, 07:00:52 AM
Quote from: opus67 on May 25, 2009, 06:55:23 AM
;D 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!!!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Opus106 on May 25, 2009, 07:02:58 AM
Post by: Opus106 on May 25, 2009, 07:02:58 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 25, 2009, 07:00:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: greg on May 25, 2009, 07:04:16 AM
Post by: greg on May 25, 2009, 07:04:16 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:41:44 AMUm, 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.
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 ?
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?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 25, 2009, 07:17:12 AM
Post by: Holly on May 25, 2009, 07:17:12 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 05:13:25 AM
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.
QuoteAlso, 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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 25, 2009, 07:20:25 AM
Post by: Holly on May 25, 2009, 07:20:25 AM
Quote from: opus67 on May 25, 2009, 07:02:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Opus106 on May 25, 2009, 07:26:04 AM
Post by: Opus106 on May 25, 2009, 07:26:04 AM
I wonder if the world of classical music has a counterpart to the Crackpot Index in physics (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html).
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 07:33:56 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 07:33:56 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 07:46:01 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 07:46:01 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:30:56 AM
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?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 25, 2009, 07:54:10 AM
Post by: Brian on May 25, 2009, 07:54:10 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 06:20:10 AM(http://www.themorgan.org/collections/images/highlights/mozart_cary483_2.jpg)
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 ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 25, 2009, 07:55:16 AM
Post by: Brian on May 25, 2009, 07:55:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 08:08:31 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 08:08:31 AM
Quote from: Brian on May 25, 2009, 07:55:16 AM
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
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 08:10:17 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 08:10:17 AM
Quote from: Brian on May 25, 2009, 07:54:10 AM
(http://www.themorgan.org/collections/images/highlights/mozart_cary483_2.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 25, 2009, 09:01:08 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 25, 2009, 09:01:08 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 08:10:17 AM
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
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 09:18:28 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 09:18:28 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 25, 2009, 09:01:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 25, 2009, 09:22:41 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 25, 2009, 09:22:41 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 09:18:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 09:25:43 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 09:25:43 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 25, 2009, 09:22:41 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 25, 2009, 09:45:19 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 25, 2009, 09:45:19 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 09:25:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 25, 2009, 09:47:45 AM
Post by: knight66 on May 25, 2009, 09:47:45 AM
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
Was it normal for a busy composer to write out all the parts?
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 09:53:16 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 09:53:16 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 25, 2009, 09:45:19 AM
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 ?????
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 10:08:56 AM
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 10:08:56 AM
My goodness. The timpani part of the Haffner symphony is in Leopold's writing, not by WAM. And that makes the Haffner symphony a fraud? Ridiculous.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 10:12:00 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 10:12:00 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 10:08:56 AM
My goodness. The timpani part of the Haffner symphony is in Leopold's writing, not by WAM. And that makes the Haffner symphony a fraud? Ridiculous.
No Herman,
You are not reading what I've written, again.
I said there are 5 parts to this issue. Please read my post again.
I am saying that step 1 is to agree these timpani parts are NOT by W.A. Mozart. And also that these parts were sent by Leopold Mozart in Salzburg to W.A. Mozart in Vienna.
And we are still waiting for agreement about this. If you are still not sure about this, and if people here are still not sure about this, let me know, and I will give you evidence in full support of both of the above FACTS. OK ??????
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 10:15:55 AM
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 10:15:55 AM
No. Not OK.
My proposal is you stop this nonsense now.
As I said (and other longstanding members said): why don't you talk about composers you like (who doubtless didn't complete their timpani parts in full either BTW), rather than continue this disheartening charade.
My proposal is you stop this nonsense now.
As I said (and other longstanding members said): why don't you talk about composers you like (who doubtless didn't complete their timpani parts in full either BTW), rather than continue this disheartening charade.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 10:20:22 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 10:20:22 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 10:15:55 AM
No. Not OK.
My proposal is you stop this nonsense now.
As I said (and other longstanding members said): why don't you talk about composers you like (who doubtless didn't complete their timpani parts in full either BTW), rather than continue this disheartening charade.
And my proposal is that if you don't want to talk about Mozart being a fraud you should, immediately, without further delay, and without any further explanation, stop posting here on this thread, whose name is..........'Mozart a Fraud' ? Which seems to me a fair and reasonable request.
Secondly, I expressly told you that this subject comes in 5 parts and that we are still at Part 1. But you didn't understand that, did you ? So I wrote it again.
Thirdly, if you wish to discuss this subject we need to go from Part 1 to Part 2, and then to Parts 3, 4 and 5. Which may, I suggest, end your charade, and might allow others to read this thread without further examples of your incompetence.
Thank You
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 11:10:51 AM
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 11:10:51 AM
The suspense is killing me. Why not just lay out parts 1-5 in order. You know, like a normal person who is trying to make an argument?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 11:16:15 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 11:16:15 AM
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 11:10:51 AM
The suspense is killing me. Why not just lay out parts 1-5 in order. You know, like a normal person who is trying to make an argument?
Because there is no evidence, yet, that you or anyone else, accepts Part 1. And since we are stalled at this point, we have to wait until these things are agreed. I don't spend lots of time on such an issue without doing it methodically. Starting at the beginning. With the FACT that the timpani parts are NOT by W.A. Mozart and with the FACT that these were sent TO W.A. Mozart in Vienna from Salzburg by Leopold Mozart. A simple enough Part 1 to agree about. Why, I've even offered to produce evidence if anyone doubts it. Can't get better than that, can I ?
It's like extracting a tooth, right ? ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 25, 2009, 11:18:51 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 25, 2009, 11:18:51 AM
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 11:10:51 AMYour question answers itself, Brett.
Why not just lay out parts 1-5 in order. You know, like a normal person who is trying to make an argument?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 11:19:59 AM
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 11:19:59 AM
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 11:10:51 AM
The suspense is killing me. Why not just lay out parts 1-5 in order. You know, like a normal person who is trying to make an argument?
Because this is not "a normal person trying to make an argument."
We're looking at a major attention seeker here, who'll do anything to keep people annoyed with him.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 25, 2009, 11:37:16 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 25, 2009, 11:37:16 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 09:53:16 AM
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.
Please do.
(Sorry for the delay. I had a meeting at my daughter's school. 'There is a world elsewhere'. And now I'm off again for some other pressing things.)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 11:40:46 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 11:40:46 AM
Alright, Robert. I tell you up front that I have no interest or intention of getting involved with you little amusement here, but since your needle is stuck in a groove for now until someone deigns to tell you the story of the Haffner Symphony, K 385, I am going to extend myself a type far more than I usually would on a holiday. :)
During the summer of 1782, Mozart, already preoccupied with establishing his name in Vienna, finishing his opera Die Entführung aus dem Serail (The Abduction from the Seraglio), mending relations with his fiancé Constanze, and relocating to another residence, received a letter from his father asking him to write a symphony for the ennoblement of Sigmund Haffner, son of the Salzburg burgomaster. The composer responded to his father, "I am up to my ears in work. By a week from Sunday, I must arrange my opera for wind instruments, or someone else will do it and secure the profits instead of me. And now you ask for a new symphony, too! How on earth can I do that? ...well, I will have to stay up all night, for that is the only way; for you, dearest father, I will make the sacrifice. You may rely on having something from me in each mail delivery."
Nevertheless, the first movement of what would come to be known as Symphony No. 35 was completed within a week and sent back to his father in Salzburg; over the course of the next several weeks, the remaining movements were finished and mailed as well. Based on historical evidence, it is highly probable Mozart did not meet his father's deadline. Nonetheless, the delay was justified as it resulted in one of the finest works of the young composer's career.
In preparation for the next Lenten concert season, Mozart was involved in creating an academy of music at the Burgtheater in Vienna. Wanting to perform the symphony he had so quickly rushed to his father, he wrote to Leopold Mozart requesting the score (he actually said "since I have to have extra parts copied out anyway, since the orchestra here is much larger, I don't care whether you send me the full score or a set of parts. And don't forget the minuets"). Many weeks later, and after several exchanges of letters, Leopold sent the symphony back to Mozart. Impressed by the work he had long forgotten, Mozart wrote to his father, "Most heartfelt thanks for the music you have sent me...my new Haffner symphony has positively amazed me, for I had forgotten every single note of it. It must surely produce a good effect."
There you go, lad, have at it, do. I shall wait with bated breath.
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Vandeville / Louchart / Rouault - Louis Jadin (possible true composer of Mozart's fortepiano sonatas? - Nocturne #3 in F for Oboe & Piano 3rd mvmt - Allegro
During the summer of 1782, Mozart, already preoccupied with establishing his name in Vienna, finishing his opera Die Entführung aus dem Serail (The Abduction from the Seraglio), mending relations with his fiancé Constanze, and relocating to another residence, received a letter from his father asking him to write a symphony for the ennoblement of Sigmund Haffner, son of the Salzburg burgomaster. The composer responded to his father, "I am up to my ears in work. By a week from Sunday, I must arrange my opera for wind instruments, or someone else will do it and secure the profits instead of me. And now you ask for a new symphony, too! How on earth can I do that? ...well, I will have to stay up all night, for that is the only way; for you, dearest father, I will make the sacrifice. You may rely on having something from me in each mail delivery."
Nevertheless, the first movement of what would come to be known as Symphony No. 35 was completed within a week and sent back to his father in Salzburg; over the course of the next several weeks, the remaining movements were finished and mailed as well. Based on historical evidence, it is highly probable Mozart did not meet his father's deadline. Nonetheless, the delay was justified as it resulted in one of the finest works of the young composer's career.
In preparation for the next Lenten concert season, Mozart was involved in creating an academy of music at the Burgtheater in Vienna. Wanting to perform the symphony he had so quickly rushed to his father, he wrote to Leopold Mozart requesting the score (he actually said "since I have to have extra parts copied out anyway, since the orchestra here is much larger, I don't care whether you send me the full score or a set of parts. And don't forget the minuets"). Many weeks later, and after several exchanges of letters, Leopold sent the symphony back to Mozart. Impressed by the work he had long forgotten, Mozart wrote to his father, "Most heartfelt thanks for the music you have sent me...my new Haffner symphony has positively amazed me, for I had forgotten every single note of it. It must surely produce a good effect."
There you go, lad, have at it, do. I shall wait with bated breath.
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Vandeville / Louchart / Rouault - Louis Jadin (possible true composer of Mozart's fortepiano sonatas? - Nocturne #3 in F for Oboe & Piano 3rd mvmt - Allegro
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 25, 2009, 11:41:23 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 25, 2009, 11:41:23 AM
Wow Newman here at GMG! :o
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 25, 2009, 11:43:50 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 25, 2009, 11:43:50 AM
Oh boy! The Corkster and Newman at once! Now all we need is Sean and we'll have the Trifecta!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 11:45:09 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 11:45:09 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on May 25, 2009, 11:41:23 AM
Wow Newman here at GMG! :o
And being treated quite well, too, Rod. See? You were wrong about us all this time. We LOVE Robert. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Vandeville / Louchart / Rouault - Louis Jadin - Sonata #3 for Piano 4 Hands 3rd mvmt - Potpourri: Allegro
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 25, 2009, 11:52:24 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 25, 2009, 11:52:24 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 11:45:09 AMThose words may come back to haunt you! ;D
And being treated quite well, too, Rod. See? You were wrong about us all this time. We LOVE Robert. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 11:54:21 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 11:54:21 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 11:40:46 AM
Alright, Robert. I tell you up front that I have no interest or intention of getting involved with you little amusement here, but since your needle is stuck in a groove for now until someone deigns to tell you the story of the Haffner Symphony, K 385, I am going to extend myself a type far more than I usually would on a holiday. :)
During the summer of 1782, Mozart, already preoccupied with establishing his name in Vienna, finishing his opera Die Entführung aus dem Serail (The Abduction from the Seraglio), mending relations with his fiancé Constanze, and relocating to another residence, received a letter from his father asking him to write a symphony for the ennoblement of Sigmund Haffner, son of the Salzburg burgomaster. The composer responded to his father, "I am up to my ears in work. By a week from Sunday, I must arrange my opera for wind instruments, or someone else will do it and secure the profits instead of me. And now you ask for a new symphony, too! How on earth can I do that? ...well, I will have to stay up all night, for that is the only way; for you, dearest father, I will make the sacrifice. You may rely on having something from me in each mail delivery."
Nevertheless, the first movement of what would come to be known as Symphony No. 35 was completed within a week and sent back to his father in Salzburg; over the course of the next several weeks, the remaining movements were finished and mailed as well. Based on historical evidence, it is highly probable Mozart did not meet his father's deadline. Nonetheless, the delay was justified as it resulted in one of the finest works of the young composer's career.
In preparation for the next Lenten concert season, Mozart was involved in creating an academy of music at the Burgtheater in Vienna. Wanting to perform the symphony he had so quickly rushed to his father, he wrote to Leopold Mozart requesting the score (he actually said "since I have to have extra parts copied out anyway, since the orchestra here is much larger, I don't care whether you send me the full score or a set of parts. And don't forget the minuets"). Many weeks later, and after several exchanges of letters, Leopold sent the symphony back to Mozart. Impressed by the work he had long forgotten, Mozart wrote to his father, "Most heartfelt thanks for the music you have sent me...my new Haffner symphony has positively amazed me, for I had forgotten every single note of it. It must surely produce a good effect."
There you go, lad, have at it, do. I shall wait with bated breath.
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Vandeville / Louchart / Rouault - Louis Jadin (possible true composer of Mozart's fortepiano sonatas? - Nocturne #3 in F for Oboe & Piano 3rd mvmt - Allegro
Thank you Gurn Blanston ! Yes. And no doubt Rod Corkin will give credit where it is due, that we can, at last, actually discuss the Haffner and other parts of 'Mozart's' output. A round of applause to you for this.
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 11:55:07 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 11:55:07 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on May 25, 2009, 11:52:24 AM
Those words may come back to haunt you! ;D
I think I'm already haunted. :-\
Well, tonal inflections lose their impact upon being digitalised... ;)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Vandeville / Louchart / Rouault - Louis Jadin - Nocturne #2 in c for Oboe & Piano - Andante
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 11:57:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 11:57:09 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 11:19:59 AM
Because this is not "a normal person trying to make an argument."
We're looking at a major attention seeker here, who'll do anything to keep people annoyed with him.
You here again Herman ? Well, in my book, attention seekers should be ignored, especially if they've nothing to contribute. Why, only the other day I watched a speech being heckled by a man who insisted on heaping abuse at the speaker. It turned out that he, the heckler, didn't even understand English.
So I guess the best thing is to ignore hecklers. What do you say Herman ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 11:58:48 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 11:58:48 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on May 25, 2009, 11:41:23 AM
Wow Newman here at GMG! :o
Why, it's Rod Corkin ! How're things Rod ?
Robert
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 12:01:48 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 12:01:48 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 11:55:07 AM
I think I'm already haunted. :-\
Well, tonal inflections lose their impact upon being digitalised... ;)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Vandeville / Louchart / Rouault - Louis Jadin - Nocturne #2 in c for Oboe & Piano - Andante
How true Gurn, why, only the other day I was lamenting the end of vinyl records and valve amplifiers. I'm an analogue person in a digital universe !! ::)
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 12:08:03 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 12:08:03 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 12:01:48 PM
How true Gurn, why, only the other day I was lamenting the end of vinyl records and valve amplifiers. I'm an analogue person in a digital universe !! ::)
:)
I'm sure you were only kidding, Robert. Talk about something that has a twisted past! :o :o
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Vandeville / Louchart / Rouault - Louis Jadin - Fantasie for Oboe & Piano 1st mvmt - Allegro
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 12:17:31 PM
Post by: Herman on May 25, 2009, 12:17:31 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 11:57:09 AM
You here again Herman ? Well, in my book, attention seekers should be ignored, especially if they've nothing to contribute. Why, only the other day I watched a speech being heckled by a man who insisted on heaping abuse at the speaker. It turned out that he, the heckler, didn't even understand English.
So I guess the best thing is to ignore hecklers. What do you say Herman ?
Newman, I started contributing to GMG in 2004; you did so two days ago, to much alarm and chagrin of GMG regulars who know of your history of attention-seeking, antagonizing and, finally, getting banned.
You may have something to contribute, i.e. material about composers you admire, like this Cantilierri. You cannot however expect to spread false allegations (and spread them out so thinly, with you five-step arguments) without protest, or even heckling.
If you canb't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Just go and write your "book", please.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 25, 2009, 12:24:23 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 25, 2009, 12:24:23 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 12:01:48 PMI guess consistency is a virtue, of sorts (the hobgoblin of small minds, said Emerson). He's as wrong about both of these claims as about everything else he's said on this thread. Batting average = 0.000--perfect!
How true Gurn, why, only the other day I was lamenting the end of vinyl records and valve amplifiers.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 12:32:49 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 12:32:49 PM
OK Gurn,
Well, we finally got past Step 1. It took some doing, but, after some birth pains, we've finally moved on to Part 2 of the 'Haffner' Saga. This will be my last post for today.
PART 2/5
THE SYMPHONY KNOWN AS THE 'HAFFNER' KV385
Everyone knows that Mozart was a 'musical genius'. Why, his feats of musicality are numerous. These including astounding acts of virtuosity, of writing operas before breakfast and that kind of stuff. But one of the lesser known virtues of your hero was his phenomenal memory. Of which there are numerous documented examples in the literature. Including, for example, his ability to write down, from memory, an entire church mass at its first hearing. This feat performed in Rome as a visiting 14 year old prodigy. Rewarded a few days later by being awarded by the Pope with the Order of the Golden Spur. And our hero had even more feats to perform of the same kind. In Paris in 1778 he tells us not to worry about a piece he had composed that was somehow lost. That he would write it down from memory whenever he had a free moment. (A Sinfonia Concertante, no less). Etc. etc. The 'genius' of this Salzburger leaves us breathless. Such a prodigious feat of musical memory !!
Speaking of which, we turn to this second part of the 'Haffner' Symphony saga.
On 27th July 1782, again on 31st July, and once again on 7th August of that same year Mozart claims to have sent movements of a musical work by post to celebrate, so we are told, the enoblement of one Sigmund Haffner in Salzburg, a friend of the Mozart family. And he recommended in a covering letter to his father, Leopold, that Leopold add to this new music for Haffner the March from a still earlier work (found in the serenade KV250) that had supposedly been composed by him back in July of 1776. This suggestion of adding the March from KV250 was not followed by Leopold in Salzburg. In fact the dates of this correspondence show no such new music could possibly have been sent to Salzburg for this ceremony by Mozart on any of those dates. Because Haffner's enoblement ceremony in Salzburg occurred (as recently discovered historical evidence shows) on the 29th July of 1782 ! We may therefore add Mozart's claims on this subject to the mountain of other falsehoods that surround his career.
That's point 1.
In fact, Leopold in Salzburg was therefore forced to use OTHER music in Salzburg for that Haffner celebratory event. And this explains why, when Leopold sent it 'back' to Wolfgang in Vienna in January of 1783 he, Wolfgang says -
'I had truly worked in such a hurry that I did not remember even one note of it. It's performance must have had a good effect' ( 15th February 1783, Wolfgang in Vienna to Leopold Mozart in Salzburg).
The truth is W.A. Mozart 'did not remember a note of it' for the simple reason it was NOT his music in the first place ! Leopold had used other music, as said, and this, with the later addition of timpani parts and some other changes, formed the basis of the music which Wolfgang received from his father in early 1783. This music, in fact, being not by Mozart, but by another composer. This later performed by Mozart as his very own symphony in Vienna and published (falsely) in W.A. Mozart's name some time later. As we will see in Part 3 of this saga. So much for the legendary 'musical memory' of Herr Mozart !! :)
//
Well, we finally got past Step 1. It took some doing, but, after some birth pains, we've finally moved on to Part 2 of the 'Haffner' Saga. This will be my last post for today.
PART 2/5
THE SYMPHONY KNOWN AS THE 'HAFFNER' KV385
Everyone knows that Mozart was a 'musical genius'. Why, his feats of musicality are numerous. These including astounding acts of virtuosity, of writing operas before breakfast and that kind of stuff. But one of the lesser known virtues of your hero was his phenomenal memory. Of which there are numerous documented examples in the literature. Including, for example, his ability to write down, from memory, an entire church mass at its first hearing. This feat performed in Rome as a visiting 14 year old prodigy. Rewarded a few days later by being awarded by the Pope with the Order of the Golden Spur. And our hero had even more feats to perform of the same kind. In Paris in 1778 he tells us not to worry about a piece he had composed that was somehow lost. That he would write it down from memory whenever he had a free moment. (A Sinfonia Concertante, no less). Etc. etc. The 'genius' of this Salzburger leaves us breathless. Such a prodigious feat of musical memory !!
Speaking of which, we turn to this second part of the 'Haffner' Symphony saga.
On 27th July 1782, again on 31st July, and once again on 7th August of that same year Mozart claims to have sent movements of a musical work by post to celebrate, so we are told, the enoblement of one Sigmund Haffner in Salzburg, a friend of the Mozart family. And he recommended in a covering letter to his father, Leopold, that Leopold add to this new music for Haffner the March from a still earlier work (found in the serenade KV250) that had supposedly been composed by him back in July of 1776. This suggestion of adding the March from KV250 was not followed by Leopold in Salzburg. In fact the dates of this correspondence show no such new music could possibly have been sent to Salzburg for this ceremony by Mozart on any of those dates. Because Haffner's enoblement ceremony in Salzburg occurred (as recently discovered historical evidence shows) on the 29th July of 1782 ! We may therefore add Mozart's claims on this subject to the mountain of other falsehoods that surround his career.
That's point 1.
In fact, Leopold in Salzburg was therefore forced to use OTHER music in Salzburg for that Haffner celebratory event. And this explains why, when Leopold sent it 'back' to Wolfgang in Vienna in January of 1783 he, Wolfgang says -
'I had truly worked in such a hurry that I did not remember even one note of it. It's performance must have had a good effect' ( 15th February 1783, Wolfgang in Vienna to Leopold Mozart in Salzburg).
The truth is W.A. Mozart 'did not remember a note of it' for the simple reason it was NOT his music in the first place ! Leopold had used other music, as said, and this, with the later addition of timpani parts and some other changes, formed the basis of the music which Wolfgang received from his father in early 1783. This music, in fact, being not by Mozart, but by another composer. This later performed by Mozart as his very own symphony in Vienna and published (falsely) in W.A. Mozart's name some time later. As we will see in Part 3 of this saga. So much for the legendary 'musical memory' of Herr Mozart !! :)
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:07:25 PM
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:07:25 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 12:32:49 PM
'I had truly worked in such a hurry that I did not remember even one note of it. It's performance must have had a good effect' ( 15th February 1783, Wolfgang in Vienna to Leopold Mozart in Salzburg).
The last sentence disagrees with Gurn's account. This one has the music being played before the letter was sent, in Gurn's Mozart is looking forward to the music's effect. Anyone have the original German?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:11:24 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:11:24 PM
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:07:25 PM
The last sentence disagrees with Gurn's account. This one has the music being played before the letter was sent, in Gurn's Mozart is looking forward to the music's effect. Anyone have the original German?
Well, Catison, the more you examine this correspondence the more clear it is that this charade was typical of Mozart's 'career'. The illusion of sending music which, in fact, could not possibly have been performed on that date, nor rehearsed etc. And THAT is a crucial fact. Mozart's miraculous memory seems to have suffered temporarily from amnesia at this point, it seems !! :) But in Part 3 we develop this further by examining other aspects of this music from archives.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:18:36 PM
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:18:36 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:11:24 PM
Well, Catison, the more you examine this correspondence the more clear it is that this charade was typical of Mozart's 'career'. The illusion of sending music which, in fact, could not possibly have been performed on that date, nor rehearsed etc. And THAT is a crucial fact. But in Part 3 we develop this further by examining other aspects of this music from archives.
That doesn't look like German to me. I don't really care about your opinion, I want FACTS.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:22:10 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:22:10 PM
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:18:36 PM
That doesn't look like German to me. I don't really care about your opinion, I want FACTS.
OK, if you don't really care about my opinions how about these FACTS -
1. Mozart seems to have suffered from a severe case of amnesia in respect of this symphony.
2. Mozart could not possibly have sent this music to Salzburg in time for its performance at Haffner's celebration
3. The timpani parts are NOT by W.A. Mozart.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of our fantasies ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:23:03 PM
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:23:03 PM
Besides, maybe Mozart didn't finish it by the deadline and then merely wanted the parts to perform later, which Gurn's post clearly states. You've ignored the clear FACTS.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:25:26 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:25:26 PM
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:23:03 PM
Besides, maybe Mozart didn't finish it by the deadline and then merely wanted the parts to perform later, which Gurn's post clearly states. You've ignored the clear FACTS.
Maybe pigs can fly ? Maybe you are wrong ? Maybe you are not interested in the views of others - since you said you weren't. Right ? Maybe you will believe anything. Maybe facts aren't what you're interested in ? And still we have parts 3, 4 and 5 to come.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:29:02 PM
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:29:02 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:22:10 PM
OK, if you don't really care about my opinions how about these FACTS -
1. Mozart suffered from a severe case of amnesia in respect of this music
2. Mozart could not possibly have sent this music to Salzburg in time for its performance at Haffner's celebration
3. The timpani parts are NOT by W.A. Mozart.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of our fantasies ?
1. So let me get this straight. You absolutely deny that Mozart was telling the truth when he wrote in his letter that he was the composer of the music, but you accept Mozart's line that he forgot all of it. Why one and not the other? Why use any of his letters as evidence if you are going to be select about what you believe? Or, even more curiously, why wasn't Mozart just pulling his father's leg in order to give himself an ego boost?
2. This was address by Gurn's post. Maybe he missed the deadline.
3. You are aware that timpani parts do not a symphony make? Any trumpet player will tell you that, because usually they double the timpani. I can't imagine a classical composer building a symphony around timpani parts.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 25, 2009, 01:29:14 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 25, 2009, 01:29:14 PM
It is being suggested that, memory lapse or not, Mozart could not recognise one of his own compositions? This sounds like a mother not being able to identify one of her own children.
I recall that some years ago an experiment was carried out at a university where they ran quite a few of Mozart's mature works through a computer programme. This was not under the impression that they might not be his; it was more to do with patters, looking for various fingerprints, cadences used and reused in specific ways, what made Mozart Mozart?
I recall one finding was that there was a complete consistency of style that bespoke of one mind, one brain having created all the tested works.
I have not mentioned this so far, because, I can't recall the university involved, so cannot track down the piece of research.
However, I think that it is a very odd idea that Mozart would not at once know whether the music was his, whether or not he recalled it.
From my reading of Mozart's family letters, some statements are not literal. But then, that opens a door that probably need not be opened.
Unfortunately I will be away for the next few days, I hope the exchanges can be prevented for any degeneration that would damage the thread.....I am sure we all want the remaining pieces of the jigsaw.
Mike
I recall that some years ago an experiment was carried out at a university where they ran quite a few of Mozart's mature works through a computer programme. This was not under the impression that they might not be his; it was more to do with patters, looking for various fingerprints, cadences used and reused in specific ways, what made Mozart Mozart?
I recall one finding was that there was a complete consistency of style that bespoke of one mind, one brain having created all the tested works.
I have not mentioned this so far, because, I can't recall the university involved, so cannot track down the piece of research.
However, I think that it is a very odd idea that Mozart would not at once know whether the music was his, whether or not he recalled it.
From my reading of Mozart's family letters, some statements are not literal. But then, that opens a door that probably need not be opened.
Unfortunately I will be away for the next few days, I hope the exchanges can be prevented for any degeneration that would damage the thread.....I am sure we all want the remaining pieces of the jigsaw.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:33:49 PM
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:33:49 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:25:26 PM
Maybe pigs can fly ? Maybe you are wrong ? Maybe you are not interested in the views of others - since you said you weren't. Right ? Maybe you will believe anything. Maybe facts aren't what you're interested in ? And still we have parts 3, 4 and 5 to come.
So why couldn't Mozart have simply missed the deadline? Where is the evidence that the symphony was actually played? Post evidence please, not a post talking about evidence.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:38:49 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:38:49 PM
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 01:33:49 PM
So why couldn't Mozart have simply missed the deadline? Where is the evidence that the symphony was actually played? Post evidence please, not a post talking about evidence.
But the symphony was NOT performed. That is the whole point. The symphony did not even exist at the time of Haffner's celebrations. It existed only later, shortly after Mozart received this music back from Salzburg in early 1783. It was at that time that it underwent changes and BECAME a symphony. Which he, Mozart, had performed in Vienna and which was later published in Mozart's own name. But its real origins are something we will examine in the next 3 parts. From documentary evidence.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on May 25, 2009, 01:39:48 PM
Post by: Bulldog on May 25, 2009, 01:39:48 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:22:10 PM
OK, if you don't really care about my opinions how about these FACTS -
1. Mozart seems to have suffered from a severe case of amnesia in respect of this symphony.
It's best not to write "seems" when presenting FACTS, because that removes the sentence from the FACT category.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:44:24 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:44:24 PM
Quote from: knight on May 25, 2009, 01:29:14 PM
It is being suggested that, memory lapse or not, Mozart could not recognise one of his own compositions? This sounds like a mother not being able to identify one of her own children.
I recall that some years ago an experiment was carried out at a university where they ran quite a few of Mozart's mature works through a computer programme. This was not under the impression that they might not be his; it was more to do with patters, looking for various fingerprints, cadences used and reused in specific ways, what made Mozart Mozart?
I recall one finding was that there was a complete consistency of style that bespoke of one mind, one brain having created all the tested works.
I have not mentioned this so far, because, I can't recall the university involved, so cannot track down the piece of research.
However, I think that it is a very odd idea that Mozart would not at once know whether the music was his, whether or not he recalled it.
From my reading of Mozart's family letters, some statements are not literal. But then, that opens a door that probably need not be opened.
Unfortunately I will be away for the next few days, I hope the exchanges can be prevented for any degeneration that would damage the thread.....I am sure we all want the remaining pieces of the jigsaw.
Mike
Mike has made some good points. What's the chance of Mozart, musical genius, able to remember works at a moment's notice, would have forgotten every single note of a symphony he himself had supposedly composed not long before ? This starts to become highly improbable, even with a man of average memory. It must have been amnesia or something else. I think it was 'something else'.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 25, 2009, 01:50:29 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 25, 2009, 01:50:29 PM
I would like to think that the point I made was a little more sophisticated than you have reduced it to.
Whether he recalled it or not, I doubt he basically would have had a piece foisted upon him, he knew intimately the fingerprints of his own craft.
He was well known for jokes in his letters, I think it is dangerous to build a theology on the premise that he was entirely serious in that single remark to his father.
Mike
Whether he recalled it or not, I doubt he basically would have had a piece foisted upon him, he knew intimately the fingerprints of his own craft.
He was well known for jokes in his letters, I think it is dangerous to build a theology on the premise that he was entirely serious in that single remark to his father.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:59:36 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:59:36 PM
Quote from: knight on May 25, 2009, 01:50:29 PM
I would like to think that the point I made was a little more sophisticated than you have reduced it to.
Whether he recalled it or not, I doubt he basically would have had a piece foisted upon him, he knew intimately the fingerprints of his own craft.
He was well known for jokes in his letters, I think it is dangerous to build a theology on the premise that he was entirely serious in that single remark to his father.
Mike
True. The same applies to those who rely on the contents of letters by Mozart himself (and of those around him) when, in fact, they can be shown to contradict other lines of evidence. Which shows how dangerous (as you say) it is to build anything on the premise that he was entirely serious in that single remark to his father.
But in Parts 3, 4 and 5 we have no need to rely on such remarks.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 02:02:17 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 02:02:17 PM
Robert,
You are making me type, and you know I hate to do that on a holiday, I am supposed to be relaxing. If I get carpal tunnel syndrome, I shall hold you to account. >:(
Let's use dates when we talk about these things. The letter from Leopold to Wolfgang asking for the symphony was sent in mid-July (Wolfgang never saved any letters by anybody, especially Leopold's). The return letter (which I quoted) was dated July 20, 1782 (Leopold saved every letter). Haffner was ennobled on July 29. There is the beginning of a timeline. How Leopold could have expected a symphony to be composed, copied, posted, rehearsed and ready for performance in that amount of time is all rather stunning to start with. In any case, no, the symphony wasn't ready in time. Do you recognize that Mozart's little jibe "I have even composed it in D major, since I know that's a key you prefer" is a (obvious to Leopold) jibe at Leopold's old-fashioned taste? You should do, that's what makes research fun.
Now, for the return. Mozart wrote on Dec 4, and again on Dec 21 asking for the return of the symphony along with K 204, 201, 182 & 183 so he could use them for the Lenten concert series. He wrote again on Jan 4, 22 & Feb 5. He even stated the date of the concert (March 23) to indicate his urgency. Why, you ask, didn't he just write a new one since Leopold was being a butt? Well, he was busy writing piano concertos at the time. He had a low opinion of symphonies as a genre at that time, and he was going to make his name a fortune with piano concertos (which he did). The concertos which Köchel called 413-415, but which K6 calls 385p and 387a & b were composed to be premiered at the Lenten concerts. Are you still with me? Good!
When he got the score, he deleted the repeats in the first movement and added pairs of flutes and clarinets in the first and last movements. You can tell this because:
a: the changes are in his handwriting
b: he used a different color of ink
Now, I'm tired of typing, and really, you aren't debating with me, I'm just a curious onlooker. But I want you to be honest with these good people. It saves me having to come back and correct your revisionist history. As someone mentioned, you can't merely select the facts you like and discard the rest. And as YOU said, you have to have context. :)
Cheers,
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Trio Miró - Boccherini (good enough to have written Haydn's oeuvre for him) - Op 14 Trio #5 in Eb for Strings 1st mvmt - Andantino
You are making me type, and you know I hate to do that on a holiday, I am supposed to be relaxing. If I get carpal tunnel syndrome, I shall hold you to account. >:(
Let's use dates when we talk about these things. The letter from Leopold to Wolfgang asking for the symphony was sent in mid-July (Wolfgang never saved any letters by anybody, especially Leopold's). The return letter (which I quoted) was dated July 20, 1782 (Leopold saved every letter). Haffner was ennobled on July 29. There is the beginning of a timeline. How Leopold could have expected a symphony to be composed, copied, posted, rehearsed and ready for performance in that amount of time is all rather stunning to start with. In any case, no, the symphony wasn't ready in time. Do you recognize that Mozart's little jibe "I have even composed it in D major, since I know that's a key you prefer" is a (obvious to Leopold) jibe at Leopold's old-fashioned taste? You should do, that's what makes research fun.
Now, for the return. Mozart wrote on Dec 4, and again on Dec 21 asking for the return of the symphony along with K 204, 201, 182 & 183 so he could use them for the Lenten concert series. He wrote again on Jan 4, 22 & Feb 5. He even stated the date of the concert (March 23) to indicate his urgency. Why, you ask, didn't he just write a new one since Leopold was being a butt? Well, he was busy writing piano concertos at the time. He had a low opinion of symphonies as a genre at that time, and he was going to make his name a fortune with piano concertos (which he did). The concertos which Köchel called 413-415, but which K6 calls 385p and 387a & b were composed to be premiered at the Lenten concerts. Are you still with me? Good!
When he got the score, he deleted the repeats in the first movement and added pairs of flutes and clarinets in the first and last movements. You can tell this because:
a: the changes are in his handwriting
b: he used a different color of ink
Now, I'm tired of typing, and really, you aren't debating with me, I'm just a curious onlooker. But I want you to be honest with these good people. It saves me having to come back and correct your revisionist history. As someone mentioned, you can't merely select the facts you like and discard the rest. And as YOU said, you have to have context. :)
Cheers,
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Trio Miró - Boccherini (good enough to have written Haydn's oeuvre for him) - Op 14 Trio #5 in Eb for Strings 1st mvmt - Andantino
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 02:03:50 PM
Post by: Catison on May 25, 2009, 02:03:50 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:22:10 PM
2. Mozart could not possibly have sent this music to Salzburg in time for its performance at Haffner's celebration
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:38:49 PM
But the symphony was NOT performed. That is the whole point. The symphony did not even exist at the time of Haffner's celebrations.
Inconsistent are we? So its a big deal that he couldn't have sent the music in time for the performance, but it is also a big deal that there was no performance?
I think everyone agrees it is unlikely the symphony was performed on schedule, but then again sometimes people miss deadlines, especially when they are busy writing other masterpieces. Big whoop.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 25, 2009, 02:11:09 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 25, 2009, 02:11:09 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 01:22:10 PMIndeed--Newman has yet to let facts interfere with his fantasies. Everyone else here understands the difference between facts and inane opinions.
OK, if you don't really care about my opinions how about these FACTS -
1. Mozart suffered from a severe case of amnesia in respect of this music
2. Mozart could not possibly have sent this music to Salzburg in time for its performance at Haffner's celebration
3. The timpani parts are NOT by W.A. Mozart.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of our fantasies ?
edit: Correction: Almost everyone!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 02:23:17 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 25, 2009, 02:23:17 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 02:02:17 PM
Robert,
You are making me type, and you know I hate to do that on a holiday, I am supposed to be relaxing. If I get carpal tunnel syndrome, I shall hold you to account. >:(
Let's use dates when we talk about these things. The letter from Leopold to Wolfgang asking for the symphony was sent in mid-July (Wolfgang never saved any letters by anybody, especially Leopold's). The return letter (which I quoted) was dated July 20, 1782 (Leopold saved every letter). Haffner was ennobled on July 29. There is the beginning of a timeline. How Leopold could have expected a symphony to be composed, copied, posted, rehearsed and ready for performance in that amount of time is all rather stunning to start with. In any case, no, the symphony wasn't ready in time. Do you recognize that Mozart's little jibe "I have even composed it in D major, since I know that's a key you prefer" is a (obvious to Leopold) jibe at Leopold's old-fashioned taste? You should do, that's what makes research fun.
Now, for the return. Mozart wrote on Dec 4, and again on Dec 21 asking for the return of the symphony along with K 204, 201, 182 & 183 so he could use them for the Lenten concert series. He wrote again on Jan 4, 22 & Feb 5. He even stated the date of the concert (March 23) to indicate his urgency. Why, you ask, didn't he just write a new one since Leopold was being a butt? Well, he was busy writing piano concertos at the time. He had a low opinion of symphonies as a genre at that time, and he was going to make his name a fortune with piano concertos (which he did). The concertos which Köchel called 413-415, but which K6 calls 385p and 387a & b were composed to be premiered at the Lenten concerts. Are you still with me? Good!
When he got the score, he deleted the repeats in the first movement and added pairs of flutes and clarinets in the first and last movements. You can tell this because:
a: the changes are in his handwriting
b: he used a different color of ink
Now, I'm tired of typing, and really, you aren't debating with me, I'm just a curious onlooker. But I want you to be honest with these good people. It saves me having to come back and correct your revisionist history. As someone mentioned, you can't merely select the facts you like and discard the rest. And as YOU said, you have to have context. :)
Cheers,
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Trio Miró - Boccherini (good enough to have written Haydn's oeuvre for him) - Op 14 Trio #5 in Eb for Strings 1st mvmt - Andantino
Gurn Blanston,
I have no problem with most of what you have written. And thanks for taking the time on a holiday. Having used dates myself in my own post (as you know) let me move on to where you say -
How Leopold could have expected a symphony to be composed, copied, posted, rehearsed and ready for performance in that amount of time is all rather stunning to start with.
Yes, indeed ! Let's add this to the growing list of curiosities about this affair. And yet Mozart claimed he DID write it in this period. Not only so, but he claims to have sent it. And yet, as you already accept, the dates simply do not add up. The work (as we surely agree) was NOT performed at Haffner's celebrations. And then there is another problem - there is nothing in Mozart's letters of this time to suggest there was a problem at the time he sent it. Which begs the question of why Mozart would have sent this music for the Haffner festivities if, at the time, Wolfgang knew it could not possibly be performed for the very occasion for which it was supposedly composed ? :) Now, if you grant me this, we might perhaps say this gaping hole in the Mozart correspondence on this issue can be added to Mozart's amensia on the 'return' of it from Salzburg early the next year, when he very strangely remembers not a note of it. The list of oddities seems to be growing, don't you agree ?
But anyway, fortunately, there are 3 further installments to go and thanks for at least offering a fair and measured view which allows others to form a fair judgement.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on May 25, 2009, 02:29:54 PM
Post by: knight66 on May 25, 2009, 02:29:54 PM
I was under the impression that Mozart would normally try hard to comply with his father's requests or demands, be they reasonable or not. There may well be family dynamics at play here.
We also have the inconvenient occurrence that his music was sent back to him, perhaps he did not recall it, perhaps that remark was a joke. But he did not write to his father along the lines of...What is this? I never wrote this!
I see no reason to imagine he could have a changeling slipped into his nest and not realise it.
Mike
We also have the inconvenient occurrence that his music was sent back to him, perhaps he did not recall it, perhaps that remark was a joke. But he did not write to his father along the lines of...What is this? I never wrote this!
I see no reason to imagine he could have a changeling slipped into his nest and not realise it.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 02:41:01 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 25, 2009, 02:41:01 PM
Quote from: knight on May 25, 2009, 02:29:54 PM
I was under the impression that Mozart would normally try hard to comply with his father's requests or demands, be they reasonable or not. There may well be family dynamics at play here.
"I am up to my ears in work. By a week from Sunday, I must arrange my opera for wind instruments, or someone else will do it and secure the profits instead of me. And now you ask for a new symphony, too! How on earth can I do that? ...well, I will have to stay up all night, for that is the only way; for you, dearest father, I will make the sacrifice. You may rely on having something from me in each mail delivery."
That rather fits in with your initial impression, does it not? :)
As for his comment to Leopold about having forgotten every note, I know that if I had been in his situation, begging for 2 full months to get my music back and it finally showed up (none too soon), it is remotely possible that my remark (at safe remove, of course) might have contained a bit of sarcasm. Not that sarcasm comes naturally to me, but I think I could have fished up something like "wow, I didn't even recognize it! ::) ".
But hey, that's just me... ;)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
La Real Cámara - Boccherini - G 117 Trio in d for 2 Violins & Cello 1st mvmt - Allegretto moderato
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on May 25, 2009, 10:55:22 PM
Post by: snyprrr on May 25, 2009, 10:55:22 PM
So, did Mozart actually send some other music? I mean, is it clear or not whether something was sent...anything? Is there a letter from Leopold actually saying, "Oh son, this is a great thing you've sent me."? Nothing between August and December between them on this matter?
How would WAM know that there was a score and parts at his dad's place that he needed? Unless he's speaking in Masonic code, it seems like he's asking for the music he "sent" to Leopold over the period around late July.
Is Leopold supposed to be some kind of Svengali? Did "child stars" back then not suffer as they do now? (just asking: please stay squarely on the HAFFNER: I'm learning a lot) Cheers!
How would WAM know that there was a score and parts at his dad's place that he needed? Unless he's speaking in Masonic code, it seems like he's asking for the music he "sent" to Leopold over the period around late July.
Is Leopold supposed to be some kind of Svengali? Did "child stars" back then not suffer as they do now? (just asking: please stay squarely on the HAFFNER: I'm learning a lot) Cheers!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 26, 2009, 12:43:04 AM
Post by: Herman on May 26, 2009, 12:43:04 AM
Snyppr, with the exception of Gurn's posts you could learn more about Mozart and his work methods from any type of book than on this toxic thread. Even a good cd booklet is more informative and truthful, so you'd best disregard this.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 02:04:11 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 02:04:11 AM
3/5
The 'Haffner' Symphony, KV385, and the circumstances surrounding it are already acknowledged to be very strange. We are asked to believe Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in Vienna composed and sent this music by post to Salzburg in response to several requests, this addressed to his father Leopold, but at a date so late it could not have been received in time to be rehearsed, let alone performed for the festive occasion for which it was supposedly composed ! And we are further asked to believe that on its return to Wolfgang in Vienna its composer (a man with a reputation of having the phenomenal ability to write entire pieces down from memory) was unable to remember even a single note of his own symphony.
Gurn Blanston has suggested -
''As for his comment to Leopold about having forgotten every note, I know that if I had been in his situation, begging for 2 full months to get my music back and it finally showed up (none too soon), it is remotely possible that my remark (at safe remove, of course) might have contained a bit of sarcasm. Not that sarcasm comes naturally to me, but I think I could have fished up something like "wow, I didn't even recognize it! ".
In this 3rd part we escape completely from this tangled and increasingly contradictory situation to examine some remarkable evidence from other sources. Since, up until now, we've been reading this 'Haffner' correspondence at face value, assuming that it bears true record of the events surrounding the birth of this symphony. Drawing solely on the Mozart family side of things. Correspondence which, at the very least, is highly discrepant. The extreme improbability of sending such music too late, to have done so without even acknowledging its lateness at the time it was sent, and the strange case of insomnia that seems to have befallen its composer on its return to Vienna - these all strongly indicate (to me, at least, and perhaps to neutral readers also) that we are not reading the full truth.
So, where next ? Well, this 3rd part is a fairly long one. It has to be. Since the Haffner story has more twists in it. And there is evidence of great significance which is little known. Here presented for almost the first time. Evidence which may go far to solving this 'Haffner' case altogether.
First, some background.
Around 2 years ago an editor busy on preparing a new edition of the Koechel catalogue of Mozart's works was approached by email on the forthcoming 8th edition of that catalogue to be reminded (respectfully) of the existence of some very early versions of 'Mozart' symphonies (scores and performance parts) which have never been studied or recognised in any detail by Mozart researchers. These consisting of no less than 9 scores and their performance parts. The details of which were first studied in some detail by the brilliant Italian independent reseacher Prof. Giorgio Taboga and later examined by two noted Italian musicologists, Professors Luca Bianchini and Anna Trombetta (these last two having considerable experience in the field of 18th century music manuscripts and who were author, in 2008, of a detailed study of the little known performance score in Vienna of the 1786 premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'). These 9 symphonic documents being indisputably of date close to the time of their composition as we will see. (Further confirmed by watermark and other evidence). And held, today, at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy.
The editor was asked in that email to take special note of these precious manuscripts, especially since they seem to have been repeatedly ignored by Mozart researchers for almost 200 years. And since they include (amongst them) almost unknown versions of famous works such as the 'Prague' Symphony and (fortunately) a version of the symphony now under discussion. The 'Haffner', KV385.
But the attempt failed. The editor (like his predecessors) was unable to reply. Further attempts were made to bring these important manuscripts to the attention of the musical public and some correspondence was even made with the famous low-budget recording company, Naxos, in the hope that these works (these versions) might at last come to the attention of music lovers generally.
(I refer to these things because it seems to me that amnesia is fairly common in Mozart research itself).
The source of the Mozart symphonic material now at Modena is truly remarkable. They came from Bonn in Germany and can be shown to be parts of the great music library of the Bonn Hofkappelle, arriving in Modena only in the 19th century after their evacuation from Bonn at the time of the Napoleonic period. Together with a considerable part of that great music archive. All of these from the time when Ludwig van Beethoven was a pupil there, under the leadership of Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. In fact, we know Bonn's music archives were last inventoried in the year of 1784 since the document still survives of its findings in Bonn. This music inventory was made at the very time, therefore, when Mozart (friend of the Elector Max Franz) was alive and at the very time when he had high hopes of becoming its Kapellmeister. This because of promises made to him to that effect as early as 1782 (and which we find in the Mozart correspondence). Max Franz, younger brother of the Emperor Joseph 2nd became Elector at Bonn in that same year of 1784 and it was he himself who ordered the music inventory of the assets of the chapel to be made. So the extreme importance of these Bonn musical archives is obvious. Particularly since we see, here at Modena, no less than 9 symphonic scores of 'Mozart' that came from that source.
Which brings us to the next strange fact. Prof. Giorgio Taboga, many years ago, decided to examine details of the 1784 inventory and its part today at Modena and discovered to his surprise that in its pages not a single mass or symphony is refered to anywhere by Mozart. A strange fact if, at the time Mozart was a celebrated composer of both ! And since the Bonn inventory of 1784 was to be the last ever made before the chapel closed in 1794 the strangeness of Taboga's discovery made him keen to examine these Modena scores in more detail.
In respect of the 'Haffner' at Modena (and this confirmed by later research made on it by the above mentioned Professors Bianchini and Trombetta) is was found that it differed from versions with which we are today familiar in respect of its curious orchestral scoring. The closer examination of which suggested that the following sequence of events must have occurred in Salzburg for those festivities which the Mozarts are refering to in their correspondence.
1. Leopold Mozart, having already available in Salzburg this very work (supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer) decided to use it as music for these festivities of Haffner in Salzburg in that year of 1782. Nothing had been received from his son in Vienna and time was passing quickly. The work he had to hand, a symphony, needed however to be quickly altered by Leopold. By the addition to its score of trumpets and timpani parts, and by addition of various other movements from other works. Thus transforming an original symphony by a third person in to a serenade fit for these Salzburg festivities of Sigmund Haffner. It was THIS new version which, some time later, the father Leopold sent 'back' to his son in Vienna. On receipt of which Wolfgang, not recognising a note of it, now added to this new version a flute part and also a clarinet part. In effect, re-arranging the piece once again. So that the serenade version made by Leopold in Salzburg was turned back, once more, into a symphony. Though with scoring now very different from the original. And this new arrangement was later in that same year of 1783 (23rd March) then performed in Vienna by Mozart as if it was Mozart's own, being finally published for the first time there in Mozart's name also by Artaria in 1785.
2. Remarkably, we see this possibility, this explanation, as a real possibility in the version of Modena, which lacks timpanis, trumpets, flutes and clarinets. The original symphony ! And not by Mozart.
3. The early scoring of this Modena version is in fact similar to that of Symphonies KV201 and KV203, allowing us to suggest that its true composition date may have been around 1772-1774.
4. It only remains to say that transforming serenades in to symphonies is already a well known feature of 'Mozart's' symphonies. The same having occurred in works such as serenades KV203 and also KV320.
5. And so the Modena manuscript of the 'Haffner' may finally be appreciated as one of the very earliest, if not the earliest form of this music today falsely attributed to W.A. Mozart. A work which came to Salzburg and was there at the time of the Haffner festivities. Whose true composer may likely be none other than the Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. A composer whose symphonies are specifically refered to by J. de La Bordes (1783) in his 'Essai sur la musique' as being in great demand amongst German princes. (No such reference appearing in that publication of symphonies by Mozart).
In conclusion, I suggest the full story of the 'Haffner' is one of transformation of existing music at Salzburg and the later use of it in another form by Wolfgang Mozart in Vienna. Though the music itself is and always was that of a third party. The 9 'Mozart' symphonies at Modena are disregarded for the simple reason that their existence there begs an explanation. One too unpalatable for the Mozart industry. The explanation being that no such works by him were known in Bonn at the time of that inventory. They 'became' Mozart before the time of their arrival there. And amongst them the 'Haffner'.
The 'Haffner' Symphony, KV385, and the circumstances surrounding it are already acknowledged to be very strange. We are asked to believe Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in Vienna composed and sent this music by post to Salzburg in response to several requests, this addressed to his father Leopold, but at a date so late it could not have been received in time to be rehearsed, let alone performed for the festive occasion for which it was supposedly composed ! And we are further asked to believe that on its return to Wolfgang in Vienna its composer (a man with a reputation of having the phenomenal ability to write entire pieces down from memory) was unable to remember even a single note of his own symphony.
Gurn Blanston has suggested -
''As for his comment to Leopold about having forgotten every note, I know that if I had been in his situation, begging for 2 full months to get my music back and it finally showed up (none too soon), it is remotely possible that my remark (at safe remove, of course) might have contained a bit of sarcasm. Not that sarcasm comes naturally to me, but I think I could have fished up something like "wow, I didn't even recognize it! ".
In this 3rd part we escape completely from this tangled and increasingly contradictory situation to examine some remarkable evidence from other sources. Since, up until now, we've been reading this 'Haffner' correspondence at face value, assuming that it bears true record of the events surrounding the birth of this symphony. Drawing solely on the Mozart family side of things. Correspondence which, at the very least, is highly discrepant. The extreme improbability of sending such music too late, to have done so without even acknowledging its lateness at the time it was sent, and the strange case of insomnia that seems to have befallen its composer on its return to Vienna - these all strongly indicate (to me, at least, and perhaps to neutral readers also) that we are not reading the full truth.
So, where next ? Well, this 3rd part is a fairly long one. It has to be. Since the Haffner story has more twists in it. And there is evidence of great significance which is little known. Here presented for almost the first time. Evidence which may go far to solving this 'Haffner' case altogether.
First, some background.
Around 2 years ago an editor busy on preparing a new edition of the Koechel catalogue of Mozart's works was approached by email on the forthcoming 8th edition of that catalogue to be reminded (respectfully) of the existence of some very early versions of 'Mozart' symphonies (scores and performance parts) which have never been studied or recognised in any detail by Mozart researchers. These consisting of no less than 9 scores and their performance parts. The details of which were first studied in some detail by the brilliant Italian independent reseacher Prof. Giorgio Taboga and later examined by two noted Italian musicologists, Professors Luca Bianchini and Anna Trombetta (these last two having considerable experience in the field of 18th century music manuscripts and who were author, in 2008, of a detailed study of the little known performance score in Vienna of the 1786 premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'). These 9 symphonic documents being indisputably of date close to the time of their composition as we will see. (Further confirmed by watermark and other evidence). And held, today, at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy.
The editor was asked in that email to take special note of these precious manuscripts, especially since they seem to have been repeatedly ignored by Mozart researchers for almost 200 years. And since they include (amongst them) almost unknown versions of famous works such as the 'Prague' Symphony and (fortunately) a version of the symphony now under discussion. The 'Haffner', KV385.
But the attempt failed. The editor (like his predecessors) was unable to reply. Further attempts were made to bring these important manuscripts to the attention of the musical public and some correspondence was even made with the famous low-budget recording company, Naxos, in the hope that these works (these versions) might at last come to the attention of music lovers generally.
(I refer to these things because it seems to me that amnesia is fairly common in Mozart research itself).
The source of the Mozart symphonic material now at Modena is truly remarkable. They came from Bonn in Germany and can be shown to be parts of the great music library of the Bonn Hofkappelle, arriving in Modena only in the 19th century after their evacuation from Bonn at the time of the Napoleonic period. Together with a considerable part of that great music archive. All of these from the time when Ludwig van Beethoven was a pupil there, under the leadership of Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. In fact, we know Bonn's music archives were last inventoried in the year of 1784 since the document still survives of its findings in Bonn. This music inventory was made at the very time, therefore, when Mozart (friend of the Elector Max Franz) was alive and at the very time when he had high hopes of becoming its Kapellmeister. This because of promises made to him to that effect as early as 1782 (and which we find in the Mozart correspondence). Max Franz, younger brother of the Emperor Joseph 2nd became Elector at Bonn in that same year of 1784 and it was he himself who ordered the music inventory of the assets of the chapel to be made. So the extreme importance of these Bonn musical archives is obvious. Particularly since we see, here at Modena, no less than 9 symphonic scores of 'Mozart' that came from that source.
Which brings us to the next strange fact. Prof. Giorgio Taboga, many years ago, decided to examine details of the 1784 inventory and its part today at Modena and discovered to his surprise that in its pages not a single mass or symphony is refered to anywhere by Mozart. A strange fact if, at the time Mozart was a celebrated composer of both ! And since the Bonn inventory of 1784 was to be the last ever made before the chapel closed in 1794 the strangeness of Taboga's discovery made him keen to examine these Modena scores in more detail.
In respect of the 'Haffner' at Modena (and this confirmed by later research made on it by the above mentioned Professors Bianchini and Trombetta) is was found that it differed from versions with which we are today familiar in respect of its curious orchestral scoring. The closer examination of which suggested that the following sequence of events must have occurred in Salzburg for those festivities which the Mozarts are refering to in their correspondence.
1. Leopold Mozart, having already available in Salzburg this very work (supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer) decided to use it as music for these festivities of Haffner in Salzburg in that year of 1782. Nothing had been received from his son in Vienna and time was passing quickly. The work he had to hand, a symphony, needed however to be quickly altered by Leopold. By the addition to its score of trumpets and timpani parts, and by addition of various other movements from other works. Thus transforming an original symphony by a third person in to a serenade fit for these Salzburg festivities of Sigmund Haffner. It was THIS new version which, some time later, the father Leopold sent 'back' to his son in Vienna. On receipt of which Wolfgang, not recognising a note of it, now added to this new version a flute part and also a clarinet part. In effect, re-arranging the piece once again. So that the serenade version made by Leopold in Salzburg was turned back, once more, into a symphony. Though with scoring now very different from the original. And this new arrangement was later in that same year of 1783 (23rd March) then performed in Vienna by Mozart as if it was Mozart's own, being finally published for the first time there in Mozart's name also by Artaria in 1785.
2. Remarkably, we see this possibility, this explanation, as a real possibility in the version of Modena, which lacks timpanis, trumpets, flutes and clarinets. The original symphony ! And not by Mozart.
3. The early scoring of this Modena version is in fact similar to that of Symphonies KV201 and KV203, allowing us to suggest that its true composition date may have been around 1772-1774.
4. It only remains to say that transforming serenades in to symphonies is already a well known feature of 'Mozart's' symphonies. The same having occurred in works such as serenades KV203 and also KV320.
5. And so the Modena manuscript of the 'Haffner' may finally be appreciated as one of the very earliest, if not the earliest form of this music today falsely attributed to W.A. Mozart. A work which came to Salzburg and was there at the time of the Haffner festivities. Whose true composer may likely be none other than the Bonn Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. A composer whose symphonies are specifically refered to by J. de La Bordes (1783) in his 'Essai sur la musique' as being in great demand amongst German princes. (No such reference appearing in that publication of symphonies by Mozart).
In conclusion, I suggest the full story of the 'Haffner' is one of transformation of existing music at Salzburg and the later use of it in another form by Wolfgang Mozart in Vienna. Though the music itself is and always was that of a third party. The 9 'Mozart' symphonies at Modena are disregarded for the simple reason that their existence there begs an explanation. One too unpalatable for the Mozart industry. The explanation being that no such works by him were known in Bonn at the time of that inventory. They 'became' Mozart before the time of their arrival there. And amongst them the 'Haffner'.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 26, 2009, 02:55:53 AM
Post by: Herman on May 26, 2009, 02:55:53 AM
You should really call it quits now, this is getting pathetic.
There's this enormous post, and the quintessence of your case is hidden away in a parenthetical phrase. "supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer." This would require a mountain of evidence, however there is none. And so you have no case.
Yes, Mozart was too late in dispatching the Haffner symphony. Very interesting. That doesn't, however, mean the composition isn't his.
How do you account for the correspondences between The Abduction and the Haffner Sympony's finale?
There's this enormous post, and the quintessence of your case is hidden away in a parenthetical phrase. "supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer." This would require a mountain of evidence, however there is none. And so you have no case.
Yes, Mozart was too late in dispatching the Haffner symphony. Very interesting. That doesn't, however, mean the composition isn't his.
How do you account for the correspondences between The Abduction and the Haffner Sympony's finale?
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 02:04:11 AM
1. Leopold Mozart, having already available in Salzburg this very work (supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer) decided to use this it for these festivities of Haffner in 1782. Nothing had been received from his son in Vienna and time was passing quickly. The work he had to hand, a symphony, needed however to be quickly altered by Leopold.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 03:16:56 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 03:16:56 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 26, 2009, 02:55:53 AM
You should really call it quits now, this is getting pathetic.
;D
Quote from: Herman on May 26, 2009, 02:55:53 AM
There's this enormous post..
This is a average post by Rob's standards. He never says one word when one thousand will do just the same!
Check this 200+ page topic where he questions the origins of Figaro for comparison...
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/le-nozze-di-figaro-formative-history-1784-6-t448.html
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 03:39:56 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 03:39:56 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 26, 2009, 02:55:53 AM
There's this enormous post, and the quintessence of your case is hidden away in a parenthetical phrase. "supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer." This would require a mountain of evidence, however there is none. And so you have no case.
Yes, Mozart was too late in dispatching the Haffner symphony. Very interesting. That doesn't, however, mean the composition isn't his.
Quoted both for truth, and for exemplary brevity.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 03:43:57 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 03:43:57 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 26, 2009, 02:55:53 AM
You should really call it quits now, this is getting pathetic.
There's this enormous post, and the quintessence of your case is hidden away in a parenthetical phrase. "supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer." This would require a mountain of evidence, however there is none. And so you have no case.
Yes, Mozart was too late in dispatching the Haffner symphony. Very interesting. That doesn't, however, mean the composition isn't his.
How do you account for the correspondences between The Abduction and the Haffner Sympony's finale?
I account for the correspondence between 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail'/'Abduction from the Seraglio' and the finale of the 'Haffner' Symphony KV385 by reference to the documentary and contemporary eyewitness evidence of the great music lover Count Zinzendorf. Who, himself attending the premiere of the singspiel 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail' in Vienna noted, (in his own diary) -
'This opera, whose music has been pilfered from various others - is NOT by Mozart'.
Source - Count Zinzendorf - Journal Entry, Vienna, 1782 - Day of the Premiere of, 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail'.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 03:45:21 AM
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 03:45:21 AM
Good job, Mr. Newman for finally writing your thoughts down with evidence. May I suggest this is where you should have started? Now we have something to talk about. We can talk about FACTS and not your particular impression of the FACTS.
Also, does anyone have the original German of this letter that is so important to the Haffner symphony?
Also, does anyone have the original German of this letter that is so important to the Haffner symphony?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 03:51:06 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 03:51:06 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 03:43:57 AM
ISource - Count Zinzendorf - Journal Entry, Vienna, 1782 - Day of the Premiere of 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail'.
Can we see this entry anywhere?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 03:53:28 AM
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 03:53:28 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 03:51:06 AM
Can we see this entry anywhere?
He seems to be a theologian, not a music expert.
See http://www.zinzendorf.com/countz.htm, which includes this relatively minor point, "Zinzendorf died in 1760 at Herrnhut." So I don't quite see how he was writing journals in 1782.
Perhaps a different Zinzendorf?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 26, 2009, 03:54:54 AM
Post by: Holly on May 26, 2009, 03:54:54 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 26, 2009, 02:55:53 AM
You should really call it quits now, this is getting pathetic.
There's this enormous post, and the quintessence of your case is hidden away in a parenthetical phrase. "supplied to Salzburg some years earlier by its true composer." This would require a mountain of evidence, however there is none. And so you have no case.
Yes, Mozart was too late in dispatching the Haffner symphony. Very interesting. That doesn't, however, mean the composition isn't his.
How do you account for the correspondences between The Abduction and the Haffner Sympony's finale?
Herman, scrolling through this thread one could be forgiven for thinking it's pretty obvious you are one of Newman's main enablers, just as you accused me the other day, much to my annoyance and shock/horror. Members here have been advising to let this silly non-issue just die and let this thread be buried under more genuine discussion threads. But you keep bumping it with more and more requests for clarifications which are obviously going to achieve nothing but drag us further into the mire.
Herman, you are out of your depth with Newman. He has PhD in B.S. from Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Calcutta.
Herman. I suggest we let this topic die a peaceful death. Mr Newman has admitted he has no evidence, and that's it.
The same applies to David Ross who keeps sticking his oar in after repeatedly advising others to desist.
I bet Rod Corkin's glad he got shot of all this nonsense from CMM a few months ago. What happened, Rod, were your data storage bills getting too high, or was the honeymoon ended?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 03:56:29 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 03:56:29 AM
Quote from: Catison on May 26, 2009, 03:53:28 AM
He seems to be a theologian, not a music expert.
See http://www.zinzendorf.com/countz.htm, which includes this relatively minor point, "Zinzendorf died in 1760 at Herrnhut." So I don't quite see how he was writing journals in 1782.
Perhaps a different Zinzendorf?
Yes, a different Zinzendorf. An earlier one was the theologian.
/
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 03:58:14 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 03:58:14 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 03:51:06 AM
Can we see this entry anywhere?
Yes, it is in Vienna, in the unpublished diaries of Count Zinzendorf. And is refered to by various Mozart biographers.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 04:06:28 AM
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 04:06:28 AM
Quote from: Catison on May 26, 2009, 03:53:28 AM
Perhaps a different Zinzendorf?
Yes, whoops. A Karl von Zinzendorf, but I would not take his musical taste as learned truth. See: http://oq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/16/4/650.pdf (pg. 654)
'For Link, the great value of Zinzendorf is as a reliable, impartial chronicler
of events. His good memory made him a trustworthy recorder of the facts of
performance, including singers and works; hence, he is cited as an important
source in the performance calendar. An altogether different matter is how he
might represent the taste of Viennese audiences. One hopes not too much; it
is he after all, who made the notorious observation that Figaro bored him (see
p. 270). Perhaps we can forgive Zinzendorf his philistinism that evening, as he
had amorous matters that distracted him from the opera (although paying more
attention to the opera might have given him some useful instruction in the art
of love). Without a similar distraction, he found the music of a later performance
(4 July) remarkable. In any case Zinzendorf, as Link observes, attended
the opera primarily for social reasons. Nor was he a skilled musician (he was
more savvy when it came to spoken theater). Thus, his commentary, at least
with respect to the music, is of limited value, and I do not quite share Link's
enthusiasm for Zinzendorf as an "ideal reporter."'
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 04:11:52 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 04:11:52 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 26, 2009, 03:54:54 AM
I bet Rod Corkin's glad he got shot of all this nonsense from CMM a few months ago. What happened, Rod, were your data storage bills getting too high, or was the honeymoon ended?
I pay no bills for my site, it cost's me nothing other than heartache. ;D
As for Robert's departure for CMM, this was not down to the current subject matter in itself, for such things are still allowed to be discussed there, rather it was Rob's more generally immoderate behaviour...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:12:38 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:12:38 AM
Thanks for the quote. The part that seems best is -
'For Link, the great value of Zinzendorf is as a reliable, impartial chronicler
of events. His good memory made him a trustworthy recorder of the facts of
performance, including singers and works; hence, he is cited as an important
source in the performance calendar
LOL !!!
Now, back to the 'Haffner'................ :)
'For Link, the great value of Zinzendorf is as a reliable, impartial chronicler
of events. His good memory made him a trustworthy recorder of the facts of
performance, including singers and works; hence, he is cited as an important
source in the performance calendar
LOL !!!
Now, back to the 'Haffner'................ :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 04:12:50 AM
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 04:12:50 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 03:51:06 AM
Can we see this entry anywhere?
Here is an excerpt but not much more:
"To-night at the theatre Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail, an opera the music of which is pilfered from various others. Fischer acted well. Adam Berger is a statue. . . . "
(from http://books.google.com/books?id=e8AtwaddUW4C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Zinzendorf+mozart&source=bl&ots=VXwRQVBh-w&sig=g3GzXQAyIvOr55SmOxy18X8pgBM&hl=en&ei=h9kbSsniMYLW-Aa15Jlr&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA203,M1)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 04:16:36 AM
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 04:16:36 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:12:38 AM
Thanks for the quote. The part that seems best is -
Selective quoting is easy. The rest of the quote tells us not to trust him on musical matters, i.e., he couldn't tell if the music was by Mozart or not, but only that such-and-such opera was performed and such-and-such singer sang. This is precisely what the quoted text argues.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:31:54 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:31:54 AM
Catison seems to be suffering from acute and short-term amensia -
Zinzendorf writes of the opera -
'the music of which is pilfered from various others'.
I guess we should look at our watches, find an excuse to be somewhere else, or just ignore it. Or, if we consider ourselves to be 'Mozarteans', all three !!
As for myself, let the record stand. It is entirely consistent with what has earlier been posted. The 'Haffner' is not by W.A. Mozart but is instead a twice arranged version of a symphony by a third composer, the proof of which is implied in all this convoluted affair, and confirmed beyond reasonable doubt by the shamefully ignored manuscript of the work (and others) today at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy and by the contemporary testimony of Count Zinzendorf.
Zinzendorf writes of the opera -
'the music of which is pilfered from various others'.
I guess we should look at our watches, find an excuse to be somewhere else, or just ignore it. Or, if we consider ourselves to be 'Mozarteans', all three !!
As for myself, let the record stand. It is entirely consistent with what has earlier been posted. The 'Haffner' is not by W.A. Mozart but is instead a twice arranged version of a symphony by a third composer, the proof of which is implied in all this convoluted affair, and confirmed beyond reasonable doubt by the shamefully ignored manuscript of the work (and others) today at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy and by the contemporary testimony of Count Zinzendorf.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 26, 2009, 04:37:50 AM
Post by: Holly on May 26, 2009, 04:37:50 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 04:11:52 AM
I pay no bills for my site, it cost's me nothing other than heartache. ;D
As for Robert's departure for CMM, this was not down to the current subject matter in itself, for such things are still allowed to be discussed there, rather it was Rob's more generally immoderate behaviour...
And what brought about the "immoderate behaviour", I wonder? Don't bother answering, as I know. In broad terms, if one is new to first-hand experience with Newmanry (as opposed to hearsay) there appear to be two main classes of reaction: fairly instant dismissal, or grudgingly get sucked into the intrigue as the long-winded story unfold through pages of slowly disgorged "evidence", and promise of more to follow. The end result is usually all the same, that it all sounds such a load of bolony. Once this stage sets in and people generally lose interest and walk away or give their final verdicts that's when all the more desperate measures start to take over. Such was the experience on CMM; and the same happened at T-C before that. For the curious-minded, only direct personal experience is good enough to understand the process. Although I don't find any of his arguments persuasive, I still find his enthusiasm and evidence-dodging skills a sight to behold. I reckon he is getting better. Maybe that's why he is here, merely to hone his B.S. skills with a view to becoming a politician?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:41:38 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:41:38 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 26, 2009, 04:37:50 AM
And what brought about the "immoderate behaviour", I wonder? Don't bother answering, as I know. In broad terms, if one is new to first-hand experience with Newmanry (as opposed to hearsay) there appear to be two main classes of reaction: fairly instant dismissal, or grudgingly get sucked into the intrigue as the long-winded story unfold through pages of slowly disgorged "evidence", and promise of more to follow. The end result is usually all the same, that it all sounds such a load of bolony. Once this stage sets in and people generally lose interest and walk away or give their final verdicts that's when all the more desperate measures start to take over. Such was the experience on CMM; and the same happened at T-C before that. For the curious-minded, only direct personal experience is good enough to understand the process. Although I don't find any of his arguments persuasive, I still find his enthusiasm and evidence-dodging skills a sight to behold. I reckon he is getting better. Maybe that's why he is here, merely to hone his B.S. skills with a view to becoming a politician?
And we may suppose Holly's contributions here are an attempt to draw you away from discussing/appreciating the documentary evidence related to the 'Haffner' symphony. Which, on this occasion, seem to have failed.
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 04:42:19 AM
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 04:42:19 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:31:54 AM
Catison seems to be suffering from acute and short-term amensia -
Yay! Ad hominem!
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:31:54 AM
Zinzendorf writes of the opera -
'the music of which is pilfered from various others'.
I'll trust the experts:
"In any case Zinzendorf, as Link observes, attended
the opera primarily for social reasons. Nor was he a skilled musician (he was
more savvy when it came to spoken theater). Thus, his commentary, at least
with respect to the music, is of limited value, and I do not quite share Link's
enthusiasm for Zinzendorf as an "ideal reporter."
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:47:01 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:47:01 AM
Ah, so Zinzendorf just decided to make it up, right ? As Mozart (so we are told) made up the statement that he 'could remember not a note' of a symphony he himself had supposedly composed not long before ? This nonsense is laughably typical of those who will always believe what they want to believe and who allow the actual musical evidence, today at the Estense Library in Modena, to go unrecognised and unappreciated, decade after decade.
'Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'
:)
I take heart that a few people, lovers of music, will, having examined the evidence surrounding Mozart's life, career and status from more than one side be best able to form a fair and considered judgement.
Robert Newman
'Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'
:)
I take heart that a few people, lovers of music, will, having examined the evidence surrounding Mozart's life, career and status from more than one side be best able to form a fair and considered judgement.
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 05:04:12 AM
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 05:04:12 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:47:01 AM
This nonsense is laughably typical of those who will always believe what they want to believe and who allow the actual musical evidence
LOL. Are you reviewing your own book?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 05:07:16 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 05:07:16 AM
Quote from: Catison on May 26, 2009, 05:04:12 AM
LOL. Are you reviewing your own book?
No. We are all books in the best sense of the word. And we are all reviewed. Some freely. Others being books whose cost is our own integrity.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 05:14:53 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 05:14:53 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 26, 2009, 04:37:50 AM
And what brought about the "immoderate behaviour", I wonder? Don't bother answering, as I know....
One the other hand there an numerous apparent Mozartians who seem to follow Rob around wherever he goes, and who quite frankly are more interested in the fraud/conspiracy topics than they are in Mozart's music, for their enthusiasm for discussing Mozart in more conventional terms is far less. They will join a forum solely for participation in his topics, then leave the forum when he has gone. This phenomenon I have witnessed at my site and others, and GMG will be no different in this respect. Such people I have no respect for, even Mr Newman is above them!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 05:18:58 AM
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 05:18:58 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 05:07:16 AM
No. We are all books in the best sense of the word. And we are all reviewed. Some freely. Others being books whose cost is our own integrity.
It is quite clear that when presented with evidence and real facts you cannot do much else but repeat the same nonsense. You want to be the great majority of one. This seems so important to you that you cannot accept clear facts. But no, you can't do that. You can't accept anything that is widely believed because that would make you just like everyone else. Too bad for you. I hope you have a day job.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 05:19:40 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 05:19:40 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:47:01 AM
Mozart (so we are told) made up the statement that he 'could remember not a note' of a symphony he himself had supposedly composed not long before
Elsewhere in this thread you stated that Mozart's letter are deceitful and he deliberately cheated his father more than once. Now you select a statement from one of his letters and build an entire case upon it. How do you know that in this instance Mozart was telling the truth?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 05:58:57 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 05:58:57 AM
Quote from: Catison on May 26, 2009, 05:18:58 AM
It is quite clear that when presented with evidence and real facts you cannot do much else but repeat the same nonsense. You want to be the great majority of one. This seems so important to you that you cannot accept clear facts. But no, you can't do that. You can't accept anything that is widely believed because that would make you just like everyone else. Too bad for you. I hope you have a day job.
You surrendered, long ago, to the Mozart industry and its corporate propaganda. You are not really interested to judge on the actual facts of the case, because of wearing a pair of Mozartean spectacles which allow you to examine issues only from the majority, predetermined view. Though the 'majority view' is really that which is most ignorant and most dumb. Most suppressive of plain, documentary facts. Most ignorant of Mozart, his time, his contemporaries, the case against his myth, and so on. And so, every benefit of the reasonable doubt, every presentation of evidence, is seen as irrelevant, as false, the opposite of what it actually is. And all of this the product of being a consumer of the Mozart industry and its inability to accept fair and reasonable criticism, no matter how piled high the evidence may be. You live on a musical Easter Island, surrounded by icons. Which speak, and whose priests you believe.
It was, for me, quite a discovery that facts are really of secondary importance to the average student of Mozart. That glaring contradictions and stories riddled with absurdities, improbabilities, and even cases of documented, downright fraud, could somehow not cause people to question the dominance of the myth itself. But as time passed, it became clear that facts, evidence, honesty, etc. are not what Mozarteans are all about. Since the cosy world of Mozart, 'musical genius' is and always was a secular religion. The best answer to which is to laugh and learn, from time to time, that others, lovers of music, agree.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 06:07:51 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 06:07:51 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 05:19:40 AM
Elsewhere in this thread you stated that Mozart's letter are deceitful and he deliberately cheated his father more than once. Now you select a statement from one of his letters and build an entire case upon it. How do you know that in this instance Mozart was telling the truth?
But the opposite is true. The Mozartean is restricted to these letters. He does not know where Italy is. He has never been to Modena and would not go there if you bought him an airline ticket and paid his taxi to the Estense Library in Modena. His view of Mozart's career is that of a hologram. Which can even be pulled apart and riddled with a million holes, but which still persuades him/her of its truth, its reality. In such a case the discovery of music scores, or the findings of other musicologists are, well, suppressed, downplayed, and ignored altogether. Systematically, routinely, without the batting of an eyelid. All in the glare of the Mozartean headlights, the corporate 'education' of young students.
So that Mozart's 'genius' is all, the credit card out of every practical difficulty in those studies, and the lowest common denominator is the dumbing down of history, of reality itself. A career path which is opened only to the musical underachiever and to those who subscribe to such nonsense.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 06:09:47 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 06:09:47 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 06:07:51 AM
But the opposite is true. The Mozartean is restricted to these letters. He does not know where Italy is. He has never been to Modena and would not go there is you bought him an airline ticket. His view of Mozart's career is that of a hologram. Which can be pulled apart and riddled with a million holes, but which still persaudes him/her of its reality. In such a case the discovery of music scores, or the findings of other musicologists are, well, suppressed, downplayed, and ignored altogether. All in the glare of the Mozartean headlights, the corporate 'education' of young students.
So that 'genius' is all, and the lowest common denominator is the dumbing down of history, of reality itself. A career in which is opened to the underachiever and to those who subscribe to its nonsense.
Care to answer my question, or not? How do you know that that particular assertion of Mozart is true, when you stated elsewhere that his letters are full of lies?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 06:18:08 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 06:18:08 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 06:09:47 AM
Care to answer my question, or not? How do you know that that particular assertion of Mozart is true, when you stated elsewhere that his letters are full of lies?
Well, let me ask you the same question. What sort of science is it which relies entirely on the views and testimony of the person under examination ? This is as circular as it can possibly get !
Why not do yourself a favour and examine this issue from all aspects ? So that you will not need to depend on this particular assertion or that particular assertion by Mozart, but on the totality of the evidence, documentary and other kinds, which all indicate the same thing. Namely, that this affair of the 'Haffner' Symphony is one of the same, normal, usual nonsense. That he, W.A. Mozart is not, in fact, the composer of this symphony. And that his letters to his father are to be seen in the light of all the evidence. Letters which set up an absurd situation of supposedly sending music for a festivity later than the date when it was actually needed, this without acknowledging that fact, and that the same music could be returned without its 'composer' even remembering a note of it. Where, but in the world of 'Mozart studies' would this nonsense form the basis for anyone's belief or argument ? It is obvious Mozart is the FOX News of classical music. But send us a postcard from the Estense Library in Modena when you finally get there !! :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 26, 2009, 06:27:06 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 26, 2009, 06:27:06 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 05:14:53 AM
One the other hand there an numerous apparent Mozartians who seem to follow Rob around wherever he goes, and who quite frankly are more interested in the fraud/conspiracy topics than they are in Mozart's music, for their enthusiasm for discussing Mozart in more conventional terms is far less. They will join a forum solely for participation in his topics, then leave the forum when he has gone. This phenomenon I have witnessed at my site and others, and GMG will be no different in this respect. Such people I have no respect for, even Mr Newman is above them!
The hell are you talking about.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 06:28:48 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 06:28:48 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 06:18:08 AM
What sort of science is it which relies entirely on the views and testimony of the person under examination ? This is as circular as it can possibly get !
Precisely. Then stop parading that assertion of Mozart (that he couldn't remember a iota of the symphony) as if it proves anything. It proves nothing.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 06:38:16 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 06:38:16 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 26, 2009, 06:28:48 AM
Precisely. Then stop parading that assertion of Mozart (that he couldn't remember a iota of the symphony) as if it proves anything. It proves nothing.
I happily agree. Since the assertions of Mozart prove nothing. We learn nothing from them on which we can rely. This releases us to examine, if we dare, the manuscript evidence of the 'Haffner' score today at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy which has been waiting for the arrival of the Mozartean faithful for close to 200 years. The news of which was brought to you, of course, by those whose interest is only in the evidence. And by nobody else. As usual.
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 26, 2009, 07:20:12 AM
Post by: Holly on May 26, 2009, 07:20:12 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 05:14:53 AM
One the other hand there an numerous apparent Mozartians who seem to follow Rob around wherever he goes, and who quite frankly are more interested in the fraud/conspiracy topics than they are in Mozart's music, for their enthusiasm for discussing Mozart in more conventional terms is far less. They will join a forum solely for participation in his topics, then leave the forum when he has gone. This phenomenon I have witnessed at my site and others, and GMG will be no different in this respect. Such people I have no respect for, even Mr Newman is above them!
I'm not sure this is right. When Newman joined your CMM and started discussing Le Nozze you were glad of the customers he attracted from the MozartForum and other places. The majority of them only came along to discuss the alleged controversy issues, and weren't interested in raising the profile of your Forum as a venue for discussing Mozart in more conventional ways. And who can blame them given your general apathy towards any composer but Beethoven and Handel (and Morricone)? It was clear that you were disappointed when most of them eventually drifted back to whence they came, but that was your fault. Apart from CMM, it's not true that Newman attracted "Mozartians" to any other Forum. Certainly he attracted no such people at T-C which was where he had his longest run and probably made his biggest "splash". The folk who challenged his views there were all generalists (not Mozart specialists), and the same was true at BRS and CMG. If you believe I am wrong please tell me who you are referring to.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 07:50:54 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 07:50:54 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 26, 2009, 07:20:12 AMI believe you are totally wrong with regard to CMM and your perception of the site generally. In fact perhaps you are one of the people I am referring to because you are so out of touch with the current state of affairs over there but you seem to know in detail what was going on when Rob was about.
If you believe I am wrong please tell me who you are referring to.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 07:54:07 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 07:54:07 AM
Thanks again for the discussion. I'm going to be busy for a few days, so...
Regards
RN
Johann Sebastian Bach
Chorale
'Jesu, deine Passione ist mir laute Freude'
BWV 159
http://www.mediafire.com/?woqmnyroydm
//
Regards
RN
Johann Sebastian Bach
Chorale
'Jesu, deine Passione ist mir laute Freude'
BWV 159
http://www.mediafire.com/?woqmnyroydm
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 07:57:19 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 07:57:19 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 26, 2009, 03:54:54 AMPot calling kettle black, eh? You clearly joined this forum only to participate in Newman's thread, Holly. Herman is hardly out of his depth with Newman. The former is bright, educated, perceptive, literate, and musically knowledgeable; the latter--solely on the evidence of his posts here--is not. Herman obviously knows that Newman is deranged at best and does not expect thoughtful responses to his inquiries; to me it seems he is simply showing Newman up to help the less gifted souls here recognize the hollowness of Newman's claims--rather thoughtful, in a way, as uneducated and slow-witted folks might otherwise be taken in by this nonsense.
Herman, scrolling through this thread one could be forgiven for thinking it's pretty obvious you are one of Newman’s main enablers, just as you accused me the other day, much to my annoyance and shock/horror. Members here have been advising to let this silly non-issue just die and let this thread be buried under more genuine discussion threads. But you keep bumping it with more and more requests for clarifications which are obviously going to achieve nothing but drag us further into the mire.
Herman, you are out of your depth with Newman. He has PhD in B.S. from Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Calcutta.
Herman. I suggest we let this topic die a peaceful death. Mr Newman has admitted he has no evidence, and that's it.
The same applies to David Ross who keeps sticking his oar in after repeatedly advising others to desist.
As for my participation, 'tis a pity you cannot distinguish between engaging Newman as if he were capable of rational discourse--which I think would only lend credibility to his idiocy and encourage him to continue--and laughing at his buffoonery, which is another means of helping the gullible to recognize the worth of Newman's foolishness.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 08:01:18 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 08:01:18 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 07:57:19 AM
Pot calling kettle black, eh? You clearly joined this forum only to participate in Newman's thread, Holly.
Exactly. She is one of the people I was referring to who follow Rob about just to argue with him!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 08:13:24 AM
Post by: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 08:13:24 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 07:57:19 AM
Pot calling kettle black, eh? You clearly joined this forum only to participate in Newman's thread, Holly.
I don't know if this is significant or not, but Holly registered here more than a year before Newman. However, it also appears that Holly had nothing to say on this board before Newman arrived.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 08:42:43 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 08:42:43 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 08:13:24 AMI stand corrected, Don--yet, the inference seems pretty darned conclusive given that she did not make even a single post during that year, but her first post appeared within an hour after Todd started this topic and she hasn't posted on any other topic since.
I don't know if this is significant or not, but Holly registered here more than a year before Newman. However, it also appears that Holly had nothing to say on this board before Newman arrived.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 26, 2009, 08:47:55 AM
Post by: Holly on May 26, 2009, 08:47:55 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 07:57:19 AM
Pot calling kettle black, eh? You clearly joined this forum only to participate in Newman's thread, Holly. Herman is hardly out of his depth with Newman. The former is bright, educated, perceptive, literate, and musically knowledgeable; the latter--solely on the evidence of his posts here--is not. Herman obviously knows that Newman is deranged at best and does not expect thoughtful responses to his inquiries; to me it seems he is simply showing Newman up to help the less gifted souls here recognize the hollowness of Newman's claims--rather thoughtful, in a way, as uneducated and slow-witted folks might otherwise be taken in by this nonsense.
As for my participation, 'tis a pity you cannot distinguish between engaging Newman as if he were capable of rational discourse--which I think would only lend credibility to his idiocy and encourage him to continue--and laughing at his buffoonery, which is another means of helping the gullible to recognize the worth of Newman's foolishness.
Don't talk rubbish.
I registered on this Forum on 21 February 2008. That was 15 months ago. I did so mainly to flit around the Board more easily than is possible for non-members. I made some posts on various matters (not relating to Newman in any way) in 2008 but the threads in which they were posted were deleted by the Mods for reasons that had nothing to do with me. One or two I recall were "Christi" threads.
It was "Todd", not me, who first raised this Mozart Fraud topic on 8 February 2009. Because I happened to be already signed up here, and knew something about Newman from previous Boards, I made a post that day which was relevant to Todd's inquiry. I had no idea that Newman himself was going to turn here on 18 May.
You can check all these facts with the Moderators. In fact I hope they look at this and comment.
I expect an unambiguous apology from you on this matter.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 26, 2009, 08:50:06 AM
Post by: Brian on May 26, 2009, 08:50:06 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 08:13:24 AMHolly registers here every time something odd happens on another forum. She registered during some kind of Rod Corkin incident, and she appeared again to warn us about some other troll. (Ah! The notorious "Christi" threads!!) I also have some recollection of Holly appearing during another big GMG spat involving people from a different forum. I seem to remember her advising a pre-emptive ban once (this was Christi). I think Holly is a lurker who is a regular elsewhere and shows up here to warn us of battles on other websites, and help us allow them on our own.
I don't know if this is significant or not, but Holly registered here more than a year before Newman. However, it also appears that Holly had nothing to say on this board before Newman arrived.
EDIT: I will allow Holly's to stand as the definitive account as it represents the state of the facts. I can definitely affirm she did not "just" register to do battle with Rob Newman.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 08:50:26 AM
Post by: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 08:50:26 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 08:42:43 AM
I stand corrected, Don--yet, the inference seems pretty darned conclusive given that she did not make even a single post during that year, but her first post appeared within an hour after Todd started this topic and she hasn't posted on any other topic since.
Holly is certainly a one-issue member, and I find that very odd. Newman is also a one-issue member who clearly joined us only to rail on and on about Mozart. How a person can claim to be a classical music enthusiast yet only delve into one issue is beyond me (and I'm not an eclectic type).
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 26, 2009, 08:53:47 AM
Post by: Holly on May 26, 2009, 08:53:47 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 08:01:18 AM
Exactly. She is one of the people I was referring to who follow Rob about just to argue with him!
As for you, you haven't answered the point I made which is that the only Forum people came to specifically to discuss matters with Newman was CMM. And then they got the hell out of it once it was over, and who can blame them? There was certainly no influx of Mozartians at T-C or CMG. Or are you saying there was? Come on, tell me the names if you can.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 08:56:21 AM
Post by: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 08:56:21 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 26, 2009, 08:47:55 AM
Don't talk rubbish.
I registered on this Forum on 21 February 2008. That was 15 months ago. I did so mainly to flit around the Board more easily than is possible for non-members. I made some posts on various matters (not relating to Newman in any way) in 2008 but the threads in which they were posted were deleted by the Mods for reasons that had nothing to do with me. One or two I recall were "Christi" threads.
It was "Todd", not me, who first raised this Mozart Fraud topic on 8 February 2009. Because I happened to be already signed up here, and knew something about Newman from previous Boards, I made a post that day which was relevant to Todd's inquiry. I had no idea that Newman himself was going to turn here on 18 May.
So why aren't you posting on other threads currently on the board; there are hundreds of them. Of course, you have every right to limit yourself to one thread, but why would you restrict yourself to just one?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 08:57:54 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 08:57:54 AM
And, such a one.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 08:59:47 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 26, 2009, 08:47:55 AMI stand corrected. Apparently I was wrong. I apologize for misrepresenting your appearance on this forum, based solely on the evidence of the posting history in your member profile. I'm not sure what it is that you think I've done that merits an apology, but I'm happy to admit that I was wrong and to thank you for correcting my error. Is that unambiguous enough for you?
Don't talk rubbish.
I registered on this Forum on 21 February 2008. That was 15 months ago. I did so mainly to flit around the Board more easily than is possible for non-members. I made some posts on various matters (not relating to Newman in any way) in 2008 but the threads in which they were posted were deleted by the Mods for reasons that had nothing to do with me. One or two I recall were "Christi" threads.
It was "Todd", not me, who first raised this Mozart Fraud topic on 8 February 2009. Because I happened to be already signed up here, and knew something about Newman from previous Boards, I made a post that day which was relevant to Todd's inquiry. I had no idea that Newman himself was going to turn here on 18 May.
You can check all these facts with the Moderators. In fact I hope they look at this and comment.
I expect an unambiguous apology from you on this matter.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 09:13:15 AM
Post by: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 09:13:15 AM
Quote from: Holly on May 26, 2009, 08:53:47 AM
As for you, you haven't answered the point I made which is that the only Forum people came to specifically to discuss matters with Newman was CMM. And then they got the hell out of it once it was over, and who can blame them? There was certainly no influx of Mozartians at T-C or CMG. Or are you saying there was? Come on, tell me the names if you can.
You're treating the various classical music discussion sites as if they are related to one another. So, you, Corkin and Newman pop up here to continue unsavory communications initiated at other sites.
This is CMG; it stands alone and is the best discussion site on the internet. Please keep your comments about the goings-on at other sites to yourself. We have sufficient arguments that are initiated here and don't need more added to the mix.
As I suggested earlier, post on other threads that interest you and stop being a trouble-maker.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 09:18:06 AM
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 09:18:06 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 09:13:15 AM
This is CMG
Freudian slip?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 09:27:53 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 09:27:53 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 09:13:15 AM
You're treating the various classical music discussion sites as if they are related to one another. So, you, Corkin and Newman pop up here to continue unsavory communications initiated at other sites.
This is GMG; it stands alone and is the best discussion site on the internet. Please keep your comments about the goings-on at other sites to yourself. We have sufficient arguments that are initiated here and don't need more added to the mix.
As I suggested earlier, post on other threads that interest you and stop being a trouble-maker.
I know that's what you meant, Don. :D
Anyway, Holly's account is as she stated. However, the things that you, Brian and David said are also accurate. It is not as though this matters at all, actually. just sayin'. As far as it goes, I have been present on OpenMozart, Mozart Forum, Beethoven Reference Site, CMG, CMM (all of whom failed to possess the infinite patience of GMG) and a couple of others when Mr. Newman came along to postulate his convictions. By and large, once I got over the shock of his methods I was vastly entertained. In every case I was there before him. You just can't go to a classical music site and not expect Robert to eventually show up, it's like expecting the sun not to rise today. :)
I think it would be a good idea to refrain from attacking each other and to marshal our information to deal with the issues at hand. It is ever so much more fun to untangle Robert's information tornadoes than it is to give Holly a hard time. :)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 09:32:02 AM
Post by: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 09:32:02 AM
Quote from: Catison on May 26, 2009, 09:18:06 AM
Freudian slip?
Nah, I always seem to mix up the two acronyms.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on May 26, 2009, 09:33:05 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on May 26, 2009, 09:33:05 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 09:27:53 AM
(all of whom failed to possess the infinite patience of GMG)
You can include TC in the mix also. Probably the most impatient board in existence. It bans members more frequently than I swat mosquitos on a warm late spring day.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 09:34:52 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 09:34:52 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 26, 2009, 09:33:05 AM
You can include TC in the mix also. Probably the most impatient board in existence. It bans members more frequently than I swat mosquitos on a warm late spring day.
Yes, I've been there and looked around, but never felt the urge to join, at least in part because of what you are pointing out. :)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on May 26, 2009, 09:39:07 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on May 26, 2009, 09:39:07 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 09:34:52 AM
Yes, I've been there and looked around, but never felt the urge to join, at least in part because of what you are pointing out. :)
8)
Well, that's why I'm here, and very seldomly there. They tend to press the Ban Chute excessively. M wouldn't have lasted a day there. :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 09:44:00 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 09:44:00 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 09:27:53 AM
. . . (all of whom failed to possess the infinite patience of GMG) . . . .
Just wanted to say that, since this is Rob's site, and you mods are 'merely' his caretaker agents, that the 'institutional patience' is Rob's at the source, so I do not consider your remark in the least immodest, Gurn, but simply a tribute to those you work with.
Leave it me to laud your patience, in particular, O postal patron of wildest Texas 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 10:04:16 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 10:04:16 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 09:27:53 AM
I have been present on OpenMozart, Mozart Forum, Beethoven Reference Site, CMG, CMM (all of whom failed to possess the infinite patience of GMG)
Rob survived for 2757 posts at CMM, don't say we are not impatient. The others yes (I have been a member of them all too other than OM) but not CMM. Let's see how long he lasts here...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 10:12:52 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 10:12:52 AM
Oh, I don't see him being banned from GMG at all.
Just allowed plenty of rope 8)
Just allowed plenty of rope 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 10:15:06 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 10:15:06 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 10:04:16 AM
Rob survived for 2757 posts at CMM, don't say we are not impatient. The others yes (I have been a member of them all too other than OM) but not CMM. Let's see how long he lasts here...
I know, I truly admired your patience, although I believed going in that he would last forever there. Chances are that Robert will merely run out of steam here, apparently we are a much larger teapot than even HE can heat up. Fact of the matter is, 75% of our posters couldn't care less who wrote Mozart's music and the other 25% are rather more amused than outraged. :)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Holly on May 26, 2009, 10:16:18 AM
Post by: Holly on May 26, 2009, 10:16:18 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 09:13:15 AM
You're treating the various classical music discussion sites as if they are related to one another. So, you, Corkin and Newman pop up here to continue unsavory communications initiated at other sites.
This is CMG; it stands alone and is the best discussion site on the internet. Please keep your comments about the goings-on at other sites to yourself. We have sufficient arguments that are initiated here and don't need more added to the mix.
As I suggested earlier, post on other threads that interest you and stop being a trouble-maker.
I'm grateful to Gurn Blanston for confirming the account I gave of the timing and other aspects of my involvement here. This shows how misinformed some of you are.
To answer the comments above.
(i) I am not in any way looking to "continue unsavory communications" initiated at other sites. Regarding Rod Corkin's intervention, I merely questioned his assertion that there is some kind of "Mozartian" brigade that follows Robert Newman around from forum to forum. It is not generally true, and he now realises that which explains why he has not come back. I am entitled to make such an observation, aren't I? Perhaps if you think I am not so allowed you could take this up with the Moderators. Thank you so much.
(ii) I am glad that you think that CMG is the best classical music discussion site on the internet. I would probably agree with that. I am sure that any CMGers reading this will be delighted.
(iii) I take exception to your stricture to me to "post on other threads that interest you and stop being a trouble-maker". I will post wherever I like. I could suggest to you that you should stop posting in this thread? How would you like that? As for me being a "trouble-maker", I think you must some attention to your "antennae". On the contrary, I have posted a number of highly relevant questions to Newman in this thread, and was more than happy to see the whole thing collapse, as I made clear if you care to scroll back a couple of days.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 10:19:06 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 10:19:06 AM
Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who... :D
8)
(http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail136.jpg)
8)
(http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail136.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 10:22:54 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 10:22:54 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 09:27:53 AMYes--the obsessive presentation of preposterous assertions as "fact" and manifold denial of established facts, the constant ground-shifting and circularity of his arguments, and most of all the utter harmlessness of his particular fixation, make him far more amusing than most of the similar nutcases who show up from time to time to press their agenda and corrupt the impressionable minds of our youth.
...once I got over the shock of his methods I was vastly entertained.
It's not as if he's advocating sexual tourism exploiting third world children sold into slavery as prostitutes...or assaulting members with bigoted stereotypes of their religious, political, gender, or ethnic affiliations...or going out of his way to attack newbies and discourage them from participating on the forum. He's just funnin' around with claims so patently absurd that none but the tin foil hat brigade would lend them any credence.
Can anyone confirm that this is a photo of Newman responding to factual corrections of his outlandish claims?
(http://drbobbs.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/tin-foil-hat-3.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 10:49:12 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 10:49:12 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 10:15:06 AM
I know, I truly admired your patience, although I believed going in that he would last forever there. Chances are that Robert will merely run out of steam here, apparently we are a much larger teapot than even HE can heat up. Fact of the matter is, 75% of our posters couldn't care less who wrote Mozart's music and the other 25% are rather more amused than outraged. :)
You paint an idylic picture of GMG that I can barely recognise Gurn, there are more wolves here than I could shake a stick at, but at the time most people at CMM couldn't care less who composed Figaro for example, I stated this myself, it just so happened that the whole of MozartForum joined my site when Rob got going on the subject, and then promptly dissappeared when I later asked for some critical assessments of the music itself, which we looked at in detail in a seperate conspiracy-free topic on the opera. The conspiracy Figaro topic recieved 3035 posts, whilst the more conventional exploration of Figaro received about 220 posts. What is the point of arguing over music that even Mozartians have little to say about? Really I wonder why Rob bothers...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 26, 2009, 10:53:41 AM
Post by: Brian on May 26, 2009, 10:53:41 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 10:49:12 AMI don't know. I find GMG to be an incredibly nice place full of kind, generally wonderful people. We have our disagreements but very few of us could be called "wolves."
You paint an idylic picture of GMG that I can barely recognise Gurn, there are more wolves here than I could shake a stick at,
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 10:55:40 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 26, 2009, 10:55:40 AM
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2009, 10:53:41 AM
I don't know. I find GMG to be an incredibly nice place full of kind, generally wonderful people. We have our disagreements but very few of us could be called "wolves."
Er, you must have missed out on a lot of topics here Brian!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 11:08:59 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 11:08:59 AM
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2009, 10:53:41 AMAgreed. Aside from a couple of folks whose occasional aggressiveness makes me wonder whether they've gone off their meds (and a couple whose regular aggressiveness makes me suspect that they need meds--neither of whom is active at present ;) ), all the regulars here are pretty kind and warm hearted. That is not to say that we don't all get peevish on occasion, or that there aren't several of us who find amusement in puncturing the pretensions of pompous know-it-alls, but afflicting the humorless self-impressed is hardly wolfish behaviour. It's actually a kindness, as even Rod will come to recognize if he ever stops taking himself so seriously and learns to see himself as he presents to others rather than as he imagines himself to be.
I don't know. I find GMG to be an incredibly nice place full of kind, generally wonderful people. We have our disagreements but very few of us could be called "wolves."
In fact, the relative dearth of pompous twits is one of the primary reasons I find GMG so much more hospitable and fun than CMG and some other sites I have visited.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:17:21 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:17:21 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 10:22:54 AM
Yes--the obsessive presentation of preposterous assertions as "fact" and manifold denial of established facts, the constant ground-shifting and circularity of his arguments, and most of all the utter harmlessness of his particular fixation, make him far more amusing than most of the similar nutcases who show up from time to time to press their agenda and corrupt the impressionable minds of our youth.
It's not as if he's advocating sexual tourism exploiting third world children sold into slavery as prostitutes...or assaulting members with bigoted stereotypes of their religious, political, gender, or ethnic affiliations...or going out of his way to attack newbies and discourage them from participating on the forum. He's just funnin' around with claims so patently absurd that none but the tin foil hat brigade would lend them any credence.
Can anyone confirm that this is a photo of Newman responding to factual corrections of his outlandish claims?
(http://drbobbs.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/tin-foil-hat-3.jpg)
Since this thread is entitled 'Mozart A Fraud' I can't help noticing that David Ross is being allowed, post after post, to ignore the actual subject that is up for discussion but to post here anyway. On such irrelevancies as my supposed 'outlandish' claims. These consisting of nothing but childish and completely irrelevant posts. Posts which are really destructive of the forum as a whole and this thread specifically. David, any chance of actually contributing something here on the subject of the 'Haffner' Symphony ? Which was (you may remember) the subject under discussion ? Or are you to continually demonstrate your inability to post anything of value to this thread ? As for the long running politics between Rod Corkin, Mozart Forum, Holly and various other 'custard pie' makers why can't we find a special place for such things, so that music and the discussion of music is the one and only issue on which posts are made. The alternative is for ill tempered and juvenile outbursts to be more and more the main feature of a thread which is on the subject of Mozart's career and reputation. It's clear they don't really want a discussion of evidence. They are spoilers, plain and simple.
A third party, looking at the bun-fights between different personalities would be disgusted that they are fast becoming the main focus of this thread.
And so, meanwhile, back at the ranch -
'Mozart's' Haffner Symphony
Part 4/5
(Watermarks and other Internal Evidence)
To Follow
///
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 11:18:18 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 11:18:18 AM
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2009, 10:53:41 AM
I don't know. I find GMG to be an incredibly nice place full of kind, generally wonderful people. We have our disagreements but very few of us could be called "wolves."
I agree.
Also: I find it a place where one receiveth, accordingly as one giveth.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 11:26:05 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 11:26:05 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:17:21 AM
Since this thread is entitled 'Mozart A Fraud' I can't help noticing David Ross is being allowed, post after post, to ignore the actual subject that is up for discussion but to post here anyway. On such irrelevancies as my supposed 'outlandish' claims. These consisting of nothing but childish and completely irrelevant posts. David, any chance of contributing something here on the subject of the 'Haffner' Symphony ? Which was (you may remember) the actual subject under discussion. Or are you to continually demonstrate your inability to post anything of real value to this thread ? As for the politics between Rod Corkin, Mozart Forum, Holly and various other custard pie makers why can't we find a special place for such things, so that music and the discussion of music is allowed to be the one and only issue on which posts are made. The alternative is for ill tempered and juvenile outbursts to be the main feature of a thread which is really on the subject of Mozart's career and reputation.
A third party, looking at the bun-fights between different personalities would be disgusted.
And so, meanwhile, back at the ranch -
'Mozart's' Haffner Symphony
Part 4/5
(Watermarks and other Internal Evidence)
To Follow
///
FWIW, I agree with you, Robert, let's carry on. Although you have to admit, that picture that David posted really captured the essence of some aspects of the whole thing that's going on here... :)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:33:03 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:33:03 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 11:26:05 AM
FWIW, I agree with you, Robert, let's carry on. Although you have to admit, that picture that David posted really captured the essence of some aspects of the whole thing that's going on here... :)
8)
Gurn,
It really does no credit to the 'Mozartean' viewpoint (the 'consensus view' of Mozart) that its supporters are so disruptive, don't you think ? And what sort of education makes them act in this way ? Anyway, I mention it because it's childish. Anyway, it's not everyone. But, of course, it's pathetic all the same.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 26, 2009, 11:36:26 AM
Post by: Herman on May 26, 2009, 11:36:26 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:17:21 AM
It's clear they don't really want a discussion of evidence.
This is the funniest thing you ever said in your entire deranged mini-oeuvre here. People have been begging for evidence.
One word of free advice. It's evident you're very careful being super-super-honey-nice to every mderator that crosses your (deranged) tracks. Still your attempts to tar longstanding GMG-members as 'spoilers' who have no business posting on this thread are not very smart.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:40:18 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:40:18 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 26, 2009, 11:36:26 AM
This is the funniest thing you ever said in your entire deranged mini-oeuvre here.
One word of free advice. I know you're very careful being super-super-nice to every mderator that crosses your (deranged) tracks. Still your attempts to tar longstanding GMG-members as 'spoilers' who have no business posting on this thread are not very smart.
Herman,
A few words of free advice. Take a deep breath. And look at your recent posts. Have they in any way added to the reputation of this forum as a place for discussing music and musicians ? You should grow up and stop encouraging students to act in such a dissolute way. I don't care if they are longstanding GMG members or not. The fact is that this thread is on a subject which you have yet to make any contribution towards. Despite your multiple posts.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 11:42:03 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 11:42:03 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:40:18 AM
And look at your recent posts. Have they in any way added to the reputation of this forum as a place for discussing music and musicians ?
A great deal more than yours have added. Just saying.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:49:36 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:49:36 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 26, 2009, 11:42:03 AM
A great deal more than yours have added. Just saying.
Can you give us some examples ? Some examples of actually discussing the subject of this thread, that is ? Because the truth is that most posts on this thread today have had nothing to do with Mozart, have they ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 11:55:04 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 11:55:04 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 26, 2009, 10:19:06 AM
Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who... :D
8)
(http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/grail/large/HolyGrail136.jpg)
Right lads, let's do carry on, shall we?
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 26, 2009, 11:59:02 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 26, 2009, 11:59:02 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:49:36 AM
Because the truth is that most posts on this thread today have had nothing to do with Mozart, have they ?
Neither have your own posts in this past 15 years of disgraced electronic wondering. You are a stubborn one, my crypto-Marxist friend.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 12:00:43 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 12:00:43 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:40:18 AMActually, when Herman post about music and musicians his insights drawn from a broad fund of knowledge and experience contribute substantially to the attractiveness of this forum. And his requests to Newman for evidence to support his preposterous claims have contributed substantially toward this thread, as they have helped clarify (as if clarification were necessary) that Newman is a blowhard with no support and his ridiculous thesis is just so much hot air.
Herman, ... look at your recent posts. Have they in any way added to the reputation of this forum as a place for discussing music and musicians ? ...The fact is that this thread is on a subject which you have yet to make any contribution towards. Despite your multiple posts.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 12:33:39 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 12:33:39 PM
4/5
'HAFFNER' SYMPHONY
At Estense Library in Modena, Italy are 9 scores of 18th century symphonies attributed to W.A. Mozart. One of which is a copy of the work usually known as the 'Haffner' Symphony, KV385. And which, by the time of its arrival in Modena in the early 19th century was already being attributed to W.A. Mozart. It's details are as follows -
1. Modena Music Archive - Document Reference E-159
2. Orchestral Score and Parts
3. Attributed to W.A. Mozart
4. Watermark - Italian
5. Copyist Signature 'A.F'.
6. Notes - This work is remarkably scored without any Trumpets, Timpani, Flute or Clarinet.
7. Despite almost 200 years of Mozart research its existence (and that of various other 'Mozart' works at the same archive), remains ignored in edition after edition of the Koechel catalogue of Mozart's works. For example, there is also at the same Modena archive a very early and virtually unknown version of the 'Prague' Symphony and of the 'Jupiter'.
8. Another 'Mozart' score of a symphony on 18th century Italian paper there is KV201
9. A total of 9 'Mozart' Symphonies of indisputably 18th century date are in this same music archive still awaiting recognition and study by mainstream Mozart researchers. In no less than 5 cases the paper of these works is of a kind known to have been used at the Bonn Hofkapelle not later than 1784. Namely, scores of symphonies K203, K319, K297 'Pariser', and K504 'Prager'
Courtesy of the independent musical research of Professors G. Taboga, L. Bianchini and A. Trombetta (Italy)
///
'HAFFNER' SYMPHONY
At Estense Library in Modena, Italy are 9 scores of 18th century symphonies attributed to W.A. Mozart. One of which is a copy of the work usually known as the 'Haffner' Symphony, KV385. And which, by the time of its arrival in Modena in the early 19th century was already being attributed to W.A. Mozart. It's details are as follows -
1. Modena Music Archive - Document Reference E-159
2. Orchestral Score and Parts
3. Attributed to W.A. Mozart
4. Watermark - Italian
5. Copyist Signature 'A.F'.
6. Notes - This work is remarkably scored without any Trumpets, Timpani, Flute or Clarinet.
7. Despite almost 200 years of Mozart research its existence (and that of various other 'Mozart' works at the same archive), remains ignored in edition after edition of the Koechel catalogue of Mozart's works. For example, there is also at the same Modena archive a very early and virtually unknown version of the 'Prague' Symphony and of the 'Jupiter'.
8. Another 'Mozart' score of a symphony on 18th century Italian paper there is KV201
9. A total of 9 'Mozart' Symphonies of indisputably 18th century date are in this same music archive still awaiting recognition and study by mainstream Mozart researchers. In no less than 5 cases the paper of these works is of a kind known to have been used at the Bonn Hofkapelle not later than 1784. Namely, scores of symphonies K203, K319, K297 'Pariser', and K504 'Prager'
Courtesy of the independent musical research of Professors G. Taboga, L. Bianchini and A. Trombetta (Italy)
///
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 26, 2009, 12:38:57 PM
Post by: Brian on May 26, 2009, 12:38:57 PM
Mr. Newman,
I just did a Google search and discovered you are currently writing a screenplay on the life of Thomas Paine. Can you give us any updates?
If it ever makes the cinema, who do you envision playing Mr. Paine?
I just did a Google search and discovered you are currently writing a screenplay on the life of Thomas Paine. Can you give us any updates?
If it ever makes the cinema, who do you envision playing Mr. Paine?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on May 26, 2009, 12:45:49 PM
Post by: Christie on May 26, 2009, 12:45:49 PM
Mr Newman
I have discovered the principal theme of the 'Haffner' slow movement in a notebook here in Salzburg, allegedly belonging to one J. C. Cannabich. Mozart was fond of Cannabich and even recommended him to his father Leopold, writing in a letter, "He is the best music director I have ever seen, and has the love and awe of all under him." Cannabich was also a composer of over 60 symphonies.
The 'Haffner' notation, one page removed from a theme from the Cannabich Symph. 52 (III. / B) (this work was published in 1772), contains what is essentially the melody spanning the first four bars of mvt. II. However the notated bass line is much simpler. The date puzzles me - some ten years prior to the 'Haffner'? What may you surmise from this? Had you identified a composer of the 'Haffner' Symphony? I am curious how this evidence may fit in with the story line you have presented. The notebook was in Leopold Mozart's file but clearly contains J.C.C.'s signature.
I have discovered the principal theme of the 'Haffner' slow movement in a notebook here in Salzburg, allegedly belonging to one J. C. Cannabich. Mozart was fond of Cannabich and even recommended him to his father Leopold, writing in a letter, "He is the best music director I have ever seen, and has the love and awe of all under him." Cannabich was also a composer of over 60 symphonies.
The 'Haffner' notation, one page removed from a theme from the Cannabich Symph. 52 (III. / B) (this work was published in 1772), contains what is essentially the melody spanning the first four bars of mvt. II. However the notated bass line is much simpler. The date puzzles me - some ten years prior to the 'Haffner'? What may you surmise from this? Had you identified a composer of the 'Haffner' Symphony? I am curious how this evidence may fit in with the story line you have presented. The notebook was in Leopold Mozart's file but clearly contains J.C.C.'s signature.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 12:46:51 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 12:46:51 PM
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2009, 12:38:57 PM
Mr. Newman,
I just did a Google search and discovered you are currently writing a screenplay on the life of Thomas Paine. Can you give us any updates?
If it ever makes the cinema, who do you envision playing Mr. Paine?
Hi there Brian,
I finished the Thomas Paine screenplay around 18 months ago. Called 'Tom Paine'. Took it to Florida in the hope of interesting a film company. And submitted it to the BBC here in England.
If you would like a PDF copy just send me a PM and I can post a copy to you with my compliments.
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: drogulus on May 26, 2009, 12:47:41 PM
Post by: drogulus on May 26, 2009, 12:47:41 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:17:21 AM
Since this thread is entitled 'Mozart A Fraud' I can't help noticing that David Ross is being allowed, post after post, to ignore the actual subject that is up for discussion but to post here anyway.
Since this thread is entitled 'Mozart A Fraud' I can't help noticing that robnewman is being allowed, post after post, to ignore the actual subject that is up for discussion but to post here anyway.
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:49:36 AM
Can you give us some examples ? Some examples of actually discussing the subject of this thread, that is ? Because the truth is that most posts on this thread today have had nothing to do with Mozart, have they ?
Mozart? I didn't know you were interested in Mozart. I thought you were a comedian and a conspiracy theorist.
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 11:33:03 AM
Gurn,
It really does no credit to the 'Mozartean' viewpoint (the 'consensus view' of Mozart) that its supporters are so disruptive, don't you think ? And what sort of education makes them act in this way ? Anyway, I mention it because it's childish. Anyway, it's not everyone. But, of course, it's pathetic all the same.
Regards
The same applies to the theorists.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 12:54:25 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 12:54:25 PM
I will post part 5/5 on the 'Haffner' in the next day or so.
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: drogulus on May 26, 2009, 12:55:02 PM
Post by: drogulus on May 26, 2009, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on May 26, 2009, 12:45:49 PM
Mr Newman
I have discovered the principal theme of the 'Haffner' slow movement in a notebook here in Salzburg, allegedly belonging to one J. C. Cannabich. Mozart was fond of Cannabich and even recommended him to his father Leopold, writing in a letter, "He is the best music director I have ever seen, and has the love and awe of all under him." Cannabich was also a composer of over 60 symphonies.
The 'Haffner' notation, one page removed from a theme from the Cannabich Symph. 52 (III. / B) (this work was published in 1772), contains what is essentially the melody spanning the first four bars of mvt. II. However the notated bass line is much simpler. The date puzzles me - some ten years prior to the 'Haffner'? What may you surmise from this? Had you identified a composer of the 'Haffner' Symphony? I am curious how this evidence may fit in with the story line you have presented. The notebook was in Leopold Mozart's file but clearly contains J.C.C.'s signature.
Isn't Salzburg lovely? Have you been to the new Institute for the Study of Multiple Personalities?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 01:26:57 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 01:26:57 PM
Quote from: drogulus on May 26, 2009, 12:55:02 PMMr. Drogulus
Isn't Salzburg lovely? Have you been to the new Institute for the Study of Multiple Personalities?
Here at the Institute I have discovered a notebook allegedly belonging to Sigmund Freud but obviously written in the hand of L. Ron Hubbard, establishing that Santa Claus is actually a communist spy whose real identity is known only to me and the Grand Wizard, as proven by the fact that no one can eat just one potato chip. "Everybody doesn't like something, but nobody doesn't like Sara Lee," says one definitive entry, written in 1652 as extensive carbon testing has confirmed. Paper was invented by the lost tribe of Israel--a little-known fact proven by the fact that my soon to be published book proves it as a fact.
No photograph exists of Mrs. Harriet Downing of 1035 Wimple Road South meeting secretly with the anti-Christ Pope Flatulus IV at Hooter's #132 in Hope, Arkansas, on the morning of July 26, 832 B.C. What may you surmise from this but a cover-up involving Attila the Hun, Richard Simmons, the insidious toothpaste tube cap manufacturing industry, and the front court of the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team! These facts cannot be denied.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 01:31:39 PM
Post by: Bulldog on May 26, 2009, 01:31:39 PM
Quote from: Holly on May 26, 2009, 10:16:18 AM
I'm grateful to Gurn Blanston for confirming the account I gave of the timing and other aspects of my involvement here. This shows how misinformed some of you are.
To answer the comments above.
(i) I am not in any way looking to "continue unsavory communications" initiated at other sites. Regarding Rod Corkin's intervention, I merely questioned his assertion that there is some kind of "Mozartian" brigade that follows Robert Newman around from forum to forum. It is not generally true, and he now realises that which explains why he has not come back. I am entitled to make such an observation, aren't I? Perhaps if you think I am not so allowed you could take this up with the Moderators. Thank you so much.
(ii) I am glad that you think that CMG is the best classical music discussion site on the internet. I would probably agree with that. I am sure that any CMGers reading this will be delighted.
(iii) I take exception to your stricture to me to "post on other threads that interest you and stop being a trouble-maker". I will post wherever I like. I could suggest to you that you should stop posting in this thread? How would you like that? As for me being a "trouble-maker", I think you must some attention to your "antennae". On the contrary, I have posted a number of highly relevant questions to Newman in this thread, and was more than happy to see the whole thing collapse, as I made clear if you care to scroll back a couple of days.
I gave you a path to insure being a well-respected member of the board; take it or not. You may give me all the suggestions you like, and I'll consider them one at a time.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 01:53:14 PM
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 01:53:14 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 12:54:25 PM
I will post part 5/5 on the 'Haffner' in the next day or so.
//
Wait, that last thing was part 4? Wasn't that just part 3 again? The whole Modena is part 3? Part 2 is Mozart saying, "I don't remember" or something and part 1 is the timpani thing.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 26, 2009, 01:55:45 PM
Post by: Brian on May 26, 2009, 01:55:45 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 01:26:57 PM;D ;D ;D
Mr. Drogulus
Here at the Institute I have discovered a notebook allegedly belonging to Sigmund Freud but obviously written in the hand of L. Ron Hubbard, establishing that Santa Claus is actually a communist spy whose real identity is known only to me and the Grand Wizard, as proven by the fact that no one can eat just one potato chip. "Everybody doesn't like something, but nobody doesn't like Sara Lee," says one definitive entry, written in 1652 as extensive carbon testing has confirmed. Paper was invented by the lost tribe of Israel--a little-known fact proven by the fact that my soon to be published book proves it as a fact.
No photograph exists of Mrs. Harriet Downing of 1035 Wimple Road South meeting secretly with the anti-Christ Pope Flatulus IV at Hooter's #132 in Hope, Arkansas, on the morning of July 26, 832 B.C. What may you surmise from this but a cover-up involving Attila the Hun, Richard Simmons, the insidious toothpaste tube cap manufacturing industry, and the front court of the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team! These facts cannot be denied.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 02:00:53 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 02:00:53 PM
Quote from: Catison on May 26, 2009, 01:53:14 PM
Wait, that last thing was part 4? Wasn't that just part 3 again? The whole Modena is part 3? Part 2 is Mozart saying, "I don't remember" or something and part 1 is the timpani thing.
Part 4 is really the detail of Part 3. Part 3 itself was a quite long description. So Part 4 gives verifiable sources of this information. Few people know about these important archives so they deserved a section of their own. The last part will be the whole argument condensed.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on May 26, 2009, 02:37:09 PM
Post by: Dancing Divertimentian on May 26, 2009, 02:37:09 PM
*Large, extended exhale, shaking head, wiping brow, moving on...*
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 03:06:53 PM
Post by: Catison on May 26, 2009, 03:06:53 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 02:00:53 PM
Part 4 is really the detail of Part 3. Part 3 itself was a quite long description. So Part 4 gives verifiable sources of this information. Few people know about these important archives so they deserved a section of their own. The last part will be the whole argument condensed.
Seems you should have started with Part 5 and omitted Parts 1-4.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 03:20:50 PM
Post by: karlhenning on May 26, 2009, 03:20:50 PM
Quote from: drogulus on May 26, 2009, 12:55:02 PM
Isn't Salzburg lovely? Have you been to the new Institute for the Study of Multiple Personalities?
What, me worry?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 26, 2009, 10:41:27 PM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 26, 2009, 10:41:27 PM
I have been doing some reading up, Mr Newman.
It seems your central thesis is (and I hope I'm reporting this correctly) - the Jesuits, their order banned in 1773, tried to get into the good books of the Holy Roman Empire again and restore (some of) their power and influence. As German nationalism was on the rise, they began promoting great German music. Haydn wasn't a great composer, neither was Mozart. There was a host of other (great) composers writing their music for them in the dark. But Beethoven was his own man. Luchesi wrote most of Mozart's music (is, I think, what you think). This makes Luchesi the immortal genius, who, if recognized as such, would make you the centre of a burgeoning Luchesi industry for being the first one to 'prove' this. You wouldn't like that, would you?
But first you would have to achieve the following: 1) prove for every work ascribed to Mozart that he didn't write it and 2) prove when, where, how the one who did, did.
Life's too short.
It seems your central thesis is (and I hope I'm reporting this correctly) - the Jesuits, their order banned in 1773, tried to get into the good books of the Holy Roman Empire again and restore (some of) their power and influence. As German nationalism was on the rise, they began promoting great German music. Haydn wasn't a great composer, neither was Mozart. There was a host of other (great) composers writing their music for them in the dark. But Beethoven was his own man. Luchesi wrote most of Mozart's music (is, I think, what you think). This makes Luchesi the immortal genius, who, if recognized as such, would make you the centre of a burgeoning Luchesi industry for being the first one to 'prove' this. You wouldn't like that, would you?
But first you would have to achieve the following: 1) prove for every work ascribed to Mozart that he didn't write it and 2) prove when, where, how the one who did, did.
Life's too short.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 27, 2009, 01:07:07 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 27, 2009, 01:07:07 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 26, 2009, 10:41:27 PM
But Beethoven was his own man. Luchesi wrote most of Mozart's music (is, I think, what you think). This makes Luchesi the immortal genius, who, if recognized as such, would make you the centre of a burgeoning Luchesi industry for being the first one to 'prove' this. You wouldn't like that, would you?
You should surely be aware from my site, to name but one, that Rob believes Luchesi composed a number of Beethoven's early works too!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 27, 2009, 01:22:27 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 27, 2009, 01:22:27 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on May 27, 2009, 01:07:07 AM
You should surely be aware from my site, to name but one, that Rob believes Luchesi composed a number of Beethoven's early works too!
Well well. In that case Luchesi would be an even greater miracle. Where did the man find the time to support so many careers? This stretches credibilty. Compared to that Mozart is small beer.
(Btw, my source of information for my all-too-short summary is here:
http://www.talkclassical.com/865-controversy-over-true-musical.html)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 01:39:02 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 01:39:02 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 26, 2009, 10:41:27 PM
I have been doing some reading up, Mr Newman.
It seems your central thesis is (and I hope I'm reporting this correctly) - the Jesuits, their order banned in 1773, tried to get into the good books of the Holy Roman Empire again and restore (some of) their power and influence. As German nationalism was on the rise, they began promoting great German music. Haydn wasn't a great composer, neither was Mozart. There was a host of other (great) composers writing their music for them in the dark. But Beethoven was his own man. Luchesi wrote most of Mozart's music (is, I think, what you think). This makes Luchesi the immortal genius, who, if recognized as such, would make you the centre of a burgeoning Luchesi industry for being the first one to 'prove' this. You wouldn't like that, would you?
But first you would have to achieve the following: 1) prove for every work ascribed to Mozart that he didn't write it and 2) prove when, where, how the one who did, did.
Life's too short.
Jezetha,
Thanks for the synopsis. Although you've got some parts right others are wrong. To my certain knowledge nobody has ever said Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi wrote most of Mozart's music. (Strange how people still believe this when it's never been said). Where did you get that idea from ? Luchesi was the very talented Italian Kapellmeister of Bonn from 1771 - one of the great music teaching chapels of Germany - whose pupils included the young Beethoven. A place where Mozart had hopes of becoming Kapellmeister himself. His failure to become Kapellmeister there (with the post foolishly promised to him by the Elector of Bonn, Max Franz around 1781/2) was a great disappointment to Mozart. It was compensated for in the supply to him (to Mozart) of various works by Luchesi. And Luchesi continued in the Bonn post. In fact Luchesi was the last and longest serving Kapellmeister at Bonn (from 1771 till closure of the chapel in 1794). And yes, beyond reasonable doubt, Luchesi did write some works which have falsely been attributed to the young Ludwig van Beethoven. But this has been discussed at some length elsewhere. The strange disappearance from textbooks of reference to Luchesi (even in textbooks which deal with Beethoven's early life !) is a plain fact of music publishing history. So the beginnings of fudging the subject of Beethoven's musical education began - with the lie that Ch. G. Neefe was Beethoven's music teacher. In fact this is nonsense. Neefe was involved for only 1 year - the rest of time Luchesi remained, of course, the principal teacher of music to students at Bonn. These sorts of fiction continue to this day. Secondly, the nationalistic element (of making Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven heroes of German music) is true of course, but one of only a number of reasons for the manufacture of Mozart. Other reasons include attempts to control the music publishing business after the loss of its monopoly by the Jesuit Order (who, before around 1773 had a total monopoly on music performance and music publishing), and the role and dominance of fraternities in controlling performance and publishing after that date etc. etc.. And of course the rise of corporate monopolies on the music industry as a whole. One of the effects of fraternity control of the music industry was to create and focus on these iconic characters so that the musical careers of countless Bohemian, French, Italian and other composers became virtually unknown (as we see today). So we end up with a group of musical icons and the actual history of music is 'dumbed down'.
In recent years we've started to see a major revision of music history at this period, with the recording of works by composers whose names are still only little known. This process is natural, although conservatives are of course angry their heroes are shown to have been greatly helped by other composers.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 01:53:14 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 01:53:14 AM
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?
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?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2009, 01:57:25 AM
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2009, 01:57:25 AM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:00:45 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:00:45 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 01:53:14 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 02:02:12 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 02:02:12 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:00:45 AM
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...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:05:24 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:05:24 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 27, 2009, 01:57:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2009, 02:15:27 AM
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2009, 02:15:27 AM
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.
You're wasting your time here. And ours too.
Go write a novel.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:16:45 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:16:45 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 02:02:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:18:39 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:18:39 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 27, 2009, 02:15:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 02:22:17 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 02:22:17 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:16:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:26:11 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:26:11 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 02:22:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 27, 2009, 02:31:06 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 27, 2009, 02:31:06 AM
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
For those (still) interested:
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/03mar/RICR-090329.php
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 02:34:16 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 02:34:16 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:26:11 AM
Insulting those who point this out does nothing.
Where and how have I insulted you, pray tell?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 03:14:18 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 03:14:18 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 27, 2009, 02:31:06 AM
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
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 03:18:03 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 03:18:03 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 02:34:16 AM
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
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 03:18:30 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 03:18:30 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 03:14:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Lethevich on May 27, 2009, 03:20:47 AM
Post by: Lethevich on May 27, 2009, 03:20:47 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:26:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Lethevich on May 27, 2009, 03:22:22 AM
Post by: Lethevich on May 27, 2009, 03:22:22 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 03:18:30 AM
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".
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 27, 2009, 03:38:18 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 27, 2009, 03:38:18 AM
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!
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!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2009, 03:45:27 AM
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2009, 03:45:27 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:05:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 04:19:36 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 04:19:36 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 27, 2009, 03:38:18 AMNope, 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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 04:25:19 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 04:25:19 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on May 27, 2009, 01:07:07 AM
You should surely be aware from my site, to name but one, that Rob believes Luchesi composed a number of Beethoven's early works too!
Out of his mind. (Newman, I mean.)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 04:27:41 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 04:27:41 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 27, 2009, 01:57:25 AM
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.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 04:29:19 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 04:29:19 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:26:11 AM
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.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 04:34:32 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 04:34:32 AM
The only real question on this thread is: is Rob's game flat-out chicanery, or has he fallen prey to his own kool-aid?
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 04:35:00 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 04:35:00 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 27, 2009, 03:45:27 AM
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.
I claim independence as a writer on music and its history (as do others) from the mainstream Mozart industry, if that is what you are refering to. But the work of independent researchers (as, for example, independent journalists) is made no easier by lectures from you on what it consists of and what it does not. I have not 'opted' out of anything, other than to maintain my integrity in an area of research which is basically a paradigm. A circular argument that 'Mozart was a musical genius....and therefore'. When, in fact, a paradigm consists of a circular argument whose believers never question the assumption on which their views are based. The living proof of which are claims that 'everything you've seen is true' in the film 'Amadeus', when, in fact, the image presented is the product of the industry itself.
The independent researcher is far more familiar with books in print and works that have appeared, than you may suppose. He/she is continually teaching others, because he/she is continually asking questions and getting answers. He is not dictated to by anyone. And his/her material is able to be examined, criticised and assessed on the same terms as the Mozart industry.
It seems (with respect) that your knowledge of Mozart and his career comes almost entirely from the corporate image of Mozart. One you have never really questioned, at any time. And that you accept it because others accept it. And they accepted it because others before them accepted it. And so it goes on. So that your knowledge is derived almost entirely from sources which were busy in the promotion of his reputation. To the point where exaggerations became myths, and where myths became 'facts' and where a bubble was created, which grew in size as more and more 'facts' were added to it, until the bubble came to be of enormous size and fascination - an icon, the basis of which is never questioned or cross-examined. This industry bears so little resemblance to the real world that when its teachings are questioned or cross-examined you witness stupidity, aggression, anger, foolish posts, and all the evidence of vested interests defending the things they learned themselves. Mozart studies, so-called, are a classic example of never seeing the wood for the trees. Of a hero being constructed and supported by money, half-educated men, and by the sheer weight of tradition. So that the corruption of music and its history becomes as true of those studies as it does of banking, commerce, politics or any other area of human activity. When do you suppose the case is different in 'Mozart studies' ? For, here too, there is a big industry, big bucks, elitism and cultural control. On a scale equal to the icon himself. All of which is an indisputable feature of the music industry we see today at a corporate level.
The dumbing down of student's education, the fiction of his 'genius' - these are used as a credit card to gloss over the glaring defects in the official story. So that the average man in the street believes the propaganda and is never encouraged to examine the basis on which the myth was constructed.
I have had dozens, even hundreds of contacts with musicians and musicologists, archivists and teachers, most of whom are very open to a fair, honest and open re-assessment of Mozart's life, career and status. But the exceptions are those who think they know it all and who base their views on nothing more than sweeping generalisations.
Why not make yourself familiar with music history, rather than the myth of Mozart ? Since the two things are as different as they can possibly be. And one of them is being ignored, consistently, by those who should know better. Mozart IS the FOX news of classical music. The living proof of which is the attitude of those who criticise his modern re-assessment.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 27, 2009, 04:44:29 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 27, 2009, 04:44:29 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 04:19:36 AM
Nope, Jezetha, recognizing that "Newman" is a nutcase is the point.
The poor fellow needs to be helped, not humored.
I know what you are saying. But everyone is responsible for his or her own actions, so I'm neither helping nor humouring. I am simply giving Mr Newman the benefit of the doubt, without wasting huge amounts of time and energy at refuting and/or ridiculing his convictions. If Mr Newman wants to use the years still left to him in undermining the Mozart edifice (to coin a phrase), who am I to stop him?
As I said, I won't be reacting to any of his posts again. I don't want piecemeal revelation, I want the whole meal, ergo: that damned book!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 04:45:46 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 04:45:46 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 04:19:36 AM
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.
David Ross has a career on this thread which speaks for itself. Let's read what he has written. It's a series of insults, of childish insults. And it's nothing more than that. This man seems to have a lot to lose if the reputation of Mozart is questioned. This may explain his hostility. Can you imagine a mature person acting in this way, post after post ? On a thread which is examining the question of whether Mozart was a fraud ? What has he contributed to this thread ? Nothing at all.
You say I 'need to be helped, not humoured'. Let others be the judge of that. But, in the meantime, let us have from you some constructive posts here on this thread, addressing yourself to the main issue, the subject of this thread. So that we can all agree about your views. Since, so far, you have contributed nothing. And it shows.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 04:47:32 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 04:47:32 AM
All that verbiage, so little substance!
That's propagandist talk, of course.
May not happen; for anarcho-opportunists, it's the journey, not the destination.
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 04:35:00 AM
. . . the mainstream Mozart industry . . . .
That's propagandist talk, of course.
Quote from: Jezetha on May 27, 2009, 04:44:29 AM
. . . As I said, I won't be reacting to any of his posts again. I don't want piecemeal revelation, I want the whole meal, ergo: that damned book!
May not happen; for anarcho-opportunists, it's the journey, not the destination.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 04:48:48 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 04:48:48 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 04:45:46 AM
David Ross . . . seems to have a lot to lose if the reputation of Mozart is questioned.
This is but one of your own myriad exaggerations, falsehoods and downright errors.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 27, 2009, 04:53:06 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 27, 2009, 04:53:06 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 04:47:32 AM
May not happen; for anarcho-opportunists, it's the journey, not the destination.
Schoenberg said that (iirc)!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 05:00:43 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 05:00:43 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 27, 2009, 04:53:06 AM
Schoenberg said that (iirc)!
:D
I do like Schoenberg; and I enjoy perusing Style & Idea, which is often thought-provoking, even if one does not always quite agree. Like Mozart, Arnold is value-added to culture.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 05:02:02 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 05:02:02 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 27, 2009, 03:38:18 AM
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!
Thank you. And yes, one must persevere to see the book to its completion. As I shall.
Regards and best wishes
R. Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 05:04:47 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 05:04:47 AM
Mr. Newman, just in case it slipped your attention:
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.
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 03:14:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 05:06:45 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 05:06:45 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 04:48:48 AM
This is but one of your own myriad exaggerations, falsehoods and downright errors.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Karl Henning,
In my independent research (and that of various others) we have discovered a mass of evidence in support of the thesis that Mozart's career and iconic status has been manufactured. I don't expect you to agree in internet posts. But I don't expect you to disagree also, since you have to hand only standard textbooks, themselves based on other standard textbooks, derived from those writers whose creation of Mozart's status was the motivation for their own works.
But I can tell you that in these exchanges I have been honest. Why, just today, I learned of the existence here in London of several letters which refer to Mozart and his father during their visit to London in 1764 which have never, to my knowledge, ever been published, and which are unknown to Mozart researchers themselves. Further proof that, contrary to your views, the best proof of anything is to read it, to understand it, and to check it yourself against what you have learned.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 27, 2009, 05:08:12 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 27, 2009, 05:08:12 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 05:00:43 AM
I do like Schoenberg; and I enjoy perusing Style & Idea, which is often thought-provoking, even if one does not always quite agree. Like Mozart, Arnold is value-added to culture.
Yes, that's excellent! I have it on my bookshelf, a Faber and Faber paperback, its spine almost unreadable, completely bleached by the sun, so that the green has turned yellow...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 05:11:29 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 05:11:29 AM
Quote from: robnewman
. . . Further proof that, contrary to your views, the best proof of anything is to read it, to understand it, and to check it yourself against what you have learned.
Your gratiuitous insertion of the phrase "contrary to your views" is but one more of your own myriad exaggerations, falsehoods and downright errors.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 05:13:39 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 05:13:39 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 01:53:14 AM
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?
Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 05:04:47 AM
Mr. Newman, just in case it slipped your attention:
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.
Buona fortuna, amico!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 05:37:36 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 05:37:36 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 01:53:14 AM
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?
Characteristically, you got no reply regarding the first paragraph there.
And all you got for response to the second query was, there are really scads of us, as you must know! Without any names.
Naturally.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 05:47:26 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 05:47:26 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 05:04:47 AM
Mr. Newman, just in case it slipped your attention:
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.
Florestan,
I'm about to start major work on the book so I can't post in much detail after today. You will just have to read the book on its completion. I can offer you this.
1. The question of Luchesi's motivation (in assisting the career of Mozart) is certainly not clear and it would be a lie to suggest otherwise. But we are able to say with certainty his career (i.e. the career of Luchesi) was enabled by the fact that he and his family alredy had strong connections in Italy with elites in Italy. That his recruitment by the Austrian/Hungarian Empire to be Kapellmeister at Bonn was (as was the case with various major posts at this time) as much due to politics and to fraternal influence as it was of his musical abilities. His employment at Bonn being, in effect, on several different grounds. One of which was, for sure, his great musical abilities. Luchesi had studied composition and music theory assiduously in Italy. He was familiar with the latest trends. His concertos were known to the Mozart family. In fact copies of several keyboard concertos were given to the Mozart's during their tours in Italy and they remained in the Mozart repertoire right up to the 1780's. As we see confirmed in correspondence of the Mozart family. Secondly, Luchesi married locally. A woman of influence and status. And he restored the status of the Bonn Hofkapelle, where the young Beethoven was a student. The fact that his name has largely been removed or marginalised in books (even those dealing with early Beethoven) strongly suggests there are aspects of his career which would be inconvenient for the official history we have of Mozart. Since it was of course Luchesi's post of Kapellmeister which was threatened by a promise of Max Franz to make him, Mozart, the Kapellmeister. These events came to a head in 1784 when Max Franz (after a delay of many years) finally became Elector at Bonn. The moment arrived when, it seemed, Mozart was finally to get the long-promised job. (A job promised and refered to in Mozart's correspondence of 1782). But the deal never happened. It didn't happen because Luchesi was firmly in his post and could not be fired. All that could happen would be that he fell ill, or was persuaded to retire. And neither happened. So that Luchesi remained. And he was to be the last, and probably the best Kapellmeister ever at Bonn.
Out of a sense of debt to Mozart the new elector, Max Franz (brother of Joseph 2nd) the career of Mozart was 'embellished' by the supply to him by Luchesi and by others, of a stream of works. These with the full knowledge of Max Franz, since Max Franz and others were part of the project, to create his status. And from around 1784 onwards the theatrical group at Bonn (under Grossmann) began their independent status, touring widely across Germany. Performing, eventually, 'Mozart' operas. This too further helping to build the status of Mozart.
The terms and conditions of a Kapellmeister's employment made it illegal for a Kapellmeister to sell his own music to others. But in this case the obligation was real. And Luchesi seems to have conformed. The result being that several works by Luchesi (very probably the 'Paris' Symphony and also the 'Haffner') are today 'Mozart' symphonies although, in fact, detailed investigation indicates differently. Luchesi's other output (covering this vast period of more than 20 years in Bonn included numerous operas, though these too have disappeared, even although they were written using a pen-name. That of 'D'Anthoine'.
So the case of Luchesi is one of many. And it has its own story. Bonn remained of huge importance to the Mozart story although the truth of it is largely obscured by later textbooks. Here too, in Bonn, was the publisher Simrock, whose part in the story is little known. We know, for sure, that the score of the Magic Flute came here, to Bonn, even before its premiere in Vienna, and that the role of the fraternities were of major importance in the final years of 'Mozart's' career.
I know this is not a detailed answer but, for the time being, that is a general overview. The motivations of men who enjoy high status are, of course, often hidden. I think it is fair to say that he knew he was part of a much bigger project. And conformed with it dutifully.
CARTELLIERI
The case of Cartellieri is rather different. He, according to different accounts, ran away from home after the divorce of his parents. (Similar, in fact, to the case of Anton Reicha, another composer associated with Mozart's career - and who came to Bonn, then to the professorship in Paris). But Cartellieri ended up as a student to Albrechtsberger and to Salieri in Vienna before his career was publicly launched after the death of Mozart. He and Beethoven. Cartellieri's talents were used by several patrons, the most important of which was Prince Lobkowitz. A central character (with his father) in the career and reputation of Mozart. Cartellieri was well paid. His career was assured after the concert in Vienna of 1795, at which time he started working in both Vienna and then Bohemia. At the location where much of Mozart's posthumously published music was under revision, prior to its first publication. And Cartellieri married and had his mother staying with him, in Bohemia. His tragic and sudden death was a great loss to music. So in his case Cartellieri's motive was, simply, to serve in a privileged position. There is some evidence of him disagreeing with a colleague shortly before his death. The colleague being Anton Wranitsky, another major person in the manufacture of Mozart's reputation.
So, as I see it, Cartellieri was in deep with all this intrigue that was the sitatution at that time. A time when there was no real copyright, and a time when the chance for such employment was exactly what he needed. The exploitation, of course, of a remarkable talent. And one which, I hope, music lovers will come to appreciate as they hear his own concertos and other music.
Again, I realise this is no real answer to the subject of motivation. We know that in other cases religious beliefs, conservatism, debts of gratitude, fraternity membership and many other factors all account for motivations.
It's all I can do here. Take it or leave it. Fine.
///
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 05:52:34 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 05:52:34 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 05:37:36 AM
Characteristically, you got no reply regarding the first paragraph there.
And all you got for response to the second query was, there are really scads of us, as you must know! Without any names.
Naturally.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Frankly, I don't have much more time for these hostile exchanges. You believe as you do. Fine. Believe it. Others don't and they have their reasons. There ARE, today, musicologists and music writers who are not wasting their time with people like you, 'educated people' who are so close minded that you can't realise that everything, even the iconic status of Mozart, can and must be cross-examined in the light of modern discoveries. A process far more advanced than you seem to realise. But that's your choice. Your attitude pays your bills. And yet it's empty rhetoric. The others producing documentary evidence and reasoned argument. Which is a feature of independent, honest, and straightforward hard work.
Defend Mozart if you must. But don't tell us that you do so with any evidence when, in fact, you are saying nothing more than a badly behaved high school student.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 06:16:44 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 06:16:44 AM
Quote from: Lorenzo Da PonteThough gifted with talents superior perhaps, to those of any other composer in the world, past, present or future, Mozart has, thanks to the intrigues of his rivals, never been able to exercise his divine genius in Vienna, and was living there unknown and obscure, like a precious jewel buried in the bowels of the earth and hiding the refulgent excellence of its splendors. I can never remember without exultation and complacency, that it was to my perseverance and firmness alone that Europe and the world in great part owe the exquisite vocal compositions of the admirable genius.--Livingston, Arthur, ed.: Memoirs of Lorenzo Da Ponte. 1959, Orion Press, New York, 1959. (Da Ponte's life nearly catalogued his times, much like Wyatt Earp and nearly as fascinating.)
First hand accounts, even those as self-serving as Da Ponte's, so thoroughly dispose of the issue that no one in his right mind regards the authenticity of Mozart's authorship as even remotely questionable. Reputable sources are abundant, including Mozart's autograph scores. See, for instance, Alan Tyson's Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Scores, reviewed here. (http://ml.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/70/1/101)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 06:29:05 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 06:29:05 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 06:16:44 AM
--Livingston, Arthur, ed.: Memoirs of Lorenzo Da Ponte. 1959, Orion Press, New York, 1959. (Da Ponte's life nearly catalogued his times, much like Wyatt Earp and nearly as fascinating.)
First hand accounts, even those as self-serving as Da Ponte's, so thoroughly dispose of the issue that no one in his right mind regards the authenticity of Mozart's authorship as even remotely questionable. Reputable sources are abundant, including Mozart's autograph scores. See, for instance, Alan Tyson's Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Scores, reviewed here. (http://ml.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/70/1/101)
Yes, and I'm very familiar with all of these works. I need to be, of course. In the books you refer to (which I've studied in great detail) Lorenzo da Ponte is a renegade priest whose background and whose associations with fraternities and with intrigue are a documented fact of history. A man whose reputation rivals that of Casanova and of Cagliostro, all of which require understanding and appreciation since they all feature in the Mozart story. Since you've taken the trouble (at last) to go to a source of information let me quote you back some of what this same Lorenzo da Ponte actually wrote. Consider it well -
Mozart has, thanks to the intrigues of his rivals, never been able to exercise his divine genius in Vienna, and was living there unknown and obscure, like a precious jewel buried in the bowels of the earth and hiding the refulgent excellence of its splendors[/i]
Now, what does this tell us ? It tells us that (even according to your own sources) Mozart was unknown in Vienna and not a musical celebrity at all. Doesn't it ? It tells us, contrary to myth, that Mozart was 'unknown and obscure'. Doesn't it ? And let me continue. It says he was 'like a precious jewel buried in the bowels of the earth'. That too is further testimony of the fact that Mozart was never a well known musical celebrity of Vienna, even during his final decade, in Vienna, doesn't it ? Which is precisely the truth. Why then the bogus acclaim of 'Mozart, genius, piano prodigy, the celebrated composer and virtuoso' when, in fact, the opposite is the truth ? And finally, 'hiding the excellence of its splendours'.
Can you read what is right in front of your nose ? And you see how it flies in the face of Mozart, great musical celebrity, doesn't it ?
And so, even on your own evidence, you must surely realise Mozart's career, his Vienna reputation, is, to a massive extent, a later creation. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 06:56:16 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 06:56:16 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 06:29:05 AM
Can you read what is right in front of your nose ?
That is uproariously funny, coming from you!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 07:24:31 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 07:24:31 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 23, 2009, 06:46:02 PM
I found a website listing what the author claims are the world's wackiest conspiracy theories:
I consider this post value added, and on-topic. BTW.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:31:18 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:31:18 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 07:24:31 AM
I consider this post value added, and on-topic. BTW.
You consider nothing. Even the name of your posts here has repeatedly been changed from the original 'Mozart A Fraud ?' to 'Newman a Fraud' - a fact anyone can see who bothers to read your posts. And since the thread was not started by you, don't you think your childish behaviour speaks volumes for your ignorance and your lack of civility with those who happen to disagree with you ?
When you have no answers to the actual issues on Mozart you revert to your silly and hostile personalised comments. As anyone can see. Demonstrating clearly to everyone who is really ignorant. You should be fired as a menace and as a delinquent.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2009, 07:31:53 AM
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2009, 07:31:53 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 06:29:05 AM
Now, what does this tell us ? It tells us that (even according to your own sources) Mozart was unknown in Vienna and not a musical celebrity at all.
Everybody knows (or I should hope so) that Mozart's career had its ups and downs. By the time DaPonte is writing about the child prodigy fame was long gone, and the good mature years were also over. New fads and fashions were on the horizon. In his last years Mozart was struggling to meet the demands of his and Constanze's life style. That's what DaPonte was talking about. He was not writing about a composer who'd never been famous (as you apparently would wish it).
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:40:19 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 27, 2009, 07:31:53 AM
Everybody knows (or I should hope so) that Mozart's career had its ups and downs. By the time DaPonte is writing about the child prodigy fame was long gone, and the good mature years were also over. New fads and fashions were on the horizon. In his last years Mozart was struggling to meet the demands of his and Constanze's life style. That's what DaPonte was talking about. He was not writing about a composer who'd never been famous (as you apparently would wish it).
That's not true. Why do you wish to pervert what is there for us all to see ? Let me emphasise the statement of Lorenzo da Ponte once again. It was written after Mozart had died (i.e. after 1791). I will this time enlarge and capitalise what he wrote so anyone can see it for themselves. So even you can finally understand what he wrote without inventing anything.
'' Mozart has, thanks to the intrigues of his rivals, NEVER been able to exercise his divine genius in Vienna''
What does 'NEVER' mean ? Does it mean ('he was before') or 'previously he was famous in Vienna' ?? It means NEVER . Unless of course 'never' is twisted to mean the very opposite of what it actually means.
How much more plain can this possibly be ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on May 27, 2009, 07:40:40 AM
Post by: Franco on May 27, 2009, 07:40:40 AM
I just wanted to make a post with this subject line, since it seems to sum up this entire thread - which I am hoping will expire soon.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 07:43:05 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 07:43:05 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 07:24:31 AMBut of course. The topic, from the outset, has been this fellow "Newman" and his disruptive tactics to promote his crackpot theories on various classical music websites. As many here have pointed out, if there were any substance to his claims he would be making them elsewhere rather than on the only classical music fan forum that will still have him, and if he were a legitimate scholar rather than a pathetic crackpot, in the event that he were to appear here in an attempt to drum up interest in a forthcoming book (not even written yet, let alone placed with a publisher--hilarious how his falsehoods contradict one another depending on what seems expedient to his addled mind at any given time!), then he would respond to sincere questions with quotes, citations, and links to reputable sources, rather than half-baked conspiracy theories in which lack of evidence for his claims is touted as proof (!) of their validity and the conspiracy of thousands of scholars over the past two centuries to cover up a truth which only he has been able to uncover...and despite the obvious point that if there were any merit in the theory, then rather than joining a worldwide, multi-generational conspiracy to promote the "Mozart industry," every goddamn musicologist in the world would be itching to break this career-making story.
I consider this post value added, and on-topic. BTW.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:43:36 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:43:36 AM
Quote from: Franco on May 27, 2009, 07:40:40 AM
I just wanted to make a post with this subject line, since it seems to sum up this entire thread - which I am hoping will expire soon.
Thank you for your non-contribution to this thread. If you post again and change the title of this thread I will ask that you are barred from posting any more.
Why not grow up ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 07:44:24 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 07:44:24 AM
The remark, (even according to your own sources) Mozart was unknown in Vienna, is a propagandist's exaggeration. All of Newman's cheap ploys have a tiresome predictability to them.
Noch einmal: That is uproariously funny, coming from you!
Quote from: H.C. Robbins LandonA few months after Mozart had moved to Vienna in 1781, his six Violin Sonatas (K.376, 296, 377-380) were announced by Artaria & Co. in the Wiener Zeitung (8 December). Mozart was to publish with many other houses . . . .
p.38 of Mozart: The Golden Years
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:40:19 AM
Why do you wish to pervert what is there for us all to see?
Noch einmal: That is uproariously funny, coming from you!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:46:42 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:46:42 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 07:43:05 AM
But of course. The topic, from the outset, has been this fellow "Newman" and his disruptive tactics to promote his crackpot theories on various classical music websites. As many here have pointed out, if there were any substance to his claims he would be making them elsewhere rather than on the only classical music fan forum that will still have him, and if he were a legitimate scholar rather than a pathetic crackpot, in the event that he were to appear here in an attempt to drum up interest in a forthcoming book (not even written yet, let alone placed with a publisher--hilarious how his falsehoods contradict one another depending on what seems expedient to his addled mind at any given time!), then he would respond to sincere questions with quotes, citations, and links to reputable sources, rather than half-baked conspiracy theories in which lack of evidence for his claims is touted as proof (!) of their validity and the conspiracy of thousands of scholars over the past two centuries to cover up a truth which only he has been able to uncover...and despite the obvious point that if there were any merit in the theory, then rather than joining a worldwide, multi-generational conspiracy to promote the "Mozart industry," every goddamn musicologist in the world would be itching to break this career-making story.
In the field of discussion and debate you have been defeated over and over again on Mozart issues. And if you want to continue in your defeat with more defeat just keep posting on Mozart issues. Since every reader will see your incompetence for themselves.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 07:46:46 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 07:46:46 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 27, 2009, 07:31:53 AMAlso, Da Ponte's memoirs are quite self-serving and he's trying to take credit not only for co-writing Mozart's greatest operas, but for bringing Mozart's gifts to the attention of the world at the time.
Everybody knows (or I should hope so) that Mozart's career had its ups and downs. By the time DaPonte is writing about the child prodigy fame was long gone, and the good mature years were also over. New fads and fashions were on the horizon. In his last years Mozart was struggling to meet the demands of his and Constanze's life style. That's what DaPonte was talking about. He was not writing about a composer who'd never been famous (as you apparently would wish it).
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:49:30 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:49:30 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 07:46:46 AM
Also, Da Ponte's memoirs are quite self-serving and he's trying to take credit not only for co-writing Mozart's greatest operas, but for bringing Mozart's gifts to the attention of the world at the time.
You posted the memoirs of Lorenzo da Ponte which clearly and indisputably say Mozart, was NEVER at any time in Vienna able to demonstrate any musical genius. That is clearly and undeniably what IS said by Lorenzo da Ponte himself. He says so repeatedly. And that's a plain fact.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 07:50:39 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 07:50:39 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 07:43:05 AM
But of course. The topic, from the outset, has been this fellow "Newman" and his disruptive tactics to promote his crackpot theories on various classical music websites. As many here have pointed out, if there were any substance to his claims he would be making them elsewhere rather than on the only classical music fan forum that will still have him, and if he were a legitimate scholar rather than a pathetic crackpot, in the event that he were to appear here in an attempt to drum up interest in a forthcoming book (not even written yet, let alone placed with a publisher--hilarious how his falsehoods contradict one another depending on what seems expedient to his addled mind at any given time!), then he would respond to sincere questions with quotes, citations, and links to reputable sources, rather than half-baked conspiracy theories in which lack of evidence for his claims is touted as proof (!) of their validity and the conspiracy of thousands of scholars over the past two centuries to cover up a truth which only he has been able to uncover...and despite the obvious point that if there were any merit in the theory, then rather than joining a worldwide, multi-generational conspiracy to promote the "Mozart industry," every goddamn musicologist in the world would be itching to break this career-making story.
So . . . apart from having no grasp of what a fact is, nor of what constitutes proof, nor of what evidence is, and apart from a wilful misreading of practically every source document to pass before his eyes, and apart from having no fresh idea to bring the table apart from the completely ridiculous idea (itself an unimaginative trope on the Shakespeare Wars, only inconvenienced by there being a wealth of source-material on the subject more than in the case of the playwright) that Mozart didn't really write his own music . . . apart from all this, what possible objection could be raised to Newman's thread?
(Nods to Jn Cleese as Reg the Revolutionary.)
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 07:52:29 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 07:52:29 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:49:30 AM
You posted the memoirs of Lorenzo da Ponte which clearly and indisputably say Mozart, was NEVER at any time in Vienna able to demonstrate any musical genius.
You have trouble reading what is right before everyone's eyes. And that's a plain fact.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bwv 1080 on May 27, 2009, 07:52:48 AM
Post by: bwv 1080 on May 27, 2009, 07:52:48 AM
Did someone already mention the Haydn relationship? How did Haydn suckered by Mozart, & who wrote Mozart's Haydn quartets?
given the time they spent together performing and discussing music, could Haydn not have smelled a rat?
given the time they spent together performing and discussing music, could Haydn not have smelled a rat?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 27, 2009, 07:54:51 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 27, 2009, 07:54:51 AM
I'll go check.
(http://www.hollywoodlostandfound.net/pictures/props/timemachine.jpg)
(http://www.hollywoodlostandfound.net/pictures/props/timemachine.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:55:57 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:55:57 AM
The memoirs of Lorenzo da Ponte, close associate of Mozart in Vienna, clearly and indisputably say Mozart, was NEVER at any time able to demonstrate any musical genius. That is clearly and undeniably what IS said by Lorenzo da Ponte himself. He says so repeatedly. And that's a plain fact. A plain and simple reading of what he wrote tells us so.
And you can't handle it.
You don't like what is said by Mozart's own associate. So you deny it exists. But it does exist. And it will exist long after this thread is over. It will be, forever, a contemporary statement on the subject. One you can't handle although it is confirmed by various other sources. And this, to you, is too much.
And you can't handle it.
You don't like what is said by Mozart's own associate. So you deny it exists. But it does exist. And it will exist long after this thread is over. It will be, forever, a contemporary statement on the subject. One you can't handle although it is confirmed by various other sources. And this, to you, is too much.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on May 27, 2009, 07:56:50 AM
Post by: Franco on May 27, 2009, 07:56:50 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:43:36 AM
Thank you for your non-contribution to this thread. If you post again and change the title of this thread I will ask that you are barred from posting any more.
Why not grow up ?
Beg pardon? You can certainly request that I be banned from posting, however, I don't think expressing my opinion that you are a fraud would constitute grounds for such.
And most definitely, I think you are a fraud.
I find your entire premise a sad attempt at getting attention, and to the extent you beat the drum, you might be considered a clown, but you are not entertaining enough to rise to the that level.
You are merely tiresome.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bwv 1080 on May 27, 2009, 07:58:26 AM
Post by: bwv 1080 on May 27, 2009, 07:58:26 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:55:57 AM
The memoirs of Lorenzo da Ponte, close associate of Mozart in Vienna, clearly and indisputably say Mozart, was NEVER at any time able to demonstrate any musical genius. That is clearly and undeniably what IS said by Lorenzo da Ponte himself. He says so repeatedly. And that's a plain fact. A plain and simple reading of what he wrote tells us so.
And you can't handle it.
You don't like what is said by Mozart's own associate. So you deny it exists. But it does exist. And it will exist long after this thread is over. It will be, forever, a contemporary statement on the subject. One you can't handle although it is confirmed by various other sources. And this, to you, is too much.
to my point, Haydn said Mozart demonstrated musical genius
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 08:01:51 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 08:01:51 AM
Quote from: Franco on May 27, 2009, 07:56:50 AM
Beg pardon? You can certainly request that I be banned from posting, however, I don't think expressing my opinion that you are a fraud would constitute grounds for such.
And most definitely, I think you are a fraud.
I find your entire premise a sad attempt at getting attention, and to the extent you beat the drum, you might be considered a clown, but you are not entertaining enough to rise to the that level.
You are merely tiresome.
You are an idiot.
If you post here again by changing the title of this thread I will, I promise, ask that you are prevented from posting here again.
You are entitled to open any other thread. But you are not entitled to change the name of this thread.
Fool.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 08:02:56 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 08:02:56 AM
Quote from: bwv 1080 on May 27, 2009, 07:52:48 AMOf course. And Haydn was another contemporary who extolled Mozart's genius, as is well known by anyone having even a cursory familiarity with music history.
Did someone already mention the Haydn relationship? How did Haydn suckered by Mozart, & who wrote Mozart's Haydn quartets?
given the time they spent together performing and discussing music, could Haydn not have smelled a rat?
We certainly understand that you have much better things to do with your time than to read "Newman's" ravings, Steve, as do we all...but judging from another member's post elsewhere on this thread "Newman's" inane theory includes both Haydn and Beethoven as frauds whose works were really written by obscure fourth-rate composers, and who were promoted along with Mozart in the most astonishingly vast and successful conspiracy of all time--and a conspiracy all the more amazing because the stakes were infinitesimally small. ;)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 08:06:39 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 08:06:39 AM
Mr. Newman, thanks for this admittedly more informative post, which nevertheles raises further questions.
From the above it can be inferred that Luchesi was a man of firm conviction, even stubborn, and also proud and very conscious of his own value. Yet such a man was nevertheless persuaded to obliterate himself for the sake of an unknown. It doesn't make too much sense.
Now, for all his uprightness and talent, Luchesi was just a Kapellmeister. If Max Franz --- the lord of the place and brother of the Emperor! --- really wanted to dismiss him, he could have done it no matter how strong Luchesi's opposition.
As for Cartellieri, your conclusion that he did it for the sake of a privileged position is a non sequitur with respect to what you wrote.
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 05:47:26 AM
The moment arrived when, it seemed, Mozart was finally to get the long-promised job. (A job promised and refered to in Mozart's correspondence of 1782). But the deal never happened. It didn't happen because Luchesi was firmly in his post and could not be fired. All that could happen would be that he fell ill, or was persuaded to retire. And neither happened. So that Luchesi remained. And he was to be the last, and probably the best Kapellmeister ever at Bonn.
From the above it can be inferred that Luchesi was a man of firm conviction, even stubborn, and also proud and very conscious of his own value. Yet such a man was nevertheless persuaded to obliterate himself for the sake of an unknown. It doesn't make too much sense.
Now, for all his uprightness and talent, Luchesi was just a Kapellmeister. If Max Franz --- the lord of the place and brother of the Emperor! --- really wanted to dismiss him, he could have done it no matter how strong Luchesi's opposition.
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 05:47:26 AMAgain, he doesn't seem to have been the man for that.
I think it is fair to say that he knew he was part of a much bigger project. And conformed with it dutifully.
As for Cartellieri, your conclusion that he did it for the sake of a privileged position is a non sequitur with respect to what you wrote.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 08:08:45 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 08:08:45 AM
Well, here is my final post for a while. I'm too busy to waste time. Thanks to those of goodwill. To the majority of readers, in fact !
''Mozart has, thanks to the intrigues of his rivals, NEVER been able to exercise his divine genius in Vienna, and was living there UNKNOWN AND OBSCURE, like a precious jewel buried in the bowels of the earth and hiding the refulgent excellence of its splendors''
Source - Lorenzo da Ponte (colleague of W.A. Mozart in Vienna)
One of the chief propagandists of the fairy story of 'Mozart's genius' admits, here, in indisputable terms, that W.A. Mozart was NEVER a well known musical figure in Vienna, at any time. Mozart was 'UNKNOWN AND OBSCURE' in this same Vienna. This is a fact confirmed by MANY other sources of the time. Such as writers on the Vienna music scene of that same decade including musicologist JN Forkel. Including also musicologists such as Heinrich Koch (the latter not even mentioning Mozart's name once in a two volume work on contemporary music published in 1793, i.e. less than 2 years after Mozart's death). Mozart's legendary status as a public performer, virtuoso and hugely famous teacher and 'genius composer' in Vienna during the last decade of his life (1781-1791) is jesuitical nonsense, fiction, fraternal hocus-pocus as it was from the very beginning and is a later invention and expanding fairy story by a stream of liars, hucksters and fraudsters. The offspring of which today teach 'music history', making black white and white black, to the suppression of reality itself.
//
''Mozart has, thanks to the intrigues of his rivals, NEVER been able to exercise his divine genius in Vienna, and was living there UNKNOWN AND OBSCURE, like a precious jewel buried in the bowels of the earth and hiding the refulgent excellence of its splendors''
Source - Lorenzo da Ponte (colleague of W.A. Mozart in Vienna)
One of the chief propagandists of the fairy story of 'Mozart's genius' admits, here, in indisputable terms, that W.A. Mozart was NEVER a well known musical figure in Vienna, at any time. Mozart was 'UNKNOWN AND OBSCURE' in this same Vienna. This is a fact confirmed by MANY other sources of the time. Such as writers on the Vienna music scene of that same decade including musicologist JN Forkel. Including also musicologists such as Heinrich Koch (the latter not even mentioning Mozart's name once in a two volume work on contemporary music published in 1793, i.e. less than 2 years after Mozart's death). Mozart's legendary status as a public performer, virtuoso and hugely famous teacher and 'genius composer' in Vienna during the last decade of his life (1781-1791) is jesuitical nonsense, fiction, fraternal hocus-pocus as it was from the very beginning and is a later invention and expanding fairy story by a stream of liars, hucksters and fraudsters. The offspring of which today teach 'music history', making black white and white black, to the suppression of reality itself.
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 27, 2009, 08:13:08 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 27, 2009, 08:13:08 AM
Well, at least he was a divine genius and had "splendors". ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 08:15:52 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 08:15:52 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 08:08:45 AM
Well, here is my final post for a while. I'm too busy to waste time.
But, your whole charade here is a waste of time, and in fact, it appears to be what you live for.
You are not fooling (nor have you fooled) anyone.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on May 27, 2009, 08:31:14 AM
Post by: Bulldog on May 27, 2009, 08:31:14 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 02:00:45 AM
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 ?
The fact that you're a gung-ho conspiracy advocate punctures the objectivity of your research. You want to reach certain conclusions, and that colors everything you write.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 27, 2009, 08:31:59 AM
Post by: not edward on May 27, 2009, 08:31:59 AM
As a final note, I'll add that several days ago I asked Newman for his evidence regarding his allegation that Leopold Mozart's violn textbook was plagiarized. Naturally, he has not supplied it, because it doesn't exist outside his own fevered mind.
I'm also amused by how he thinks the da Ponte quotation he keeps citing bolsters his side of the argument: "like a precious jewel buried in the bowels of the earth and hiding the refulgent excellence of its splendors" apparently means "NEVER at any time able to demonstrate any musical genius."
Enough said regarding this ridiculous charade, really.
I'm also amused by how he thinks the da Ponte quotation he keeps citing bolsters his side of the argument: "like a precious jewel buried in the bowels of the earth and hiding the refulgent excellence of its splendors" apparently means "NEVER at any time able to demonstrate any musical genius."
Enough said regarding this ridiculous charade, really.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 27, 2009, 08:39:16 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 27, 2009, 08:39:16 AM
Quote from: edward on May 27, 2009, 08:31:59 AM
I'm also amused by how he thinks the da Ponte quotation he keeps citing bolsters his side of the argument: "like a precious jewel buried in the bowels of the earth and hiding the refulgent excellence of its splendors" apparently means "NEVER at any time able to demonstrate any musical genius."
Yeah, I mention that above. Very odd how RN misses that.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 27, 2009, 08:40:30 AM
Post by: Brian on May 27, 2009, 08:40:30 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 04:35:00 AMThe mainstream Mozart industry did not create 'Amadeus.' In fact, most of them repudiated the play and movie for so obviously getting the facts wrong - even their version of the facts! There was general expert consensus on that film. What's more, the playwright and director themselves made no claim that they were honest when they created the tagline "Everything You've Heard Is True." The movie itself certainly does not say "Based on a true story." They knew it was fiction. Alternative hypothesis: they were referring to the hype around the movie, anyways. :P
I claim independence as a writer on music and its history (as do others) from the mainstream Mozart industry,.....claims that 'everything you've seen is true' in the film 'Amadeus', when, in fact, the image presented is the product of the industry itself.
Anyways, I think the Mozart experts actually missed the boat on this one. While they were busily concerned with "Is it true?" the real question was, "Is it a great movie?" The answer is that it is unquestionably a great film - great because even if the characters were named Spalideri and Blozart, it would still be a brilliant exploration of the human mind, a moving drama, and a great deal of fun besides. Not that this has anything to do with anything, but ... 'Amadeus' is a masterpiece. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 08:43:48 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 08:43:48 AM
FWIW, I prefer Amadeus on stage, Brian 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 27, 2009, 08:44:40 AM
Post by: Brian on May 27, 2009, 08:44:40 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 08:43:48 AMI prefer it with Tom Hulce's laughing. ;)
FWIW, I prefer Amadeus on stage, Brian 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 08:45:40 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 08:45:40 AM
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 27, 2009, 08:39:16 AMHmmm--to me it seems perfectly consistent with every other issuance from his besotted brain: wrong is right, up is down, true is false, no is yes, evidence = unsupported assertion, and so on. Perhaps he's missed his calling; he seems to have an aptitude for politics.
Yeah, I mention that above. Very odd how RN misses that.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on May 27, 2009, 08:46:49 AM
Post by: Brian on May 27, 2009, 08:46:49 AM
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 27, 2009, 08:39:16 AMIs that Rob Newman or Richard Nixon? ;D
Yeah, I mention that above. Very odd how RN misses that.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 08:48:18 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 08:48:18 AM
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 27, 2009, 08:39:16 AM
Yeah, I mention that above. Very odd how RN misses that.
Newman quoted Paul Simon to excellent effect on this matter:
Quote from: robnewman on May 26, 2009, 04:47:01 AM
'Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest'
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 09:42:58 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 09:42:58 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 05:52:34 AM
Defend Mozart if you must.
When it is a question of the truth, and of fact, certainly. That's the way I was taught music history. Would have done much the same thing if you had started a thread Beethoven born in Abyssinia?
QuoteBut don't tell us that you do so with any evidence when, in fact, you are saying nothing more than a badly behaved high school student.
You are so funny, not merely with your casual put-down, but with the us business! I am happy to let our neighbors here judge whether it is you, or I, who am better aware of the significance of the documents.
Unlike you, my position does not depend on a you've got to take my eccentric word for it! mindset.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: PSmith08 on May 27, 2009, 10:00:20 AM
Post by: PSmith08 on May 27, 2009, 10:00:20 AM
Quote from: edward on May 27, 2009, 08:31:59 AM
I'm also amused by how he thinks the da Ponte quotation he keeps citing bolsters his side of the argument: "like a precious jewel buried in the bowels of the earth and hiding the refulgent excellence of its splendors" apparently means "NEVER at any time able to demonstrate any musical genius."
I, for one, would like to see the "thanks to the intrigues of his rivals" bit explained away. That clause, which has been hitherto ignored, like a paste jewel in the bowels of this thread, recasts the entire comment. Read plainly, Da Ponte is saying that the public appreciation of Mozart's genius was thwarted by jealous Viennese "rivals" of lesser talent until Da Ponte helped Mozart get his big break. In that light, it has (in the final accounting) nothing to do with Mozart and everything to do with Da Ponte. It's rather like any promoter's claim that he "made" a great athlete or artist.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 10:28:05 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 10:28:05 AM
Quote from: PSmith08 on May 27, 2009, 10:00:20 AMYep. It's real, readily available, and first-hand from a known source, and completely contradicts Newman's contrafactual claim that there was a Viennese cabal promoting Mozart at the time.
I, for one, would like to see the "thanks to the intrigues of his rivals" bit explained away. That clause, which has been hitherto ignored, like a paste jewel in the bowels of this thread, recasts the entire comment. Read plainly, Da Ponte is saying that the public appreciation of Mozart's genius was thwarted by jealous Viennese "rivals" of lesser talent until Da Ponte helped Mozart get his big break. In that light, it has (in the final accounting) nothing to do with Mozart and everything to do with Da Ponte. It's rather like any promoter's claim that he "made" a great athlete or artist.
Quote from: Florestan on May 27, 2009, 08:06:39 AMOf course, and only a complete nincompoop would imagine otherwise.
Luchesi was just a Kapellmeister. If Max Franz --- the lord of the place and brother of the Emperor! --- really wanted to dismiss him, he could have done it no matter how strong Luchesi's opposition.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2009, 10:57:49 AM
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2009, 10:57:49 AM
But obviously the next step really takes your breath away.
Loochey couldn't be fired, and so Mozart got a consolation prize: he could stop composing, all he'd have to do is signhis name to Loochey's masterworks.
Imagine imagining that! And trying to force that fantasy down other people's throats for the rest of your life!
Loochey couldn't be fired, and so Mozart got a consolation prize: he could stop composing, all he'd have to do is signhis name to Loochey's masterworks.
Imagine imagining that! And trying to force that fantasy down other people's throats for the rest of your life!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 11:04:39 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 11:04:39 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 27, 2009, 07:55:57 AM
You don't like what is said by Mozart's own associate. So you deny it exists. But it does exist. And it will exist long after this thread is over. It will be, forever, a contemporary statement on the subject.
And it doesn't say what, with your many-torqued spin, you imagine it says.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 27, 2009, 11:23:07 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 27, 2009, 11:23:07 AM
I might just interject here that Da Ponte's Memoirs (4 volumes) were written from 1823-27, or commencing over 30 years after Mozart's death and 40 years after Le Nozze di Figaro was composed. By then, there was no one left alive to contradict anything Da Ponte had to say (not that he wasn't the absolute Fountainhead of Accuracy, let me hasten to add...). So, this is NOT a contemporary account, as is being implied. :)
8)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: PSmith08 on May 27, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
Post by: PSmith08 on May 27, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 10:28:05 AM
Yep. It's real, readily available, and first-hand from a known source, and completely contradicts Newman's contrafactual claim that there was a Viennese cabal promoting Mozart at the time.
That is difficult to explain away in a rational fashion.
Unless Da Ponte's apparently self-aggrandizing account of Mozart's career is merely cover for the real conspiracy. That's the great thing about revisionist conspiracy theories: as soon as you assume some sort of nefarious plan (or, indeed, any plan) at the center of events, you can explain away any contradictory evidence as "part of the plot." Indeed, once you've assumed a conspiracy, you can construct any narrative you want from as much evidence as you like. Your central axiom allows you to manipulate the elements in such a way that you are always internally consistent.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 27, 2009, 11:23:07 AM
I might just interject here that Da Ponte's Memoirs (4 volumes) were written from 1823-27, or commencing over 30 years after Mozart's death and 40 years after Le Nozze di Figaro was composed. By then, there was no one left alive to contradict anything Da Ponte had to say (not that he wasn't the absolute Fountainhead of Accuracy, let me hasten to add...). So, this is NOT a contemporary account, as is being implied. :)
That makes even more sense. With really no one around to say otherwise, why wouldn't Da Ponte take an opportunity to create a bigger role for himself in the growing Mozart narrative? "This dead genius you're praising? He wouldn't have been half as successful without me." This sort of thing happens all the time. Heck, Vini Reilly and Stephen Street can't agree which one was the one who came up with the music for Morrissey's Viva Hate, and Figaro probably ranks higher in the Western musical canon than Viva Hate.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2009, 11:54:53 AM
Post by: Herman on May 27, 2009, 11:54:53 AM
Quote from: PSmith08 on May 27, 2009, 11:42:09 AM
This sort of thing happens all the time. Heck, Vini Reilly and Stephen Street can't agree which one was the one who came up with the music for Morrissey's Viva Hate, and Figaro probably ranks higher in the Western musical canon than Viva Hate.
I bet it was Loochey. Ask Newman. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 12:14:42 PM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 12:14:42 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 27, 2009, 11:23:07 AM
I might just interject here that Da Ponte's Memoirs (4 volumes) were written from 1823-27
Now, you see, Gurn . . . that is just exactly what the Mozart Idolization Industrial Conspiracy wants you to believe.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: jhar26 on May 27, 2009, 12:26:22 PM
Post by: jhar26 on May 27, 2009, 12:26:22 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 27, 2009, 11:23:07 AM....but at least he still could remember that Mozart was a divine genius.
I might just interject here that Da Ponte's Memoirs (4 volumes) were written from 1823-27, or commencing over 30 years after Mozart's death and 40 years after Le Nozze di Figaro was composed. By then, there was no one left alive to contradict anything Da Ponte had to say (not that he wasn't the absolute Fountainhead of Accuracy, let me hasten to add...). So, this is NOT a contemporary account, as is being implied. :)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: jhar26 on May 27, 2009, 12:49:46 PM
Post by: jhar26 on May 27, 2009, 12:49:46 PM
Quote from: PSmith08 on May 27, 2009, 10:00:20 AMWhat this says is that rather than other composers thanks to their contributions trying to make a musical superman out of Mozart, they were on the contrary trying to hold him back. :D
I, for one, would like to see the "thanks to the intrigues of his rivals" bit explained away. That clause, which has been hitherto ignored, like a paste jewel in the bowels of this thread, recasts the entire comment.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: PSmith08 on May 27, 2009, 12:56:44 PM
Post by: PSmith08 on May 27, 2009, 12:56:44 PM
Quote from: Herman on May 27, 2009, 11:54:53 AM
I bet it was Loochey. Ask Newman. ;D
That makes perfect sense! After the conspirators increased the glory of the Fatherland through Mozart, they conspired to get Johnny Marr to leave The Smiths after Strangeways, so that they could promote Morrissey, even at the expense of an obscure Bonn Kapellmeister or two. Why, I'd wager that neither Vini Reilly nor Stephen Street has ever existed -- it was always the conspirators all along! The clues are there: "Suedehead" has the line "You had to sneak into my room
'just' to read my diary." That's clearly a coy message from the conspirators.
It's all so simple.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 01:12:04 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 01:12:04 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 27, 2009, 11:23:07 AMThere is, as you know, a difference between a contemporary account and the account of a contemporary. Da Ponte, of course, was more than merely a contemporary of Wolfie, but his partner in crime, collaborator, working hand-in-glove with the dear boy to produce the greatest works of the medium. His memoirs, written after settling at last in the United States, are hardly short on scandalous anecdotes, yet make no mention of the cabalistic conspiracy that would have been the juiciest tidbit of them all; the loonies, no doubt, will seize on this as "proof" that Da Ponte was in on the plot!
I might just interject here that Da Ponte's Memoirs (4 volumes) were written from 1823-27, or commencing over 30 years after Mozart's death and 40 years after Le Nozze di Figaro was composed. By then, there was no one left alive to contradict anything Da Ponte had to say (not that he wasn't the absolute Fountainhead of Accuracy, let me hasten to add...). So, this is NOT a contemporary account, as is being implied. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 07:31:25 PM
Post by: karlhenning on May 27, 2009, 07:31:25 PM
A fine thread for Dave's signature quotation:
Quote from: Winston ChurchillTruth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it; but, in the end, there it is.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 28, 2009, 01:14:23 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on May 28, 2009, 01:14:23 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 07:31:25 PM
A fine thread for Dave's signature quotation:
Quite so. Not long before his death, whilst perusing though his recent gift of Handel music volumes, Beethoven said 'there is the truth.'
Amen to that.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 03:36:39 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 03:36:39 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 27, 2009, 11:23:07 AM
I might just interject here that Da Ponte's Memoirs (4 volumes) were written from 1823-27, or commencing over 30 years after Mozart's death and 40 years after Le Nozze di Figaro was composed. By then, there was no one left alive to contradict anything Da Ponte had to say (not that he wasn't the absolute Fountainhead of Accuracy, let me hasten to add...). So, this is NOT a contemporary account, as is being implied. :)
8)
Gurn,
On the simple question of whether Mozart was a famous, celebrated, composer, performer and virtuoso during the last decade of his life in Vienna (1781-1791) we see from Lorenzo Da Ponte himself, colleague of Mozart there, the most clear statement possible that Mozart was NOT known as such. This is acknowledged time after time in that one paragraph. For the simple reason that even Lorenzo da Ponte, an important early propagandist of 'Mozart's genius', could not deny the fact that Mozart was virtually unknown musically in the Austrian capital during all that time and had NEVER done anything musical there to show otherwise. Da Ponte could not hide this fact. He simply invents the idea that the hidden jewel of Mozart was still a genius. These admissions by Lorenzo da Ponte are also confirmed by various other sources. So that regardless of what we think about Mozart's 'musical genius' the fact of Mozart being virtually unknown to musicians and musical audiences in Vienna during that last decade are as we see here. And, as for his 'genius' this is of course a separate issue. A 'genius' which da Ponte, of course, is keen that we should believe in. But Mozart's remarkable Vienna obscurity, and of him being effectively unknown in the Austrian capital during his entire last decade, these remain. Contradicting all we know, or think we know, about Mozart's career.
Neil Zaslaw comments on the same in saying that in spite of Mozart's reputation today, and in spite of the well known myth of him being adored by musical audiences, the plain fact is Vienna newspapers of the time say absolutely nothing of Mozart having any such status as a virtuoso performer or composer in those Vienna years. And so on. JN Forkel's 'Music Almanac' of 1789 contains only a small reference to Mozart. Listing the fact that a version of Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail had (finally) been published in 1785 (3 years after its music had been rejected as being composed by others but NOT crediting Mozart with its composition). And the same JN Forkel fails there to refer to Mozart as the composer of either of either the 'famous' operas 'Figaro' or 'Don Giovanni'. Startling omissions these if, in fact, Mozart was a celebrated figure in the music scene of Vienna during that same decade ! Once again, the 2 Volume study of contemporary music by musicologist Heinrich Koch (published less than 2 years after Mozart's death) fails to refer to Mozart even once in 1793 though it discusses symphonies and piano concertos in detail. And so on. There are many other examples.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 04:52:02 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 04:52:02 AM
J.B. Vanhal (1739-1813)
One of the most remarkable but still largely unknown composers of the 18th century. Johann Baptist Vanhal (1739-1813) . A man whose career has been often overshadowed by Mozart but who, in fact, had close and vital musical association with him. Vanhal's career in Vienna came to an abrupt end around 1781 there (the official reason being some sort of mental illness) though in fact he continued to compose up until the time of his death in 1813. Composer of over 60 symphonies, around the same number of masses, chamber music and concertos. Many of very fine quality.
The rediscovery of this man's music and a series of recent recordings have done much to restore appreciation of Vanhal's remarkable talents.
Johann Baptist Vanhal
Symphony in G Major
c.1776/7
1st Movement
http://www.mediafire.com/?00fnytymhn4
One of the most remarkable but still largely unknown composers of the 18th century. Johann Baptist Vanhal (1739-1813) . A man whose career has been often overshadowed by Mozart but who, in fact, had close and vital musical association with him. Vanhal's career in Vienna came to an abrupt end around 1781 there (the official reason being some sort of mental illness) though in fact he continued to compose up until the time of his death in 1813. Composer of over 60 symphonies, around the same number of masses, chamber music and concertos. Many of very fine quality.
The rediscovery of this man's music and a series of recent recordings have done much to restore appreciation of Vanhal's remarkable talents.
Johann Baptist Vanhal
Symphony in G Major
c.1776/7
1st Movement
http://www.mediafire.com/?00fnytymhn4
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 05:01:29 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 05:01:29 AM
Just a note. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,11225.msg312987.html#msg312987)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 05:07:24 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 05:07:24 AM
And here are a few more notes Karl ! There may be hundreds of threads on aspects a single composer. Hope that this one on Vanhal isn't too many !
J.B. Vanhal (1739-1813)
Symphony in G Minor
3rd and 4th Movements
c.1781
http://www.mediafire.com/?ruemeztvoy3
J.B. Vanhal (1739-1813)
Symphony in G Minor
3rd and 4th Movements
c.1781
http://www.mediafire.com/?ruemeztvoy3
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 05:08:37 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 05:08:37 AM
By "Newman logic," the 'only' proof we have that Beethoven was not born in Abyssinia, is a baptismal certificate.
And it is significant that there is no birth certificate from Bonn! What can that mean, but that the whole idea that Beethoven was (supposedly) born in Bonn, is a well-attested myth!
And the "baptismal certificate" is obviously a fake! It's all been a conspiracy.
Beethoven was really born in Addis Ababa. Or rather, in a daub-&-wattle hut not a water buffalo's two days' walk from Addis Ababa.
And it is significant that there is no birth certificate from Bonn! What can that mean, but that the whole idea that Beethoven was (supposedly) born in Bonn, is a well-attested myth!
And the "baptismal certificate" is obviously a fake! It's all been a conspiracy.
Beethoven was really born in Addis Ababa. Or rather, in a daub-&-wattle hut not a water buffalo's two days' walk from Addis Ababa.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 05:09:47 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 05:09:47 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 05:07:24 AM
And here are a few more notes Karl !
You didn't read.
But then, we all know by now that you don't. Or, cannot.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 05:17:56 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 05:17:56 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2009, 05:08:37 AM
By "Newman logic," the 'only' proof we have that Beethoven was not born in Abyssinia, is a baptismal certificate.
And it is significant that there is no birth certificate from Bonn! What can that mean, but that the whole idea that Beethoven was (supposedly) born in Bonn, is a well-attested myth!
And the "baptismal certificate" is obviously a fake! It's all been a conspiracy.
Beethoven was really born in Addis Ababa. Or rather, in a daub-&-wattle hut not a water buffalo's two days' walk from Addis Ababa.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
This thead is on the life and career of Mozart. So why post this here ? The usual disruption from Karl Henning, Ph.D.
Composer & Clarinetist - Boston MA. Allowed by the moderators of this forum.
''Mozart, the FOX News of Classical Music'' !
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 05:46:47 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 05:46:47 AM
I have a book coming out in the spring of 2011 laying out the incontrovertible case for Beethoven's African birth. He was the love-child of Ned Rise, companion to Scots explorer Mungo Park, and a Mandingo girl whose name history has not recorded, the daughter of the tribal necromancer.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 28, 2009, 05:48:05 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 28, 2009, 05:48:05 AM
The world owns this music now. Not Mozart, so who cares?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 05:50:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 05:50:09 AM
''Professing themselves to be wise they became fools''
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 05:53:01 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 05:53:01 AM
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 28, 2009, 05:48:05 AM
The world owns this music now. Not Mozart, so who cares?
I care. Let our musical education be founded on reality and on the appreciation of historical fact, not on corporate fairy stories. Does that matter ? Or else we end up with the Karl Hennings of this world in charge of kid's education. And we become a generation of ignoramuses and deluded people.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 28, 2009, 05:58:28 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 28, 2009, 05:58:28 AM
Good luck with your book. I hope it sells lots.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 06:01:56 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 06:01:56 AM
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 28, 2009, 05:48:05 AM
The world owns this music now. Not Mozart, so who cares?
Might as well say, Dave: The world owns the US Constitution now, not those who write it. So who cares if an anarcho-opportunist makes a career out of pointlessly contesting historical fact, and proposing a bizarre, byzantine conspiracy theory about the "true" origins of the document? Who cares about such propagandist noise-pollution?
The fellow is not merely a loon, but a blood-tick on the ear of a greyhound.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 06:02:40 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 06:02:40 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 05:53:01 AM
And we become a generation of ignoramuses and deluded people.
I genuinely appreciate the amusement value of you saying such things.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 06:03:23 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 06:03:23 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 05:53:01 AM
I care.
Naturally. Movie rights are hanging in the balance.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:05:03 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:05:03 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2009, 06:01:56 AM
Might as well say, Dave: The world owns the US Constitution now, not those who write it. So who cares if an anarcho-opportunist makes a career out of pointlessly contesting historical fact, and proposing a bizarre, byzantine conspiracy theory about the "true" origins of the document? Who cares about such propagandist noise-pollution?
The fellow is not merely a loon, but a blood-tick on the ear of a greyhound.
Men like you, Karl, wrote the Patriot Act. To supersede the great US Constitution. All the time claiming to be worthy of our respect and admiration.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 06:06:03 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 06:06:03 AM
I am not a Mozart scholar, nor a music scholar at all, nor have I much interest in "the lives of the composers." I know enough to recognize Forman's terrific movie Amadeus as mostly fiction. This morning, while gradually awakening under the influence of a delicious cup of fresh-pressed Ethiopian Sidamo coffee, I actually read the complete text of Newman's latest entry, above (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10960.msg312971.html#msg312971). The first paragraph convinced me that I have been wrong about Newman. Earlier I expressed the opinion that he isn't stupid. I stand corrected.
The second paragraph demonstrates for the umpteenth time Newman's lack of regard for truth, which makes anything and everything he has to say suspect at best. I have not personally examined Austrian newspaper archives, so I do not have personal, experiential knowledge by which to assess the truth of his claim that "the plain fact is Vienna newspapers of the time say absolutely nothing of Mozart having any such status as a virtuoso performer or composer in those Vienna years." Either Newman's statement here is false, or the myriad of reputable scholars who cite contemporary newspaper accounts are all lying and fabricating their sources.
The second paragraph demonstrates for the umpteenth time Newman's lack of regard for truth, which makes anything and everything he has to say suspect at best. I have not personally examined Austrian newspaper archives, so I do not have personal, experiential knowledge by which to assess the truth of his claim that "the plain fact is Vienna newspapers of the time say absolutely nothing of Mozart having any such status as a virtuoso performer or composer in those Vienna years." Either Newman's statement here is false, or the myriad of reputable scholars who cite contemporary newspaper accounts are all lying and fabricating their sources.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 28, 2009, 06:06:27 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 28, 2009, 06:06:27 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2009, 06:01:56 AM
Might as well say, Dave: The world owns the US Constitution now, not those who write it. So who cares if an anarcho-opportunist makes a career out of pointlessly contesting historical fact, and proposing a bizarre, byzantine conspiracy theory about the "true" origins of the document? Who cares about such propagandist noise-pollution?
The fellow is not merely a loon, but a blood-tick on the ear of a greyhound.
The world owns the Bible. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:08:14 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:08:14 AM
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 28, 2009, 06:06:27 AM
The world owns the Bible. ;D
What we own, what we have, is useless unless it is is vindicated, asserted, lived and put to good use.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 06:09:18 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 06:09:18 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:05:03 AM
Men like you, Karl, wrote the Patriot Act.
You're too clownish to take offense at!
But it's all of a piece with your myriad exaggerations, falsehoods and downright errors.
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 28, 2009, 06:06:27 AM
The world owns the Bible. ;D
;) :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:15:35 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:15:35 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 06:06:03 AM
I am not a Mozart scholar, nor a music scholar at all, nor have I much interest in "the lives of the composers." I know enough to recognize Forman's terrific movie Amadeus as mostly fiction. This morning, while gradually awakening under the influence of a delicious cup of fresh-pressed Ethiopian Sidamo coffee, I actually read the complete text of Newman's latest entry, above (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10960.msg312971.html#msg312971). The first paragraph convinced me that I have been wrong about Newman. Earlier I expressed the opinion that he isn't stupid. I stand corrected.
The second paragraph demonstrates for the umpteenth time Newman's lack of regard for truth, which makes anything and everything he has to say suspect at best. I have not personally examined Austrian newspaper archives, so I do not have personal, experiential knowledge by which to assess the truth of his claim that "the plain fact is Vienna newspapers of the time say absolutely nothing of Mozart having any such status as a virtuoso performer or composer in those Vienna years." Either Newman's statement here is false, or the myriad of reputable scholars who cite contemporary newspaper accounts are all lying and fabricating their sources.
Well David, the test of this is to produce evidence, of course. And since you admit you have none I'm puzzled you should change your mind on anything. I repeat that the newspapers of Mozart's Vienna (1781-1791) say nothing at all of Mozart having any reputation as a great and celebrated composer/performer.
But let me give a further witness of this in a statement made by the great American musicologist, Neil Zaslaw, editor of the most recent version of the Koechel catalogue of Mozart's works.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 06:16:14 AM
Post by: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 06:16:14 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 06:06:03 AM
I am not a Mozart scholar, nor a music scholar at all, nor have I much interest in "the lives of the composers." I know enough to recognize Forman's terrific movie Amadeus as mostly fiction. This morning, while gradually awakening under the influence of a delicious cup of fresh-pressed Ethiopian Sidamo coffee, I actually read the complete text of Newman's latest entry, above (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10960.msg312971.html#msg312971). The first paragraph convinced me that I have been wrong about Newman. Earlier I expressed the opinion that he isn't stupid. I stand corrected.
The second paragraph demonstrates for the umpteenth time Newman's lack of regard for truth, which makes anything and everything he has to say suspect at best. I have not personally examined Austrian newspaper archives, so I do not have personal, experiential knowledge by which to assess the truth of his claim that "the plain fact is Vienna newspapers of the time say absolutely nothing of Mozart having any such status as a virtuoso performer or composer in those Vienna years." Either Newman's statement here is false, or the myriad of reputable scholars who cite contemporary newspaper accounts are all lying and fabricating their sources.
Also odd that Beethoven performed and wrote cadenzas for at least one Mozart Concerto, who "Newman" has so brilliantly proven to us was unknown, never performed, and fabricated. To appreciate these classic "Newman" posts you have to imagine him hyperventilating as he types them.
(I put "Newman" in quotes because I have strong suspicions that he is a fraud and that a team of 24 writers are drafting his posts from an asylum situated in a remote, former Soviet territory.) ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on May 28, 2009, 06:17:18 AM
Post by: Todd on May 28, 2009, 06:17:18 AM
Man, this thread has exploded in the last few days. I don't have time to read all the posts. Has Mr Newman actually presented any evidence yet, or is he merely spouting the same nonsense over and over? Yes, it's a rhetorical question; Mr Newman was, is, and shall remain a charlatan, and like all charlatans, he can be good for a source of amusement but nothing else.
Anyone here planning to read his book when (and if) it's published?
Anyone here planning to read his book when (and if) it's published?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 28, 2009, 06:18:16 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 28, 2009, 06:18:16 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:15:35 AM
the test of this is to produce evidence, of course.
By all means.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 06:21:08 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 06:21:08 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 06:06:03 AM
I am not a Mozart scholar, nor a music scholar at all, nor have I much interest in "the lives of the composers." I know enough to recognize Forman's terrific movie Amadeus as mostly fiction. This morning, while gradually awakening under the influence of a delicious cup of fresh-pressed Ethiopian Sidamo coffee, I actually read the complete text of Newman's latest entry, above (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10960.msg312971.html#msg312971). The first paragraph convinced me that I have been wrong about Newman. Earlier I expressed the opinion that he isn't stupid. I stand corrected.
The second paragraph demonstrates for the umpteenth time Newman's lack of regard for truth, which makes anything and everything he has to say suspect at best. I have not personally examined Austrian newspaper archives, so I do not have personal, experiential knowledge by which to assess the truth of his claim that "the plain fact is Vienna newspapers of the time say absolutely nothing of Mozart having any such status as a virtuoso performer or composer in those Vienna years." Either Newman's statement here is false, or the myriad of reputable scholars who cite contemporary newspaper accounts are all lying and fabricating their sources.
Since the Vienna papers did publish announcements of (e.g.) Artaria's publication of Mozart's compositions . . . follow the logic on your own.
Quote from: Todd on May 28, 2009, 06:17:18 AM
Man, this thread has exploded in the last few days. I don't have time to read all the posts. Has Mr Newman actually presented any evidence yet, or is he merely spouting the same nonsense over and over? Yes, it's a rhetorical question; Mr Newman was, is, and shall remain a charlatan, and like all charlatans, he can be good for a source of amusement but nothing else.
Anyone here planning to read his book when (and if) it’s published?
No, not I.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:21:22 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:21:22 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 06:16:14 AM
Also odd that Beethoven performed and wrote cadenzas for at least one Mozart Concerto, who "Newman" has so brilliantly proven to us was unknown, never performed, and fabricated. To appreciate these classic "Newman" posts you have to imagine him hyperventilating as he types them.
(I put "Newman" in quotes because I have strong suspicions that he is a fraud and that a team of 24 writers are drafting his posts from an asylum situated in a remote, former Soviet territory.) ;D
Scarpia,
Beethoven wrote a Cadenza for a 'Mozart' concerto but he did so a decade after Mozart's death, at a time when a flood of 'Mozart' works were starting to be published. Not one of which is actually by W.A. Mozart. This is the same Beethoven who, at the age of 13, was being flattered by a musical journal which mentioned him (Beethoven) for the first time. ('Cramer's Magazine') in 1783. The young Beethoven, never having met him, and still a student at Bonn, grew up to believe through the same people who patronised Mozart there really was such a musical prodigy in Vienna. In fact, as everyone knows, there is no firm evidence the two ever met. In later years the flood of 'Mozart' works included a concerto which, as you rightly say, he, Beethoven, wrote a cadenza for.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:26:28 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:26:28 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2009, 06:21:08 AM
Since the Vienna papers did publish announcements of (e.g.) Artaria's publication of Mozart's compositions . . . follow the logic on your own.
No, not I.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
The appearance of some works in 'Mozart's' name is not disputed, by anyone. What IS disputed is that he was their true composer. In point of fact 6 times more were published in the decades after Mozart's death. So the fact that Artaria published works and that these were advertised in newspapers is no proof of anything. Such things were read of course by that small group of music patrons and aristocracy who bought music publications. And by nobody else. The fact remains that the mythical reputation in Vienna of Mozart as a well known musical superstar is nonsense. Unsupported by any evidence for the decade he lived there.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 06:36:54 AM
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 06:36:54 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:26:28 AM
The fact remains that the mythical reputation in Vienna of Mozart as a well known musical superstar is nonsense. Unsupported by any evidence for the decade he lived there.
No one here has used the words "musical superstar" vis a vis Mozart. That kind of vulgar thinking is totally yours, and is no doubt a main source for your massive resentment towards Mozart.
As to Mozart's success as a performer-composer: in his succesful years he gave many subscription concerts, from which he made money, which allowed him a rather lavish life style (see his address history), which later gave him much trouble.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 06:44:21 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 06:44:21 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2009, 06:21:08 AMYes, one example suffices to falsify Newman's claim. As I said, I've not personally examined Viennese newspaper archives, but I have seen citations of subscription announcements and contemporary performance reviews, for instance, and not only in Vienna but elsewhere such as Prague, and a particularly telling citation to a Berlin newspaper story about his death, published shortly after.
Since the Vienna papers did publish announcements of (e.g.) Artaria's publication of Mozart's compositions . . . follow the logic on your own.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:45:50 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:45:50 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 28, 2009, 06:36:54 AM
No one here has used the words "musical superstar" vis a vis Mozart. That kind of vulgar thinking is totally yours, and is no doubt a main source for your massive resentment towards Mozart.
As to Mozart's success as a performer-composer: in his succesful years he gave many subscription concerts, from which he made money, which allowed him a rather lavish life style (see his address history), which later gave him much trouble.
But this too is false. Let's take the well known subscription series of Lent 1784 as an example. By 1789 his alleged 'patrons' had dwindled to only ONE name, Baron Swieten. So much for that !!!
And the alleged Lent concerts of Mozart in 1784 (in front of a supposed 150 patrons) are themselves a fiction. They never occurred. It's fiction.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 06:47:30 AM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 06:47:30 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:45:50 AMEvidence, please? Or is it going to be as lacking as the other evidence you've been asked for in this thread?
And the alleged Lent concerts of Mozart in 1784 (in front of a supposed 150 patrons) are themselves a fiction. They never occurred. It's fiction.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:48:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:48:09 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 06:44:21 AM
Yes, one example suffices to falsify Newman's claim. As I said, I've not personally examined Viennese newspaper archives, but I have seen citations of subscription announcements and contemporary performance reviews, for instance, and not only in Vienna but elsewhere such as Prague, and a particularly telling citation to a Berlin newspaper story about his death, published shortly after.
Don't you think the best way to argue is to produce some evidence in favour of your view ? I mean, this is the second time you are displaying your admission that you have none at all. So why don't you produce some evidence ?
We want newspaper reports showing that Mozart was a celebrated virtuoso, composer and performer of his own works in Vienna during this entire decade (1781-1791). And we are still waiting.
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 06:48:26 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 06:48:26 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 28, 2009, 06:36:54 AMYes. See, for instance, this review of Volkmar Braunbehrens's Mozart in Wien (http://www.aproposmozart.com/BCC%20--%20Review%20of%20M.%20in%20Wien.pdf).
As to Mozart's success as a performer-composer: in his succesful years he gave many subscription concerts, from which he made money, which allowed him a rather lavish life style (see his address history), which later gave him much trouble.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:50:36 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:50:36 AM
Quote from: edward on May 28, 2009, 06:47:30 AM
Evidence, please? Or is it going to be as lacking as the other evidence you've been asked for in this thread?
We are still waiting for ANY evidence that Mozart is refered to in newspapers of Vienna during the entire decade when he was (supposedly) a great musical celebrity, performer and composer there. And you see that nobody can produce it. Just a coincidence, right ?
The Lent concerts of 1784 in Vienna are hogwash, science fiction, nonsense.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 06:52:09 AM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 06:52:09 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:50:36 AMSo you admit you are not going to produce any evidence for your own view?
We are still waiting for ANY evidence that Mozart is refered to in newspapers of Vienna during the entire decade when he was (supposedly) a great musical celebrity, performer and composer there. And you see that nobody can produce it. Just a coincidence, right ?
The Lent concerts of 1784 in Vienna are hogwash, science fiction, nonsense.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:52:45 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:52:45 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 06:48:26 AM
Yes. See, for instance, this review of Volkmar Braunbehrens's Mozart in Wien (http://www.aproposmozart.com/BCC%20--%20Review%20of%20M.%20in%20Wien.pdf).
OK, let's have the newspaper quotes right here. Don't just throw a book at us. We want to see evidence of Mozart being a famous composer, performer and virtuoso in Vienna during this decade.
And we are STILL waiting. Care to give us some ? I mean, which part of this message do you still not understand ? :)
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:56:27 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:56:27 AM
Quote from: edward on May 28, 2009, 06:52:09 AM
So you admit you are not going to produce any evidence for your own view?
I am saying that I am happy to provide evidence for the Lent Concerts of 1784 being a fiction. But let's deal with the issue that has been running before your request first. Let's have newspaper reports confirming Mozart's fame in Vienna as a composer, virtuoso and performer during this decade of 1781-1791. You see we are STILL waiting for such reports and soon we will be on another page. As David Ross says -
'Yes, one example suffices to falsify Newman's claim'.
Now come on ! Let's have your evidence. :) :)
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on May 28, 2009, 06:58:55 AM
Post by: Todd on May 28, 2009, 06:58:55 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:52:45 AMAnd we are STILL waiting. Care to give us some ? I mean, which part of this message do you still not understand ?
This is an excellent series of sentences, Bob. Just precisely when will you provide any evidence to support your claims? Evidence would have to be verifiable sources. I'll give you an easy one, provide documented, verifiable evidence that "By 1789 his alleged 'patrons' had dwindled to only ONE name, Baron Swieten." Source name, date, location, etc.
I predict you cannot.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 07:01:00 AM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 07:01:00 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:56:27 AMTranslation: you do not have evidence for the Lent Concerts being a fiction.
I am saying that I am happy to provide evidence for the Lent Concerts of 1784 being a fiction. But let's deal with the issue that has been running before your request first. Let's have newspaper reports confirming Mozart's fame in Vienna as a composer, virtuoso and performer during this decade of 1781-1791. You see we are STILL waiting for such reports and soon we will be on another page.
:)
However, when presented with evidence of newspaper reports confirming Mozart's fame in Vienna as a composer, you insist on the original newspaper reports because you assume it's unlikely there's anyone on this board who happens to be living in Vienna, speaking German, and having access to the original archives.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:05:59 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:05:59 AM
Quote from: edward on May 28, 2009, 07:01:00 AM
Translation: you do not have evidence for the Lent Concerts being a fiction.
However, when presented with evidence of newspaper reports confirming Mozart's fame in Vienna as a composer, you insist on the original newspaper reports because you assume it's unlikely there's anyone on this board who happens to be living in Vienna, speaking German, and having access to the original archives.
Well, yes I DO have evidence that the 1784 concerts are fraudulent. Let's first see if you and your colleagues will finally produce some newspaper reports of Mozart being a well known and celebrated composer/performer of his own music in Vienna during the decade he lived there (1781-1791). And as soon as they can do this I will present the 1784 evidence.
And we are STILL waiting !!!
If nobody can do it soon, yes, we will turn to 1784. But goodness, what's wrong with these people ? Why can't they provide what we are all waiting for ????
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 07:13:07 AM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 07:13:07 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:05:59 AMNo, you don't.
Well, yes I DO have evidence that the 1784 concerts are fraudulent.
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:05:59 AMThey did present evidence of the newspaper reports. You ignored it because it made a mockery of your conspiracy theory.
Let's first see if you and your colleagues will finally produce some newspaper reports of Mozart being a well known and celebrated composer/performer of his own music in Vienna during the decade he lived there (1781-1791). And as soon as they can do this I will present the 1784 evidence.
Then you (effectively) demanded that someone fly to Vienna, get access to newspaper archives, find the relevant articles, translate them and post them on this forum. All within about 30 minutes. And tried to present the fact that nobody did that as evidence you're right. How laughable.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 28, 2009, 07:19:50 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 28, 2009, 07:19:50 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:05:59 AM
Well, yes I DO have evidence that the 1784 concerts are fraudulent.
Then show it us.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:24:47 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:24:47 AM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 28, 2009, 07:19:50 AM
Then show it us.
No, we are first going to see some of the documentary evidence from Vienna newspapers of the time (1781-1791) of Mozart's high reputation as a composer/performer of his own music there in Vienna. At the fifth time of asking. Easy, right ?
Maybe you and your colleagues are finding this harder than you thought ? Must exist, yes ?
As soon as they give up I will gladly discuss the 1784 concerts (alleged) over Lent, these given (so we are told) by W.A. Mozart in Vienna. Let's deal with these first things first.
And we are STILL waiting ? I wonder who is the fraud now ?
Care for a cup of tea while we are waiting ? :) LOL !!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 07:36:02 AM
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 07:36:02 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:48:09 AM
Don't you think the best way to argue is to produce some evidence in favour of your view ?
Hahahaha, hilarious!
Maybe we need to go back to page three or four of this thread, when Newman made his first claims, saying he was going to prove and argue Mozart was a fraud. Ten pages later (I believe) he admitted that he had no evidence ("can't prove a negative") and that the onus of evidence was on us.
The onus of proof is not on us. We don't have to prove the earth is round, either.
Many new controversial claims have been piled upon the previous, unsubstantiated one, and yet we're back on square one: asked for proof, Newman is saying we should provide proof Mozart is an extraordinary composer. Well, Mozart's music is the evidence.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 07:36:44 AM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 07:36:44 AM
To respond to your latest, I merely need to quote an earlier post of mine:
By the way, have you ever read:
O.E.Deutsch: Mozart: A Documentary Biography, trans. Eric Blom, Peter Branscombe, and Jeremy Noble [Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1965; reprint, London: Simon & Schuster, 1990]
Cliff Eisen: New Mozart Documents: A Supplement to O. E. Deutsch's Documentary Biography [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991]
You'll find all the newspaper reports you want in those two. Or are you going to claim they're in on the conspiracy too?
Quote from: edward on May 28, 2009, 07:13:07 AM
They did present evidence of the newspaper reports. You ignored it because it made a mockery of your conspiracy theory.
Then you (effectively) demanded that someone fly to Vienna, get access to newspaper archives, find the relevant articles, translate them and post them on this forum. All within about 30 minutes. And tried to present the fact that nobody did that as evidence you're right. How laughable.
By the way, have you ever read:
O.E.Deutsch: Mozart: A Documentary Biography, trans. Eric Blom, Peter Branscombe, and Jeremy Noble [Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1965; reprint, London: Simon & Schuster, 1990]
Cliff Eisen: New Mozart Documents: A Supplement to O. E. Deutsch's Documentary Biography [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991]
You'll find all the newspaper reports you want in those two. Or are you going to claim they're in on the conspiracy too?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:38:18 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:38:18 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 28, 2009, 07:36:02 AM
Maybe we need to go back to page three or four of this thread, when Newman made his first claims, saying he was going to prove and argue Mozart was a fraud. Ten pages later (I believe) he admitted that he had no evidence ("can't prove a negative") and that the onus of evidence was on us.
The onus of proof is not on us. We don't have to prove the earth is round, either.
Many new controversial claims have been piled upon the previous, unsubstantiated one, and yet we're back on square one: asked for proof, Newman is saying we should provide proof Mozart is an extraordinary composer. Well, Mozart's music is the evidence.
So you can't produce ANY newspaper evidence from the entire decade (1781-1791) that Mozart was a celebrated composer and performer of his music during that last decade in Vienna ? You just believe it, right ? :) :) :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 07:39:17 AM
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 07:39:17 AM
see Edward's post above.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:41:15 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:41:15 AM
Quote from: edward on May 28, 2009, 07:36:44 AM
To respond to your latest, I merely need to quote an earlier post of mine:
By the way, have you ever read:
O.E.Deutsch: Mozart: A Documentary Biography, trans. Eric Blom, Peter Branscombe, and Jeremy Noble [Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1965; reprint, London: Simon & Schuster, 1990]
Cliff Eisen: New Mozart Documents: A Supplement to O. E. Deutsch's Documentary Biography [Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991]
You'll find all the newspaper reports you want in those two. Or are you going to claim they're in on the conspiracy too?
You are just listing the names of books. Why don't you give us some actual newspaper evidence from this decade if it's in these books ? This is now the 7th consecutive request for such basic information and we are all STILL waiting. It's laughable ! Would anyone buy a used car from these frauds ?
Care for some more tea ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 07:45:13 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 07:45:13 AM
Visitors to this thread who have been stimulated to learn more about the facts regarding Mozart's life in Vienna (which have nothing to do with Newman's delusions, of course) should know about one of the Web's most extraordinary research tools, questia. Questia is the kind of resource we only dreamed about during development of the Research Libraries Information Network at Stanford--and no one imagined back then before the Web in the days of 300 baud modems and $5000 PCs that such resources would be available so quickly, so cheaply, and so readily accessible to ordinary people in their homes almost anywhere in the world!
The link below leads to a sample page demonstrating the breadth and depth of resources available, starting with the entry for Mary Hunter's The Culture of Opera Buffa in Mozart's Vienna: A Poetics of Entertainment. Halfway down the page is the start of a listing including hundreds of scholarly resources on Mozart's time in Vienna, the complete texts of which are available through the site. Numerous preview pages are available at no cost, including indexes and bibliographies. A free trial subscription is available, and a full subscription costs only $20/mo.
http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-culture-of-opera-buffa-in-mozarts-vienna-a-poetics-of-entertainment-by-mary-hunter.jsp (http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-culture-of-opera-buffa-in-mozarts-vienna-a-poetics-of-entertainment-by-mary-hunter.jsp)
The link below leads to a sample page demonstrating the breadth and depth of resources available, starting with the entry for Mary Hunter's The Culture of Opera Buffa in Mozart's Vienna: A Poetics of Entertainment. Halfway down the page is the start of a listing including hundreds of scholarly resources on Mozart's time in Vienna, the complete texts of which are available through the site. Numerous preview pages are available at no cost, including indexes and bibliographies. A free trial subscription is available, and a full subscription costs only $20/mo.
http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-culture-of-opera-buffa-in-mozarts-vienna-a-poetics-of-entertainment-by-mary-hunter.jsp (http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-culture-of-opera-buffa-in-mozarts-vienna-a-poetics-of-entertainment-by-mary-hunter.jsp)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:49:31 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:49:31 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 07:45:13 AM
Visitors to this thread who have been stimulated to learn more about the facts regarding Mozart's life in Vienna (which have nothing to do with Newman's delusions, of course) should know about one of the Web's most extraordinary research tools, questia. Questia is the kind of resource we only dreamed about during development of the Research Libraries Information Network at Stanford--and no one imagined back then before the Web in the days of 300 baud modems and $5000 PCs that such resources would be available so quickly, so cheaply, and so readily accessible to ordinary people in their homes almost anywhere in the world!
The link below leads to a sample page demonstrating the breadth and depth of resources available, starting with the entry for Mary Hunter's The Culture of Opera Buffa in Mozart's Vienna: A Poetics of Entertainment. Halfway down the page is the start of a listing including hundreds of scholarly resources on Mozart's time in Vienna, the complete texts of which are available through the site. Numerous preview pages are available at no cost, including indexes and bibliographies. A free trial subscription is available, and a full subscription costs only $20/mo.
http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-culture-of-opera-buffa-in-mozarts-vienna-a-poetics-of-entertainment-by-mary-hunter.jsp (http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-culture-of-opera-buffa-in-mozarts-vienna-a-poetics-of-entertainment-by-mary-hunter.jsp)
Great ! So, sooner or later the evidence will turn up, right ? The evidence you can't seem to find ? Well, at the 8th consecutive request 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.
Not much to ask, is it ? If it exists, that is !
Care for some more tea ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 07:51:03 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 07:51:03 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 06:52:45 AM
OK, let's have the newspaper quotes right here. Don't just throw a book at us. We want to see evidence of Mozart being a famous composer, performer and virtuoso in Vienna during this decade.
And we are STILL waiting. Care to give us some ? I mean, which part of this message do you still not understand ? :)
This is all scintillatingly amusing, coming from the propagandist who repeatedly ignores Edward's requests for evidence.
Quote from: edward on May 28, 2009, 06:52:09 AM
So you admit you are not going to produce any evidence for your own view?
Another amusing ruse of Newman's, is the repeated claim that he has evidence; yet he never actually produces the evidence he claims to have.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 07:51:54 AM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 07:51:54 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:41:15 AMYou, thus far, have made a highly controversial claim, constantly promised evidence in support of it, and produced none.
You are just listing the names of books. Why don't you give us some actual newspaper evidence from this decade if it's in these books ? This is now the 7th consecutive request for such basic information and we are all STILL waiting. It's laughable ! Would anyone buy a used car from these frauds ?
Care for some more tea ?
I've supplied you with references to two standard literature works that if you were a serious Mozart scholar you would have access to. These works rip your entire thesis to shreds. Naturally, you bluster.
Who's the fraud?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 07:52:24 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 07:52:24 AM
Quote from: edward on May 28, 2009, 07:01:00 AM
Translation: you do not have evidence for the Lent Concerts being a fiction.
However, when presented with evidence of newspaper reports confirming Mozart's fame in Vienna as a composer, you insist on the original newspaper reports because you assume it's unlikely there's anyone on this board who happens to be living in Vienna, speaking German, and having access to the original archives.
Yes; he is a funny one!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 07:53:58 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 07:53:58 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:41:15 AM
You are just listing the names of books.
Hardly fair, is it, when you have no books to substantiate your own bizarre assertions.
When is your book coming out, again?
And who is the publisher?
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:54:59 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:54:59 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2009, 07:51:03 AM
This is all scintillatingly amusing, coming from the propagandist who repeatedly ignores Edward's requests for evidence.
Another amusing ruse of Newman's, is the repeated claim that he has evidence; yet he never actually produces the evidence he claims to have.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
We deal with the first issue first. The belief that the newspapers of Vienna provide evidence for Mozart being a well known performer and composer of his music during the decade he lived there (1781-1791). Evidence which, at the 9th request, you and your colleagues seem to have some trouble providing. Does it exist or are you just trying to fool us ?
If you admit you can't find any such evidence, fine. We will then move directly on to the Lent Concerts (alleged) of Mozart in Vienna in 1784.
So, in the meantime, would you care for another cup of tea ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 07:56:18 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 07:56:18 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:49:31 AM
Great ! So, sooner or later the evidence will turn up, right ? The evidence you can't seem to find ? Well, at the 8th consecutive request 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.
Not much to ask, is it ? If it exists, that is !
Care for some more tea ?
Occasionally, Rob, you are an extremely silly twit. Now, I ask you; reexamine your question in light of the fact that "newspapers" in those days in Vienna were scarcely the Daily Mail in any case. And then, ask yourself seriously, who here has access to that sort of material. As though to humor you, I am going to quit my job, hop on a plane to Vienna, gain access to whatever limited files are available and dig up this sort of material simply to shut you up. Oh, I have a pile of Weiner Zeitungs hanging around my basement, hold on... ::)
So failing to produce what you are looking for proves your point? I think not, laddie. It does nothing but piss people off, which I am sure is your actual aim in any case. Let's move along shall we? $:)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 07:57:12 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 07:57:12 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 28, 2009, 07:36:02 AM
The onus of proof is not on us. We don't have to prove the earth is round, either.
In Newman-"logic," the fact that the earth is not perfectly spherical, but bulges out slightly at the equator, is proof that it is not round! And all claims that it is round have been part of a conspiracy! Probably by the people who wrote the Patriot Act!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 07:58:33 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 07:58:33 AM
I love the repeated offers for tea, too, even if they have none of the rhetorical significance which the propagandist fondly imagines.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 08:00:29 AM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 08:00:29 AM
By the way, talking of people not supplying evidence: days and days ago I asked Rob for his evidence for his claim that Leopold Mozart's violin treatise was plagiarized. Naturally, it was not forthcoming.
It seems that in Rob's bizarre world, evidence is not required when presenting controversial theories; however when defending well-documented conventional beliefs it is always necessary for non-scholars on an internet bulletin board to take a vacation from work, buy last minute tickets at great expense, take crash courses in translation and then repeat work that has been done by generations of academics down the years.
It seems that in Rob's bizarre world, evidence is not required when presenting controversial theories; however when defending well-documented conventional beliefs it is always necessary for non-scholars on an internet bulletin board to take a vacation from work, buy last minute tickets at great expense, take crash courses in translation and then repeat work that has been done by generations of academics down the years.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:01:41 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:01:41 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 07:56:18 AM
Occasionally, Rob, you are an extremely silly twit. Now, I ask you; reexamine your question in light of the fact that "newspapers" in those days in Vienna were scarcely the Daily Mail in any case. And then, ask yourself seriously, who here has access to that sort of material. As though to humor you, I am going to quit my job, hop on a plane to Vienna, gain access to whatever limited files are available and dig up this sort of material simply to shut you up. Oh, I have a pile of Weiner Zeitungs hanging around my basement, hold on... ::)
So failing to produce what you are looking for proves your point? I think not, laddie. It does nothing but piss people off, which I am sure is your actual aim in any case. Let's move along shall we? $:)
8)
Gurn,
If Mozart was a celebrated and well known virtuoso and composer in Vienna during this decade (1781-1791) we will, of course, have reference to it in the newspapers of the time (as everyone here seems to agree). But, so far, nobody has been able to produce any. Which begs the question of whether such newspaper reports actually exist. Or whether, as Lorenzo da Ponte and others of the time have indicated, Mozart was unknown in Vienna. Seems to me a fair and reasonable question and not foolish at all. We all 'know' that he was for some years very famous, celebrated, etc. etc. in Vienna. So we can sit back and watch the documentary evidence roll in. Proving that this Robert Newman is a fraud.
In the meantime, Gurn, would you care for a cup of tea yourself ?
Following which I am committed to discussing the mythical Lent piano concerts of 1784 in Vienna, as already said twice.
Does that sound fair and reasonable to you ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:03:34 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:03:34 AM
Quote from: edward on May 28, 2009, 08:00:29 AM
By the way, talking of people not supplying evidence: days and days ago I asked Rob for his evidence for his claim that Leopold Mozart's violin treatise was plagiarized. Naturally, it was not forthcoming.
It seems that in Rob's bizarre world, evidence is not required when presenting controversial theories; however when defending well-documented conventional beliefs it is always necessary for non-scholars on an internet bulletin board to take a vacation from work, buy last minute tickets at great expense, take crash courses in translation and then repeat work that has been done by generations of academics down the years.
He has no interest in evidence (as it obviously dashes his peculiar claims to pieces) but in the buzz and attention; he imagines that if he is sustaining the conversation, this somehow legitimizes his nonsense.
As I say, a blood-tick on the ear of a greyhound.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:03:59 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:03:59 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2009, 07:58:33 AM
I love the repeated offers for tea, too, even if they have none of the rhetorical significance which the propagandist fondly imagines.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Well, Karl, I would not like you to be marooned for years as we wait for documentary evidence of Mozart's Vienna fame without having access to one of nature's greatest creations - the humble cup of tea ! :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 08:05:47 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 08:05:47 AM
Glancing at Newman's obsessively repetitive posts on the past couple of pages, it seems very sad that the poor fellow lacks even the capacity to recognize when he's been pwned. Perhaps Scarpia's allusion to Newman's dwelling in an asylum deep in the hinterlands of Russia is more tragically on target than amusing. We can only hope and pray that he gets the help he so obviously needs...but aren't they always the last to know?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:06:39 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:06:39 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2009, 08:03:34 AM
He has no interest in evidence (as it obviously dashes his peculiar claims to pieces) but in the buzz and attention; he imagines that if he is sustaining the conversation, this somehow legitimizes his nonsense.
As I say, a blood-tick on the ear of a greyhound.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
But the opposite is true.
Here is my 9th request in a row. Please produce some evidence from the entire decade of Mozart in Vienna (1781-1791) for him having popularity there as a celebrated composer and performer of his own music. You see I am interested in evidence so much that I can even continue to ask for it, post after post. Must exist, yes ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: jhar26 on May 28, 2009, 08:06:47 AM
Post by: jhar26 on May 28, 2009, 08:06:47 AM
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 28, 2009, 05:48:05 AMThe world may own the music now, but we should never forget who we have to thank for it. That's only fair.
The world owns this music now. Not Mozart, so who cares?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:09:18 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:09:18 AM
Quote from: jhar26 on May 28, 2009, 08:06:47 AM
The world may own the music now, but we should never forget who we have to thank for it. That's only fair.
How true. And yet we must first learn who to thank for it. Without which we can never forget. And we are now searching for the fame and repute of W.A. Mozart in Vienna during that same decade (1781-1791). Why, I am even prepared to ask for some evidence of it 10 times in a row. Not bad, right ? Surely someone will come to the rescue of our 'Amadeus' ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: 71 dB on May 28, 2009, 08:09:38 AM
Post by: 71 dB on May 28, 2009, 08:09:38 AM
35 pages! ::)
I stopped following the discussion at least 10 pages ago...
I stopped following the discussion at least 10 pages ago...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 08:11:08 AM
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 08:11:08 AM
From an interview with the Catalan bestselling novelist Carlos Ruiz Zafón (Shadow of the Wind - 4,7 million copies sold):
When you're a succesful writer, there will always be people who look at you as part of an evil conspiracy.
When you're a succesful writer, there will always be people who look at you as part of an evil conspiracy.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:12:41 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:12:41 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 28, 2009, 08:09:38 AM
35 pages! ::)
I stopped following the discussion at least 10 pages ago...
And so did I, 10 requests ago !!
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:17:30 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:17:30 AM
Quote from: jhar26 on May 28, 2009, 08:06:47 AM
The world may own the music now, but we should never forget who we have to thank for it. That's only fair.
Fairly spoken!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 08:20:49 AM
Post by: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 08:20:49 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:06:39 AM
But the opposite is true.
Here is my 9th request in a row. Please produce some evidence from the entire decade of Mozart in Vienna (1781-1791) for him having popularity there as a celebrated composer and performer of his own music. You see I am interested in evidence so much that I can even continue to ask for it, post after post. Must exist, yes ?
:)
It only took one minute with google to find the information you claim does not exist. From "The Compleat Mozart" by Zaslaw and Cowdery (Norton, 1990). p. 204
QuoteIn its broad outlines, Mozart's account is confirmed by a report published in Magazin der Musik, Hamburg:
Vienna, 23 March 1783... Tonight the famous Chevalier Mozart held a concert in the National theater, at whichi pieces of his already highly admired composition were performed. The concert was honored with an exceptionally large crowd, and the two new concertos and other fantasias that Mr. Mozart played on the fortepiano were received with the loudest applause. Our Monarch, who against his habit, attend the whole of the concert, as well as the entire audience, accorded him such animous applause as has never been heard of here.
I'd like to see how "Newman" will squirm out of this one.
link http://books.google.com/books?id=CChN90GGcQQC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=%22magazin+der+musik%22+hamburg+mozart+1783&source=bl&ots=4f84TAqPRo&sig=-8CR2339eFtGx67uoGR9WCbNr50&hl=en&ei=67ceSrG4HqSgM_ib7OwF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4 (http://books.google.com/books?id=CChN90GGcQQC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=%22magazin+der+musik%22+hamburg+mozart+1783&source=bl&ots=4f84TAqPRo&sig=-8CR2339eFtGx67uoGR9WCbNr50&hl=en&ei=67ceSrG4HqSgM_ib7OwF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:25:02 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:25:02 AM
I'll ask again:
When is your book coming out?
And who is the publisher?
When is your book coming out?
And who is the publisher?
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 08:25:15 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 08:25:15 AM
Here the Obituary from the Wiener Zeitung, 1791:
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 08:25:51 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 08:25:51 AM
Translation follows.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:26:08 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:26:08 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 08:20:49 AM
I'd like to see how "Newman" will squirm out of this one.
He won't see it.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 08:27:49 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 08:27:49 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 08:20:49 AM
It only took one minute with google to find the information you claim does not exist. From "The Compleat Mozart" by Zaslaw and Cowdery (Norton, 1990). p. 204
I'd like to see how "Newman" will squirm out of this one.
link http://books.google.com/books?id=CChN90GGcQQC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=%22magazin+der+musik%22+hamburg+mozart+1783&source=bl&ots=4f84TAqPRo&sig=-8CR2339eFtGx67uoGR9WCbNr50&hl=en&ei=67ceSrG4HqSgM_ib7OwF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4 (http://books.google.com/books?id=CChN90GGcQQC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=%22magazin+der+musik%22+hamburg+mozart+1783&source=bl&ots=4f84TAqPRo&sig=-8CR2339eFtGx67uoGR9WCbNr50&hl=en&ei=67ceSrG4HqSgM_ib7OwF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4)
Well, obviously that is a magazine, not a newspaper. Doesn't count... >:D
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 08:28:22 AM
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 08:28:22 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 08:25:51 AM
Translation follows.
Don't be silly. You're wasting your time.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:31:11 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:31:11 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 28, 2009, 08:28:22 AM
Don't be silly. You're wasting your time.
Well, it would be a waste of time, if one imagined that the actual facts would make any difference to the propagandist.
But if Johan were to take this to this other thread (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,46.0.html) . . . the rest of us may simply find it of interest.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:32:15 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:32:15 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 08:20:49 AM
It only took one minute with google to find the information you claim does not exist. From "The Compleat Mozart" by Zaslaw and Cowdery (Norton, 1990). p. 204
I'd like to see how "Newman" will squirm out of this one.
link http://books.google.com/books?id=CChN90GGcQQC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=%22magazin+der+musik%22+hamburg+mozart+1783&source=bl&ots=4f84TAqPRo&sig=-8CR2339eFtGx67uoGR9WCbNr50&hl=en&ei=67ceSrG4HqSgM_ib7OwF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4 (http://books.google.com/books?id=CChN90GGcQQC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=%22magazin+der+musik%22+hamburg+mozart+1783&source=bl&ots=4f84TAqPRo&sig=-8CR2339eFtGx67uoGR9WCbNr50&hl=en&ei=67ceSrG4HqSgM_ib7OwF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4)
Yes, and Hamburg is that well known district of Vienna, that city where Mozart married, lived and worked for the last 10 years of his life, right ?
:o
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 08:34:24 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 08:34:24 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 28, 2009, 08:28:22 AM
Don't be silly. You're wasting your time.
No. I'm only translating the opening lines:
We have alas! at this year's ending to report to our readers a piece of news very sad for the art of music: that on the 5th of this month the widely-known, sought-after and loved court composer (Hofkammerkompositeur) Herr Mozart has died of ? (Herzwassersucht) in the 34th year of his life. All of Vienna, yes, all of the musical world mourns the early demise of this immortal man.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:37:07 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:37:07 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 08:34:24 AM
No. I'm only translating the opening lines:
We have alas! at this year's ending to report to our readers a piece of news very sad for the art of music: that on the 5th of this month the widely-known, sought-after and loved court composer (Hofkammerkompositeur) Herr Mozart has died of ? (Herzwassersucht) in the 34th year of his life. All of Vienna, yes, all of the musical world mourns the early demise of this immortal man.
So the evidence of Mozart being a celebrated and well known composer/performer in Vienna doesn't come from any newspaper of that entire Vienna decade but comes only with the announcement of his death ? Well, at least you got us, finally, to Vienna !!! :o
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:37:28 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:37:28 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:32:15 AM
Yes, and Hamburg is that well known district of Vienna, that city where Mozart married, lived and worked for the last 10 years of his life, right ?
. . . in blithe disregard of how the plain meaning leaves the pith of his claim in complete tatters.
Newman's antics are the comedic gift that keeps on giving!
Go on, Newman: has anyone with any musical background taken you even remotely seriously? No one here has.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:39:52 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:39:52 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2009, 08:37:28 AM
. . . in blithe disregard of how the plain meaning leaves the pith of his claim in complete tatters.
Newman's antics are the comedic gift that keeps on giving!
Go on, Newman: has anyone with any musical background taken you even remotely seriously? No one here has.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Well, all we are asking for is newspaper evidence of Mozart's fame and celebrity in Viennna during his decade there. I'm sure we will find it sooner or later Karl. ::)
'There will be no whitewash at the White House' !! - LOL !!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 08:40:54 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 08:40:54 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:37:07 AM
So the evidence of Mozart being a celebrated and well known composer/performer in Vienna doesn't come from any newspaper of that entire Vienna decade but comes only with the announcement of his death ? Well, at least you got us, finally, to Vienna !!! :o
Sorry, Mr Newman, now you are being disingenuous - a reputation is made, an obituary is a result. Why should a paper claim someone is well-known if no-one knew and appreciated him?
And now I'm off.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:44:16 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:44:16 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:37:07 AM
So the evidence of Mozart being a celebrated and well known composer/performer in Vienna doesn't come from any newspaper of that entire Vienna decade but comes only with the announcement of his death?
How does a Viennese musician of the 18th century acquire a reputation in Hamburg, without being celebrated in Vienna?
Don't trouble to spew out your boilerplate!
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 08:40:54 AM
Sorry, Mr Newman, now you are being disingenuous - a reputation is made, an obituary is a result. Why should a paper claim someone is well-known if no-one knew and appreciated him?
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:44:44 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:44:44 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 08:40:54 AM
Sorry, Mr Newman, now you are being disingenuous - a reputation is made, an obituary is a result. Why should a paper claim someone is well-known if no-one knew and appreciated him?
And now I'm off.
Nobody is being disingenuous. In reply to your question of why a paper should claim someone is well known if no one knew and appreciated him the answer is simple. So that people such as yourself could believe it to be true, though, in fact, the entire Vienna decade suggests differently. As Lorenzo da Ponte and others have already told you.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:45:00 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:45:00 AM
We'll ask again:
When is your book coming out?
And who is the publisher?
When is your book coming out?
And who is the publisher?
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:46:07 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:46:07 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2009, 08:44:16 AM
How does a Viennese musician of the 18th century acquire a reputation in Hamburg, without being celebrated in Vienna?
Don't trouble to spew out your boilerplate!Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Easy. He falsely describes himself as a Kapellmeister and has a group of adoring fraternity members who cheer him. The rest of the world being ignorant of his very existence. Including Vienna. As we see here in the case of Mozart 1781-1791 in his home city of Vienna.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:50:36 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:50:36 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2009, 08:45:00 AM
We'll ask again:
When is your book coming out?
And who is the publisher?Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
It's coming out a few months after somebody produces newspaper reports of Mozart's reputation in Vienna as a composer and virtuoso performer during the last decade of his life.
The publisher is not decided yet.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:53:32 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:50:36 AM
It's coming out a few months after somebody produces newspaper reports of Mozart's reputation in Vienna as a composer and virtuoso performer during the last decade of his life.
Thanks for your three-hundredth non-answer on this thread.
QuoteThe publisher is not decided yet.
A most delicate evasion!
The altered subject header tickles me, I thank you! It is the most nearly creative thing you've contributed to the thread.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:55:27 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:55:27 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 28, 2009, 08:53:32 AM
Thanks for your three-hundredth non-answer on this thread.
A most delicate evasion!
The altered subject header tickles me, I thank you! It is the most nearly creative thing you've contributed to the thread.
Well, I'd love to be more specific but it seems that nobody can find the evidence we are all waiting for. Doesn't exist, it seems. Nobody can blame us, of course !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Lethevich on May 28, 2009, 08:58:37 AM
Post by: Lethevich on May 28, 2009, 08:58:37 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on May 28, 2009, 08:09:38 AM
35 pages! ::)
I stopped following the discussion at least 10 pages ago...
That's a shame, Rob's neurosis has really blossomed in the past few pages - you're missing out!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 09:00:30 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 09:00:30 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:55:27 AM
Well, I'd love to be more specific but it seems that nobody can find the evidence we are all waiting for. Doesn't exist, it seems. Nobody can blame us, of course !
If I'd find some newspaper report praising Mozart, Mr Newman, you would simply say that was all part of the conspiracy. No evidence can convince you, because it's all a 'fraud'. So it's up to you to 'expose' it.
As I said earlier - finish your book and publish it!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:04:53 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:04:53 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 09:00:30 AM
If I'd find some newspaper report praising Mozart, Mr Newman, you would simply say that was all part of the conspiracy. No evidence can convince you, because it's all a 'fraud'. So it's up to you to 'expose' it.
As I said earlier - finish your book and publish it!
Well, Jeztha, we've been on this subject now for most of today and you can see that no evidence of the kind that is assumed to exist has yet been presented. Which makes me think that people believe what they want to believe and never actually ask what the evidence says.
But yes, I will shortly sign off here.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 09:05:55 AM
Post by: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 09:05:55 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 09:00:30 AM
If I'd find some newspaper report praising Mozart, Mr Newman, you would simply say that was all part of the conspiracy. No evidence can convince you, because it's all a 'fraud'. So it's up to you to 'expose' it.
As I said earlier - finish your book and publish it!
Indeed, it seems almost pathological to seek evidence at the request of someone who will "explain" that evidence away as not signifying what it apparently signifies. It's rather like a chum asking you to pick him up a hamburger at McDonald's and then "explaining" how what you brought him is not in fact a hamburger from McDonald's, despite all indications. Sooner or later, you should probably stop bringing him hamburgers, for his sake and your own.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 09:06:57 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 09:06:57 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 09:00:30 AM
If I'd find some newspaper report praising Mozart, Mr Newman, you would simply say that was all part of the conspiracy. No evidence can convince you, because it's all a 'fraud'. So it's up to you to 'expose' it.
And for the fortieth time . . . he'll spew his evasive boilerplate. But you've said the truth clear as an unmuddied lake.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:11:14 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:11:14 AM
Quote from: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 09:05:55 AM
Indeed, it seems almost pathological to seek evidence at the request of someone who will "explain" that evidence away as not signifying what it apparently signifies. It's rather like a chum asking you to pick him up a hamburger at McDonald's and then "explaining" how what you brought him is not in fact a hamburger from McDonald's, despite all indications. Sooner or later, you should probably stop bringing him hamburgers, for his sake and your own.
Very true. Just yesterday we saw a classic example of what you are saying. The repeated statement by Lorenzo da Ponte, long time colleague of Mozart, that he, Mozart, was unknown in Vienna. Hidden. And, exactly as you say, ' evidence doesn't signify what it so apparently signifies'. And today we see further examples in the inability of an entire forum to present some newspaper evidence of Mozart's great Viennese musical reputation from the whole decade of his life there.
It's an occupational hazard, it seems !
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 09:15:17 AM
Post by: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 09:15:17 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:11:14 AM
Very true. Just yesterday we saw a classic example of what you are saying. The repeated statement by Lorenzo da Ponte, long time colleague of Mozart, that he, Mozart, was unknown in Vienna. Hidden. And, exactly as you say, ' evidence doesn't signify what it so apparently signifies'. And today we see further examples in the inability of an entire forum to present some newspaper evidence of Mozart's great Viennese musical reputation from the whole decade of his life there.
It's an occupational hazard, it seems !
:)
Why, then, maybe you can help me with this: what do we do with the subordinate clause "thanks to the intrigues of his rivals" (or whatever it is verbatim)? Does it not signify what it apparently signifies? What does it signify? If all the evidence does not signify what it apparently signifies, then how can you construct an argument? Surely you need some sort of Mozart decoder ring!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:18:30 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:18:30 AM
J.B. Vanhal
String Quartet in A Major
4th Movement
Vienna 1780/1
http://www.mediafire.com/?vamyzywytk3
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 09:19:42 AM
Post by: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 08:46:07 AM
Easy. He falsely describes himself as a Kapellmeister and has a group of adoring fraternity members who cheer him. The rest of the world being ignorant of his very existence. Including Vienna. As we see here in the case of Mozart 1781-1791 in his home city of Vienna.
The review of the concert may have been published by Magazin der Musik in Hamburg, but the report came from Vienna. I fail to see why reports published by reputable journals outside of Vienna should be discounted.
On the other hand, another few minutes with google unearthed this:
As cited by Mozart, a Documented Biography, Deutsch and Blom,
From the WeinerBlaettchen, 23 March, 1784:
Today, Thursday 1 April, Herr Kapellmeister Mozart will have the honor to hold a great musical concert for his benefit at the I&R National Court Theatre. The pieces to occur in it are the following: 1) A grand Symphony with trumpets and drums. 2) An aria, sug by Herr Adamberger. 3) Her Mozartt, Kapellmeister, will play an entirely new Concerto on the Fortepiano. 4) A quite new grand Symphony. 5) An aria, sung by Mlle Cavalieri. 6) Herr Mozart, Kapellmeister, will play an entirely new grand Quintet. 7) An aria, sung by Herr Marchesi senior. 8 ) Her Kapellmeister Mozart will improvise entirely alone on the Fortepiano. 9) To conclude a Symphony. Apart from the three areas, everything is composed by Kapellmeister Mozart.
Ok, there you have it, published in Vienna, entirely documented. Let's hear your pathetic evasion for this one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=e8AtwaddUW4C&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=weiner+zeitung+mozart&source=bl&ots=VXwRSVslYB&sig=klayUFly2pof3notARly00GpBr0&hl=en&ei=FsUeSuabCeSclQeJ2eTFBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA223,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=e8AtwaddUW4C&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=weiner+zeitung+mozart&source=bl&ots=VXwRSVslYB&sig=klayUFly2pof3notARly00GpBr0&hl=en&ei=FsUeSuabCeSclQeJ2eTFBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA223,M1)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:24:41 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:24:41 AM
Quote from: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 09:15:17 AM
Why, then, maybe you can help me with this: what do we do with the subordinate clause "thanks to the intrigues of his rivals" (or whatever it is verbatim)? Does it not signify what it apparently signifies? What does it signify? If all the evidence does not signify what it apparently signifies, then how can you construct an argument? Surely you need some sort of Mozart decoder ring!
Yes, I will gladly help with this since you are confused. The idea of Mozart having rivals who intrigued against his Vienna career was first invented by his father, Leopold Mozart. For example, at the time of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' Leopold invented a conspiracy theory in which his son had un-named rivals who were against his career. The same is often refered to in the Mozart family correspondence, repeated by those involved in making his fake reputation including, as we see in the memoirs of Lorenzo da Ponte. And in none of these claims is anyone doing anything of the kind. Da Ponte could not claim Mozart was famous in Vienna. He knew that would be a massive lie. So he instead tells us he was a hidden jewel. This plus the usual statement about Mozart's enemies is typical of Lorenzo da Ponte.
/
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 09:28:15 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 09:28:15 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:24:41 AM
Yes, I will gladly help with this since you are confused.
Oh, another witticism! The blind leading the sighted!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 09:33:56 AM
Post by: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 09:33:56 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:24:41 AM
Yes, I will gladly help with this since you are confused. The idea of Mozart having rivals who intrigued against his Vienna career was first invented by his father, Leopold Mozart. For example, at the time of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' Leopold invented a conspiracy theory in which his son had un-named rivals who were against his career. The same is often refered to in the Mozart family correspondence, repeated by those involved in making his fake reputation including, as we see in the memoirs of Lorenzo da Ponte. And in none of these claims is anyone doing anything of the kind. Da Ponte could not claim Mozart was famous in Vienna. He knew that would be a massive lie. So he instead tells us he was a hidden jewel. This plus the usual statement about Mozart's enemies is typical of Lorenzo da Ponte.
How is it typical of Da Ponte? Are there other examples where he goes out of his way to praise long-dead colleagues as being unheralded geniuses? Why, furthermore, would Da Ponte be involved in building Mozart's "fake reputation"? Wouldn't it make more sense for Da Ponte to talk of being saddled with an unknown second-rater for his masterpieces? Even with the Mozart cult burgeoning by the time of the publication, surely Da Ponte had other options -- not least of which would have been to have remained silent and let the accolades for the "masterpieces" of Mozart roll in. Was Da Ponte not a rational actor?
Who suborned him? Why did they suborn him? Why would a cabal interested in increasing the glory of the Fatherland want an Italian to help do it? Surely there were Germans who could do it.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:34:24 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:34:24 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 09:19:42 AM
The review of the concert may have been published by Magazin der Musik in Hamburg, but the report came from Vienna. I fail to see why reports published by reputable journals outside of Vienna should be discounted.
On the other hand, another few minutes with google unearthed this:
As cited by Mozart, a Documented Biography, Deutsch and Blom,
From the WeinerBlaettchen, 23 March, 1784:
Today, Thursday 1 April, Herr Kapellmeister Mozart will have the honor to hold a great musical concert for his benefit at the I&R National Court Theatre. The pieces to occur in it are the following: 1) A grand Symphony with trumpets and drums. 2) An aria, sug by Herr Adamberger. 3) Her Mozartt, Kapellmeister, will play an entirely new Concerto on the Fortepiano. 4) A quite new grand Symphony. 5) An aria, sung by Mlle Cavalieri. 6) Herr Mozart, Kapellmeister, will play an entirely new grand Quintet. 7) An aria, sung by Herr Marchesi senior. 8 ) Her Kapellmeister Mozart will improvise entirely alone on the Fortepiano. 9) To conclude a Symphony. Apart from the three areas, everything is composed by Kapellmeister Mozart.
Ok, there you have it, published in Vienna, entirely documented. Let's hear your pathetic evasion for this one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=e8AtwaddUW4C&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=weiner+zeitung+mozart&source=bl&ots=VXwRSVslYB&sig=klayUFly2pof3notARly00GpBr0&hl=en&ei=FsUeSuabCeSclQeJ2eTFBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA223,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=e8AtwaddUW4C&pg=PA224&lpg=PA224&dq=weiner+zeitung+mozart&source=bl&ots=VXwRSVslYB&sig=klayUFly2pof3notARly00GpBr0&hl=en&ei=FsUeSuabCeSclQeJ2eTFBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA223,M1)
Well, if you describe my answer as a 'pathetic evasion' before you've even read it YOU are pathetic, aren't you ?
Of course we have numerous advertisements of concerts in Mozart's name from Vienna. This particular concert was advertised as were countless concerts.
So what ? Have you forgotten what we are actually looking for is evidence Mozart was a celebrated and famous composer/performer in Vienna during
this decade ? The mere advertising of a concert (a concert in which numerous others were actually involved as you can plainly see) proves nothing. Marchesi is mentioned. Was he also a celebrated
composer/performer in Vienna ? No, he was not. So what exactly IS your point ? Anybody in Vienna reviewing a Mozart concert, for example ? Who ? Where ? When ? I could become a Kapellmeister
myself if I placed ads in the paper.
We want evidence Mozart was a famous and celebrated composer of music in Vienna during the decade he lived there. And this is NOT it.
Get it yet ?
Back to the 'drawing board'. ? Let's hope you come up with something substantial next time.
P.S. Mozart was NOT (I REPEAT NOT) a 'Kapellmeister' AT ANY TIME IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE. IT'S YET ANOTHER LIE. It was a title he fraudulently used.
Just to keep you posted of the FACTS rather than the fictions. People hired this concert hall all the time. Including names you've never heard of. It was
open for concerts by many, many people. This is NOT proof of Mozart being a famous, celebrated composer. It's the usual nonsense.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 09:37:46 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 09:37:46 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 11:19:59 AM
Because this is not "a normal person trying to make an argument."
We're looking at a major attention seeker here, who'll do anything to keep people annoyed with him.
Quoted for truth.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 09:39:18 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 09:39:18 AM
Delighted that Herman got there first, actually
Quote from: Herman on May 25, 2009, 04:35:04 AM
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.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 09:42:25 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 28, 2009, 09:42:25 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:18:30 AM
J.B. Vanhal
String Quartet in A Major
4th Movement
Vienna 1780/1
Tailored to the present non-event:
Quote from: Herman on May 24, 2009, 12:04:07 PM
One doesn't have to be familiar with [Vanhal's] music. Even if it were terrific, that doesn't mean he also wrote Mozart's terrific music.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:48:07 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:48:07 AM
Quote from: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 09:33:56 AM
How is it typical of Da Ponte? Are there other examples where he goes out of his way to praise long-dead colleagues as being unheralded geniuses? Why, furthermore, would Da Ponte be involved in building Mozart's "fake reputation"? Wouldn't it make more sense for Da Ponte to talk of being saddled with an unknown second-rater for his masterpieces? Even with the Mozart cult burgeoning by the time of the publication, surely Da Ponte had other options -- not least of which would have been to have remained silent and let the accolades for the "masterpieces" of Mozart roll in. Was Da Ponte not a rational actor?
Who suborned him? Why did they suborn him? Why would a cabal interested in increasing the glory of the Fatherland want an Italian to help do it? Surely there were Germans who could do it.
I've answered your question. That's all.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:50:28 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:50:28 AM
And lastly, since I am now busy -
J.B. Vanhal
String Quartet in A Major
4th Movement
c. 1780/1
http://www.mediafire.com/?vamyzywytk3
RN
J.B. Vanhal
String Quartet in A Major
4th Movement
c. 1780/1
http://www.mediafire.com/?vamyzywytk3
RN
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 09:58:15 AM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 09:58:15 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:48:07 AMNo. You have failed to answer any questions whatsoever.
I've answered your question. That's all.
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:06:46 AM
Post by: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:06:46 AM
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.
;D
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.
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 28, 2009, 10:10:40 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 28, 2009, 10:10:40 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:06:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 10:10:58 AM
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 10:10:58 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:06:46 AM
STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD
let's do.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:11:33 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:11:33 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 07:49:31 AM
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?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:15:44 AM
Post by: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:15:44 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:11:33 AM
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. ;D
Oooops. :-[
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:21:21 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:21:21 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:06:46 AM
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.
;D
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 !!!!
:(
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:27:44 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:27:44 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:11:33 AM
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 ?
:) :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:37:41 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:37:41 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:27:44 AM
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?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:37:41 AM
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
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:48:26 AM
Post by: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:48:26 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
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! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:49:25 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:49:25 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
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?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:50:57 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:50:57 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:49:25 AM
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 ???
:o
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 28, 2009, 10:51:18 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on May 28, 2009, 10:51:18 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:52:43 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:52:43 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:50:57 AM
Are you going to present evidence to us or not ?
I just did. It's under your eyes several posts above, completely referred to.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 10:52:58 AM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 10:52:58 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:50:57 AMQuite a bit of evidence has been presented to you. You've just chosen to ignore it.
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 ???
:o
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 28, 2009, 10:55:00 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 28, 2009, 10:55:00 AM
I think I'll go piss in the wind.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:55:33 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:55:33 AM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 28, 2009, 10:51:18 AM
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.
::) ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 10:56:32 AM
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 10:56:32 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:06:46 AM
STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:58:28 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:58:28 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 10:52:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 10:58:52 AM
Post by: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 10:58:52 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 09:48:07 AM
I've answered your question. That's all.
Well, y'see, that's where we're going to have to differ. You've explained away the evidence, as you have been wont to do (regardless of whether or not your conclusions are necessary), but you haven't interpreted the evidence. You offer no rationale for the existence of the evidence other than your meta-narrative, which isn't a rationale or even really a narrative so much as a "conclusion" (though I wouldn't want to offend a real conclusion by removing the scare-quotes).
At no point have you answered any question, much less my question. No, you seem content to demand evidence and then explain why the proffered evidence isn't really evidence because of the meta-narrative you've "constructed." It is disingenuous to demand evidence, receive evidence, and then say "Well, that's not really evidence." That certainly wouldn't cut it in the academic world, but a classical-music message board on the mighty interweb is not the academic world, so it's probably OK.
Of course, in the words of Gene Ray, I'm just educated stupid.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 11:05:48 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 11:05:48 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:58:28 AM
Then why don't you present this evidence again, right here ? I am waiting NOW to see it.
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:10:05 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:10:05 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 11:05:48 AM
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.
Great ! Please share its contents here on the thread.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Lethevich on May 28, 2009, 11:15:03 AM
Post by: Lethevich on May 28, 2009, 11:15:03 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
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 ?
Jesus Christ...
(http://g.imagehost.org/0572/1382908049_73fa5ff40d.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:18:26 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:18:26 AM
Sure, let's hear some from the newspapers of Vienna 1781-1791. Showing that Mozart has great celebrity as a composer and performer of his own music.
Still waiting.
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 11:21:07 AM
Post by: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 11:21:07 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:10:05 AM
Great ! Please share its contents here on the thread.
Should I write a whole two pages newspaper article here? If I found it, I'm sure you can find it, too.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 11:22:38 AM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 11:22:38 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:18:26 AMWe already did. You just chose to ignore it or explain that it isn't relevant. You also demonstrated that you, a self-proclaimed Mozart scholar, have no knowledge of the relevant primary or secondary sources.
Sure, let's hear some from the newspapers of Vienna 1781-1791. Showing that Mozart has great celebrity as a composer and performer of his own music.
Still waiting.
:)
By the way, you still haven't provided any evidence to support your own hypothesis. Which isn't surprising, as there isn't any.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:23:01 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:23:01 AM
Quote from: Florestan on May 28, 2009, 11:21:07 AM
Should I write a whole two pages newspaper article here? If I found it, I'm sure you can find it, too.
Well, if YOU believe it presents newspaper evidence YOU should present it. Shall I ask my bank manager ? Or the laundry ? Or how about the cashier at my local supermarket ? :o
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 11:32:26 AM
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 11:32:26 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:06:46 AM
STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 11:38:43 AM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 11:38:43 AM
Quoted in O.E.Deutsch: Mozart: A Documentary Biography, trans. Eric Blom, Peter Branscombe, and Jeremy Noble, p 259:
From the "Wiener Zeitung", 24 December 1785
"On the second day Herr Wolfgang Amade Mozart made a change with a concerto of his own composition on the fortepiano, the favourable reception of which we forbear to mention, since our praise is superfluous in view of the deserved fame of this master, as well known as he is universally valued."
From the "Wiener Zeitung", 24 December 1785
"On the second day Herr Wolfgang Amade Mozart made a change with a concerto of his own composition on the fortepiano, the favourable reception of which we forbear to mention, since our praise is superfluous in view of the deserved fame of this master, as well known as he is universally valued."
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:39:38 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:39:38 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 28, 2009, 11:32:26 AM
START POSTING SOMETHING SENSIBLE ON THIS THREAD !!!!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:45:59 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:45:59 AM
Quote from: edward on May 28, 2009, 11:38:43 AM
Quoted in O.E.Deutsch: Mozart: A Documentary Biography, trans. Eric Blom, Peter Branscombe, and Jeremy Noble, p 259:
From the "Wiener Zeitung", 24 December 1785
"On the second day Herr Wolfgang Amade Mozart made a change with a concerto of his own composition on the fortepiano, the favourable reception of which we forbear to mention, since our praise is superfluous in view of the deserved fame of this master, as well known as he is universally valued."
On the second day Herr Wolfgang Amade Mozart made a change with a concerto of his own composition on the fortepiano, the FAVOURABLE RECEPTION OF WHICH WE WILL NOT MENTION - SINCE OUR PRAISE IS NOT NECESSARY IN VIEW OF THE DESERVED FAME OF THIS MASTER AS WELL KNOWN AS HE IS UNIVERSALLY VALUED !!!
LOL !
This is nonsense ! In 1785 Mozart was NOT 'universally valued'. In fact, Mozart at this time had been for 4 years in Vienna in December 1785 and had hardly published ANY works, nor performed them. In FACT only 5 piano concertos of 'Mozart' were published in his entire life, only 3 at this time, and these were published the year before. The report specifically does NOT mention the 'favourable reception' !!! The very thing we are looking for !!!!!!! They even say their praise is 'not necessary'. This is laughable.
So where, exactly, IS the praise, the description of his huge reputation as a composer/performer in Vienna when the writer of the article specifically says (as you can read with your own eyes) he will NOT tell us about these very things ?
This is hogwash !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 12:06:28 PM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 12:06:28 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:45:59 AMYour post is indeed hogwash. It's very obvious to anyone what the article's author says--Mozart's reputation, reception and talents are so great that they do not need comment.
On the second day Herr Wolfgang Amade Mozart made a change with a concerto of his own composition on the fortepiano, the FAVOURABLE RECEPTION OF WHICH WE WILL NOT MENTION - SINCE OUR PRAISE IS NOT NECESSARY IN VIEW OF THE DESERVED FAME OF THIS MASTER AS WELL KNOWN AS HE IS UNIVERSALLY VALUED !!!
LOL !
This is nonsense ! In 1785 Mozart was NOT 'universally valued'. In fact, Mozart at this time had been for 4 years in Vienna in December 1785 and had hardly published ANY works, nor performed them. In FACT only 5 piano concertos of 'Mozart' were published in his entire life, only 3 at this time, and these were published the year before. The report specifically does NOT mention the 'favourable reception' !!! The very thing we are looking for !!!!!!! They even say their praise is 'not necessary'. This is laughable.
So where, exactly, IS the praise, the description of his huge reputation as a composer/performer in Vienna when the writer of the article specifically says (as you can read with your own eyes) he will NOT tell us about these very things ?
This is hogwash !
Your interpretation of it is so singularly perverse that it is obvious you know your thesis is being ripped to shreds, and you're grasping at straws.
I'll post another citation from this book (and one which you can grasp straws from if you want to look even more comical than you already do), this time from pp. 278-279:
From the "Wiener Realzeitung", 11 July 1786
On Monday, 1 May, was performed at the I. & R. National Theatre (for the first time) La Nozze di Figaro. Die Hochzeit des Figaro. An Italian Singspiel in four acts. The music is by Herr Kapellmeister Mozart.
"What is not allowed to be said these days, is sung" one may say with Figaro. This piece, which was prohibited in Paris and not allowed to be performed here as a comedy either in a bad or in a good translation, we have at last the felicity to see represented as an opera. It will be seen that we are doing better than the French.
Herr Mozart's music was generally admired by connoisseurs already at the first performance, if I except only those who self-love and conceit will not allowed them to find merit in anything not written by themselevs.
The public, however (and this often happens to the public) did not really know on the first day where it stood. It heard many a bravo from unbiassed connoisseurs, but obstreperous louts in the uppermost story exerted their hired lungs with all their might to deafen singers and audience alike with their St! and Pst!; and consequently opinions were divided at the end of the piece.
Apart from that, it is true that the first performance was none of the best, owing to the difficulty of the composition.
But now, after several performances, one would be subscribing either to the cabal or to tastelessness if one were to maintain that Herr Mozart's music is anything but a masterpiece of art.
It contains so many beauties, and such a wealth of ideas, as can be drawn only from the source of innate genius.
Some journalists liked to tell that Herr Mozart's opera had not pleased at all. It may be guessed what sort of correspondents they must be who recklessly publish such obvious lies. I believe it to be sufficiently well known that it was precisely the third performance and the frequent demand for encores to which it gave rise that led to the Imperial Decree which a few days later publicly announced that it would in future be forbidden to repeat in an opera any piece written for more than a single voice.
I am sure you will decide that a frequent demand for encores is not evidence of the favourable reception of a work. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 12:35:46 PM
Post by: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 11:45:59 AM
So where, exactly, IS the praise, the description of his huge reputation as a composer/performer in Vienna when the writer of the article specifically says (as you can read with your own eyes) he will NOT tell us about these very things ?
You do realize that it is a well known rhetorical trope to tell your audience about something by saying you will not tell them about it, right? I understand that your algorithm for dealing with contradictory evidence will probably not admit that there is such a thing a contradictory evidence, so there's only so far we can go; let's not be willfully dense, either, though. Surely you've been to a funeral or testimonial dinner where a speaker says something like "I don't have to tell you that ol' Harry was a great man." He is, in fact, telling us that ol' Harry was a great man in the guise of not telling us to spare us the boredom of hearing something we already know. It's not a particularly clever trope -- indeed, it can be a bit grating -- but there's no reason to pretend that it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 12:37:08 PM
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 12:37:08 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:06:46 AM
STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 12:52:23 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 12:52:23 PM
Quote from: edward on May 28, 2009, 12:06:28 PM
Your post is indeed hogwash. It's very obvious to anyone what the article's author says--Mozart's reputation, reception and talents are so great that they do not need comment.
Your interpretation of it is so singularly perverse that it is obvious you know your thesis is being ripped to shreds, and you're grasping at straws.
I'll post another citation from this book (and one which you can grasp straws from if you want to look even more comical than you already do), this time from pp. 278-279:
From the "Wiener Realzeitung", 11 July 1786
On Monday, 1 May, was performed at the I. & R. National Theatre (for the first time) La Nozze di Figaro. Die Hochzeit des Figaro. An Italian Singspiel in four acts. The music is by Herr Kapellmeister Mozart.
"What is not allowed to be said these days, is sung" one may say with Figaro. This piece, which was prohibited in Paris and not allowed to be performed here as a comedy either in a bad or in a good translation, we have at last the felicity to see represented as an opera. It will be seen that we are doing better than the French.
Herr Mozart's music was generally admired by connoisseurs already at the first performance, if I except only those who self-love and conceit will not allowed them to find merit in anything not written by themselevs.
The public, however (and this often happens to the public) did not really know on the first day where it stood. It heard many a bravo from unbiassed connoisseurs, but obstreperous louts in the uppermost story exerted their hired lungs with all their might to deafen singers and audience alike with their St! and Pst!; and consequently opinions were divided at the end of the piece.
Apart from that, it is true that the first performance was none of the best, owing to the difficulty of the composition.
But now, after several performances, one would be subscribing either to the cabal or to tastelessness if one were to maintain that Herr Mozart's music is anything but a masterpiece of art.
It contains so many beauties, and such a wealth of ideas, as can be drawn only from the source of innate genius.
Some journalists liked to tell that Herr Mozart's opera had not pleased at all. It may be guessed what sort of correspondents they must be who recklessly publish such obvious lies. I believe it to be sufficiently well known that it was precisely the third performance and the frequent demand for encores to which it gave rise that led to the Imperial Decree which a few days later publicly announced that it would in future be forbidden to repeat in an opera any piece written for more than a single voice.
I am sure you will decide that a frequent demand for encores is not evidence of the favourable reception of a work. :)
Edward,
It's not your fault, but your understanding of Mozart's career in Vienna and the role of his sponsors and propagandists is sheer nonsense. You believe EVERYTHING you read about Mozart, don't you ? You have simply never studied this subject in any detail.
Let me start at the beginning with this new article on Le Nozze di Figaro which you yourself posted from the article in 'Weiner Zeitung' of 1786.
But first a few FACTS.
1. 'Le Nozze di Figaro' in Vienna of 1786 was a financial and musical disaster. It was withdrawn after only a handful of performances
2. Let me quote from the admission of that same Vienna writer of that article - (I repeat)
The public, however (and this often happens to the public) did not really know on the first day where it stood. It heard many a bravo from unbiassed connoisseurs, but obstreperous louts in the uppermost story exerted their hired lungs with all their might to deafen singers and audience alike with their St! and Pst!; and consequently opinions were divided at the end of the piece.
Apart from that, it is true that the first performance was none of the best, owing to the difficulty of the composition.
In short, the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' in Vienna was a musical DISASTER. It was almost booed off the stage. Repeatedly. It was a nonsense arrangement of music that already existed, by others. This article you are reading is the best 'spin' they could put on this fiasco. The work (whose actual score is today in the Austrian National Library) is a crude arrangement of a work that already existed, and NOT by Mozart. It had newly been translated from a German work into Italian by Lorenzo da Ponte. Mozart was its hack arranger for Vienna. You should study this subject properly and not just from the most favourable single report you can find.
3. Mozart, at this time, contrary to propaganda, was NOT a successful and universally admired musical genius in Vienna. It's a pack of lies. Let me give you just a few examples of his real status from these same Vienna years.
a) In July 1783 a creditor had stopped the 'famous' Mozart's carriage in Vienna before it could leave for Salzburg demanding immediate repayment of a large debt of 30 florins. - Source - (G. Nissen, 'Mozart Biography', (1826) p.475)
b) Another huge unpaid Mozart debt from these supposedly financially successful Vienna years dated from no less than 5 years earlier (1778) for 12 Louis d'or. The bill for it was again presented to the 'hugely successful' Mozart on his return to Vienna from a visit to Salzburg in 1783 having been lent to him by philosopher Johann Georg Scherz in Strasbourg. On 6th December 1783 Mozart needed to ask his father Leopold in Salzburg to provide surety for return of this money. - (Source - 'W.A.Mozart - Abert/Stewart Spenser/Cliff Eisen p.721- )
//
By late 1785 and early 1786 (the very year of his alleged 'great fame and success in Vienna' and of Le Nozze di Figaro other events of biographical strangeness and incongruence occurred in Mozart's life. For example, on 20th November 1785 (around 7 months before Le Nozze di Figaro and during a time of his supposed success as a virtuoso in Vienna) Mozart wrote a short begging letter to the Vienna based music publisher Franz Anton Hoffmeister -
'Most dear Hoffmeister !
I address you in a state of anguish and pray you may help me with some money, of which I have need at this difficult time. Moreover, I implore you to procure the thing you already know about. It burdens me to give you such continuous disturbance, but as you know me and you know how much I expect that your transactions will succeed you will not misinterpret my brazenness and will help me as I will always certainly help you.
Mozart'
On the back of this surviving letter, in Hoffmeister's own hand he writes, 'Sent 2 Ducats'.
Irrefutable proof that the 'successful and famous' Mozart of sympathetic propagandist newspapers, even during these years 1782-6 was NOT earning lots of money and was in fact relying on nonsense promotional articles of the kind by his fraternal friends which you have provided here.
The same nonsense was to continue throughout his entire bogus Vienna decade. The 'celebrity status' of Mozart is a pure invention. And even the concerto concerts of Lent 1784 (contrary to his own letters) were inventions, fabrications.
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Lethevich on May 28, 2009, 12:59:48 PM
Post by: Lethevich on May 28, 2009, 12:59:48 PM
Nobody said that Mozart had a lot in the bank - the few previous references to money from posters in this thread were about how he frittered it away rather quickly. Successful composers rarely make as much as R. Strauss - see the case of Aaron Copeland who at one point was impoverished with no money in the bank at all. It seems quite clear that you are focusing on money because you have asked for and been hit with several contemporary articles confirming Mozart's high status among people who knew classical music.
And anyway, musical history is packed full of successful composers whose masterpieces gained a terrible reception at first.
And anyway, musical history is packed full of successful composers whose masterpieces gained a terrible reception at first.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 01:02:56 PM
Post by: Herman on May 28, 2009, 01:02:56 PM
Your outrage at this pathetic liar is understandable, however
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:06:46 AM
STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:13:31 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:13:31 PM
Quote from: Lethe on May 28, 2009, 12:59:48 PM
Nobody said that Mozart had a lot in the bank - the few previous references to money from posters in this thread were about how he frittered it away rather quickly. Successful composers rarely make as much as R. Strauss - see the case of Aaron Copeland who at one point was impoverished with no money in the bank at all. It seems quite clear that you are focusing on money because you have asked for and been hit with several contemporary articles confirming Mozart's high status among people who knew classical music.
And anyway, musical history is packed full of successful composers whose masterpieces gained a terrible reception at first.
Well, the Vienna career of Mozart is a pack of lies since his correspondence (and that of his father during these very years of his alleged fame and success) speak of him earning hundreds, thousands of ducats. A fiction which you accept when, in fact, the truth is very, very different. But that's what happens when your only sources are those of FOX News newspapers and fraternal spin merchants of Vienna, who controlled publishing then as they controlled the corporate image of the 'genius Mozart'. Why not study this issue in the detail it deserves and give yourself a fair chance to examine the actual evidence ? I have given you clear, documentary evidence that the Vienna career of Mozart was very, very different from what you have received through your television set. You don't want to accept the facts. You want only the fairy story.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:15:45 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:15:45 PM
Quote from: Herman on May 28, 2009, 01:02:56 PM
Your outrage at this pathetic liar is understandable, however
The documentary evidence is clear, indisputable and unarguable. You want spin doctors and newspaper reports. And you don't want the actual facts of the case. Your fairy story Mozart is for children.
/
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:19:44 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:19:44 PM
Herman,
STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD YOURSELF IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE SUBJECT FAIRLY. BECAUSE EVERY LEGITIMATE STUDY EXAMINES ALL THE EVIDENCE, AND NOT JUST YOUR FAIRY STORIES.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 01:20:08 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 01:20:08 PM
Robert,
Since you value the eminent Dr. Zaslaw (as you rightly should, BTW), here is what he has to say about your putative "Figaro" story. If it comes to believing you or him, I will have to make the difficult choice...
This is the same kind of disinformation that is used in American presidential election campaigns, the kind of thing that makes it possible for liars to suggest that a candidate who actually fought bravely in Vietnam (whatever you may think of that ill-fated conflict) is unpatriotic while helping to elect a man who apparently pulled strings to avoid most of his military service. The principle is simple: if something is repeated often enough, backed up by unverifiable but seemingly plausible evidence, it becomes a "fact" and is forever after out there causing problems. In the present case, for instance, the perpetrators of the Figaro nonsense have insinuated their ideas into Wikipedia...
Of course Mozart's Le nozze di Figaro was a Singspiel! At that time, any Italian, all-sung opera which was successful in one or more of the cosmopolitan opera houses in German-speaking Europe was likely to be turned into a Singspiel for the provincial theaters, with German spoken dialogue replacing the recitativo secco and the arias, ensembles and recitativo accompagnato translated into German. Don Giovanni, for example, circulated in four different German translations during the 1790s and beyond. Many places didn't have singers trained for Italian opera nor audiences who understood Italian. The same was done in German-speaking regions for French opéra comique (Grétry was the most popular composer), which already had spoken dialogue that could be translated along with the musical numbers.
The Singspiel versions of Figaro came after the original Italian version, not before it. The passage from Niemetschek (there is, by the way, a perfectly good English translation of Niemetschek's German original, so no need to mistranslate from an Italian translation) says exactly that. The dates and places of their performances, and the survival of the relevant scores, librettos, etc., are all well documented in the (serious) Mozart literature. Anyone who wishes to see a list of the performances, city by city, can look in Alfred Loewenberg's Annals of Opera, which was first published in the 1940s and has since been republished at least twice. Loewenberg's listing can't possibly be complete either, but the man certainly did his homework.
Now it is true that in 1785 (very soon after it was "unbanned," performed and published in Paris) Beaumarchais' play (not Da Ponte's reworking of it) was staged in several German cities. The following list is simply what I could gather in about 5 minutes of searching:
Der lustige Tag, oder, Figaro's Hochzeit; ein Lustspiel in 5 Aufzügen
[The Merry Day, or Figaro's Marriage, a comedy in 5 acts]
by Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais
German libretto,192 p.: music; 20 cm.
Berlin: Johann Friedrich Unger.
[Same title]
Translated by Ludwig Ferdinand Huber.
"Aechte, vom Herrn Verfasser einzig und allein genehmigte, vollständige Ausgabe!"
German libretto 59, [1], 216 p. ; 20 cm.
Kehl: J. G. Müller, ältern.
Der tolle Tag oder Figaro's Hochzeit: ein Lustspiel in fünf Aufzügen
[The Crazy Day, or Figaro's Marriage, a comedy in 5 acts]
By Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais
Translated from the 8th French edition by Ludwig Ferdinand Huber
German libretto [2] Bl., LXIV[i.e. XLVI], 140 S., [1] Bl : Frontispiz ; 8.
Dessau & Leipzig: Göschen.
If I recall correctly (but I can't check this right now), Emperor Joseph II banned the acting of a German translation of the play but allowed it to be printed. (Someone can correct me I've mixed this up with something else.)
It's been some years since I last read Beaumarchais' play, and I've never done a detailed study of what its first production was like, but a 5-act comedy performed at the Comédie française in the 1780s would most likely have called for an overture (in a pinch, almost any overture or suitable symphony movement would do), some entr'acte music (ditto), some dances (lots of them around) and settings of whatever songs were built into the play. Such music may have come along with the text of the play from Paris, or it could easily have been provided by a local Kapellmeister for a German theater. Note that the first of these three German playbooks cited above contains tunes. A serious researcher might actually want to have a look at those tunes...
*******
A very few principles of logic and of historical research:
Nothing can be proved by citing a lack of evidence. Nothing!
Ockham's (Occam's) razor: if two explanations seem to accommodate the known facts, always favor the simpler one. This will by no means always yield a correct answer, but it can help to avoid a lot of unnecessary nonsense.
Edward Dent was an admired writer, critic and professor of music at Oxford. His book was published in 1947. One can still read it for its attitudes, opinions and critical discussions, but not for a full mustering of factual information. First of all, it's not that kind of book. More importantly, 60 years of subsequent research are ignored by using Dent's book as a source for factual information. This is called cherry-picking – or is it ignorance? – or deceit? Please let this stand for many other inappropriate uses of primary and secondary source materials. Alan Tyson must be rolling over in his grave.
Documents cited ought to make sense. I don't have the time or stomach to look into the Frankfurt playbill, but why it would have been printed in Bonn is somewhat mysterious. Much more mysterious, however, is that fact that a French comedy translated into German might be bilingual in some of its characteristics, but why in the world would the characters be named and explained in an unholy mixture of French, German and Italian. The answer is: they most probably wouldn't be. But let us suppose that such a playbill exists (perhaps it does). It cannot be used as evidence for conclusions or hypotheses of any kind unless it can be understood and explained – "close reading" in English, "explication de texte" in French, "critica del testo" in Italian, "Die Textkritik" in German. This can be done well or poorly – everyone makes mistakes and overlooks or misunderstands things – but it must be done, and done in good faith.
Neal Zaslaw
Since you value the eminent Dr. Zaslaw (as you rightly should, BTW), here is what he has to say about your putative "Figaro" story. If it comes to believing you or him, I will have to make the difficult choice...
This is the same kind of disinformation that is used in American presidential election campaigns, the kind of thing that makes it possible for liars to suggest that a candidate who actually fought bravely in Vietnam (whatever you may think of that ill-fated conflict) is unpatriotic while helping to elect a man who apparently pulled strings to avoid most of his military service. The principle is simple: if something is repeated often enough, backed up by unverifiable but seemingly plausible evidence, it becomes a "fact" and is forever after out there causing problems. In the present case, for instance, the perpetrators of the Figaro nonsense have insinuated their ideas into Wikipedia...
Of course Mozart's Le nozze di Figaro was a Singspiel! At that time, any Italian, all-sung opera which was successful in one or more of the cosmopolitan opera houses in German-speaking Europe was likely to be turned into a Singspiel for the provincial theaters, with German spoken dialogue replacing the recitativo secco and the arias, ensembles and recitativo accompagnato translated into German. Don Giovanni, for example, circulated in four different German translations during the 1790s and beyond. Many places didn't have singers trained for Italian opera nor audiences who understood Italian. The same was done in German-speaking regions for French opéra comique (Grétry was the most popular composer), which already had spoken dialogue that could be translated along with the musical numbers.
The Singspiel versions of Figaro came after the original Italian version, not before it. The passage from Niemetschek (there is, by the way, a perfectly good English translation of Niemetschek's German original, so no need to mistranslate from an Italian translation) says exactly that. The dates and places of their performances, and the survival of the relevant scores, librettos, etc., are all well documented in the (serious) Mozart literature. Anyone who wishes to see a list of the performances, city by city, can look in Alfred Loewenberg's Annals of Opera, which was first published in the 1940s and has since been republished at least twice. Loewenberg's listing can't possibly be complete either, but the man certainly did his homework.
Now it is true that in 1785 (very soon after it was "unbanned," performed and published in Paris) Beaumarchais' play (not Da Ponte's reworking of it) was staged in several German cities. The following list is simply what I could gather in about 5 minutes of searching:
Der lustige Tag, oder, Figaro's Hochzeit; ein Lustspiel in 5 Aufzügen
[The Merry Day, or Figaro's Marriage, a comedy in 5 acts]
by Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais
German libretto,192 p.: music; 20 cm.
Berlin: Johann Friedrich Unger.
[Same title]
Translated by Ludwig Ferdinand Huber.
"Aechte, vom Herrn Verfasser einzig und allein genehmigte, vollständige Ausgabe!"
German libretto 59, [1], 216 p. ; 20 cm.
Kehl: J. G. Müller, ältern.
Der tolle Tag oder Figaro's Hochzeit: ein Lustspiel in fünf Aufzügen
[The Crazy Day, or Figaro's Marriage, a comedy in 5 acts]
By Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais
Translated from the 8th French edition by Ludwig Ferdinand Huber
German libretto [2] Bl., LXIV[i.e. XLVI], 140 S., [1] Bl : Frontispiz ; 8.
Dessau & Leipzig: Göschen.
If I recall correctly (but I can't check this right now), Emperor Joseph II banned the acting of a German translation of the play but allowed it to be printed. (Someone can correct me I've mixed this up with something else.)
It's been some years since I last read Beaumarchais' play, and I've never done a detailed study of what its first production was like, but a 5-act comedy performed at the Comédie française in the 1780s would most likely have called for an overture (in a pinch, almost any overture or suitable symphony movement would do), some entr'acte music (ditto), some dances (lots of them around) and settings of whatever songs were built into the play. Such music may have come along with the text of the play from Paris, or it could easily have been provided by a local Kapellmeister for a German theater. Note that the first of these three German playbooks cited above contains tunes. A serious researcher might actually want to have a look at those tunes...
*******
A very few principles of logic and of historical research:
Nothing can be proved by citing a lack of evidence. Nothing!
Ockham's (Occam's) razor: if two explanations seem to accommodate the known facts, always favor the simpler one. This will by no means always yield a correct answer, but it can help to avoid a lot of unnecessary nonsense.
Edward Dent was an admired writer, critic and professor of music at Oxford. His book was published in 1947. One can still read it for its attitudes, opinions and critical discussions, but not for a full mustering of factual information. First of all, it's not that kind of book. More importantly, 60 years of subsequent research are ignored by using Dent's book as a source for factual information. This is called cherry-picking – or is it ignorance? – or deceit? Please let this stand for many other inappropriate uses of primary and secondary source materials. Alan Tyson must be rolling over in his grave.
Documents cited ought to make sense. I don't have the time or stomach to look into the Frankfurt playbill, but why it would have been printed in Bonn is somewhat mysterious. Much more mysterious, however, is that fact that a French comedy translated into German might be bilingual in some of its characteristics, but why in the world would the characters be named and explained in an unholy mixture of French, German and Italian. The answer is: they most probably wouldn't be. But let us suppose that such a playbill exists (perhaps it does). It cannot be used as evidence for conclusions or hypotheses of any kind unless it can be understood and explained – "close reading" in English, "explication de texte" in French, "critica del testo" in Italian, "Die Textkritik" in German. This can be done well or poorly – everyone makes mistakes and overlooks or misunderstands things – but it must be done, and done in good faith.
Neal Zaslaw
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:30:23 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:30:23 PM
Gurn,
Put yourself in the position of Neil Zaslaw. You are an editor of the Koechel catalogue. Do you really expect this new work on Le Nozze di Figaro to overturn what people are being told for almost 200 years on that opera ? Really ?
I have had correspondence/exchanges with Neil Zaslaw on various issues. In fact, I wrote to him begging him to examine the 'Mozart' scores at Modena for the new Koechel edition, scores which scandalously go unreported in Mozart research. I wrote to him on various issues. And when, in 2008, a detailed study was made of the Figaro score of the premiere (the actual score used in May 1786) which was examined and analysed in detail by two leading experts in 18th century opera (Prof. L. Bianchini and A. Trombetta of Italy - who really are specialists in 18th century opera) the Mozart establishment wanted to pretend nothing had happened. We showed clear evidence this score in the Austrian National Library is a hastily made arrangement of a work that already existed in the German language, arranged in the Italian for that Vienna premiere by Mozart/da Ponte. The result of this extensive research (which involved making microfiche copies of the entire and little known score and conducting months of research on its background) was to ridicule it.
Such is the true world of 'Mozart studies'. Since, in plain fact, that same score, now in Vienna has NEVER been examined or written about by Mozart researchers in 200 years of 'research' despite the publication of a supposed 'Critical Edition' of the opera by NMA. It's ridiculous. And, similarly, no study has yet been made of the history of the text, nor even of the Singspiel version that is in the same file of that Vienna Library. The highly selective nature of 'Mozart research' is over and over again a plain fact of history.
That Figaro existed first as a German Singspiel is, to me and others who have actually read Bianchini/Trombetta's book been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by its performance at Frankfurt am Main in 1785 and even at Donaueschingen in the Black Forest in the same year. The score of Le Nozze di Figaro in Vienna (used for rehearsals and for the premiere) is very, very different from the one being falsely sold online as the supposed 'autograph' of that same work. And this nonsense is being allowed to continue, year after year, to the detriment of all integrity and honesty within music studies.
Regards
Put yourself in the position of Neil Zaslaw. You are an editor of the Koechel catalogue. Do you really expect this new work on Le Nozze di Figaro to overturn what people are being told for almost 200 years on that opera ? Really ?
I have had correspondence/exchanges with Neil Zaslaw on various issues. In fact, I wrote to him begging him to examine the 'Mozart' scores at Modena for the new Koechel edition, scores which scandalously go unreported in Mozart research. I wrote to him on various issues. And when, in 2008, a detailed study was made of the Figaro score of the premiere (the actual score used in May 1786) which was examined and analysed in detail by two leading experts in 18th century opera (Prof. L. Bianchini and A. Trombetta of Italy - who really are specialists in 18th century opera) the Mozart establishment wanted to pretend nothing had happened. We showed clear evidence this score in the Austrian National Library is a hastily made arrangement of a work that already existed in the German language, arranged in the Italian for that Vienna premiere by Mozart/da Ponte. The result of this extensive research (which involved making microfiche copies of the entire and little known score and conducting months of research on its background) was to ridicule it.
Such is the true world of 'Mozart studies'. Since, in plain fact, that same score, now in Vienna has NEVER been examined or written about by Mozart researchers in 200 years of 'research' despite the publication of a supposed 'Critical Edition' of the opera by NMA. It's ridiculous. And, similarly, no study has yet been made of the history of the text, nor even of the Singspiel version that is in the same file of that Vienna Library. The highly selective nature of 'Mozart research' is over and over again a plain fact of history.
That Figaro existed first as a German Singspiel is, to me and others who have actually read Bianchini/Trombetta's book been proved beyond all reasonable doubt by its performance at Frankfurt am Main in 1785 and even at Donaueschingen in the Black Forest in the same year. The score of Le Nozze di Figaro in Vienna (used for rehearsals and for the premiere) is very, very different from the one being falsely sold online as the supposed 'autograph' of that same work. And this nonsense is being allowed to continue, year after year, to the detriment of all integrity and honesty within music studies.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: drogulus on May 28, 2009, 01:43:45 PM
Post by: drogulus on May 28, 2009, 01:43:45 PM
Quote from: Lethe on May 28, 2009, 12:59:48 PM
Nobody said that Mozart had a lot in the bank - the few previous references to money from posters in this thread were about how he frittered it away rather quickly. Successful composers rarely make as much as R. Strauss - see the case of Aaron Copeland who at one point was impoverished with no money in the bank at all. It seems quite clear that you are focusing on money because you have asked for and been hit with several contemporary articles confirming Mozart's high status among people who knew classical music.
And anyway, musical history is packed full of successful composers whose masterpieces gained a terrible reception at first.
Yes, and how would the reception of a first performance lead one to believe that the composer didn't compose the work? How would this be relevant in any way? Stravinsky'sThe Rite of Spring caused a near riot at the first performance, and was proclaimed a masterpiece almost immediately thereafter. Elgar's The Dream of Gerontius was poorly prepared for its debut, or so I've heard, and this delayed its recognition as one of his finest works. Shall these facts count as evidence that other composers were the authors in either case? Even if some contemporaries didn't allow that Mozart was the genius he has been proclaimed continually up to this day, how should this cause us to think Mozart was a fraud?
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:19:44 PM
Herman,
STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD YOURSELF IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE SUBJECT FAIRLY. BECAUSE EVERY LEGITIMATE STUDY EXAMINES ALL THE EVIDENCE, AND NOT JUST YOUR FAIRY STORIES.
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:15:45 PM
The documentary evidence is clear, indisputable and unarguable. You want spin doctors and newspaper reports. And you don't want the actual facts of the case. Your fairy story Mozart is for children.
/
Where did you get the idea that this behavior could substitute for a dispassionate consideration of evidence? I can only conclude that you are like many other conspiracy theorists who have no idea what constitutes evidence, and so assume that the paltry scraps that arguably support you prove your case are conclusive in your favor, and that the entire world therefore is arrayed against you for nefarious reasons. There's a parallel with other conspiracies in that the real subject is not who shot JFK but rather the sinister behavior of everyone who isn't convinced you're right. So you end up attacking many of the very persons you would need to convince in order to gain the acceptance you crave. This is how paranoids undermine themselves. Not that you would get anywhere if you behaved properly, since the knowledgeable people here (and presumably everywhere) say you have no case. But in addition you ensure that you'll never get another hearing on terms you favor, which will be more evidence for the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:49:51 PM
Post by: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:49:51 PM
Drogulus,
When we examine, in Vienna, the actual music score used at that opera premiere (which miraculously goes unstudied, decade after decade in the Austrian National Library) we are able to see by close analysis of its contents and its text the fact that it is really an arrangement into the Italian language from an earlier German language work by others, hastily arranged in the Italian version by Mozart and by his colleague Da Ponte in Vienna for May of 1786.
I will happily send you or Gurn Blanston, or Neil Zaslaw a book on this detailed analysis of the score, made by two Italian specialists in 2008 (which I helped produce) and which, at this time, it seems Mr Zaslaw has not actually read. It consists of microfiche images of this same opera score, musical analysis, and a detailed study of the background to its premiere in Vienna - the kind of things which people don't really read about.
Zaslaw is a great editor. Perhaps the best there's ever been on Mozart's catalogue. But perhaps he was too busy to actually read the Bianchini/Trombetta/Newman book and judged it before he had actually read it. It seems that way to me, anyway. Understandable, of course.
Robert Newman
When we examine, in Vienna, the actual music score used at that opera premiere (which miraculously goes unstudied, decade after decade in the Austrian National Library) we are able to see by close analysis of its contents and its text the fact that it is really an arrangement into the Italian language from an earlier German language work by others, hastily arranged in the Italian version by Mozart and by his colleague Da Ponte in Vienna for May of 1786.
I will happily send you or Gurn Blanston, or Neil Zaslaw a book on this detailed analysis of the score, made by two Italian specialists in 2008 (which I helped produce) and which, at this time, it seems Mr Zaslaw has not actually read. It consists of microfiche images of this same opera score, musical analysis, and a detailed study of the background to its premiere in Vienna - the kind of things which people don't really read about.
Zaslaw is a great editor. Perhaps the best there's ever been on Mozart's catalogue. But perhaps he was too busy to actually read the Bianchini/Trombetta/Newman book and judged it before he had actually read it. It seems that way to me, anyway. Understandable, of course.
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on May 28, 2009, 02:01:42 PM
Post by: Bulldog on May 28, 2009, 02:01:42 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:49:51 PM
Zaslaw is a great editor. Perhaps the best there's ever been on Mozart's catalogue. But perhaps he was too busy to actually read the Bianchini/Trombetta/Newman book and judged it before he had actually read it. It seems that way to me, anyway. Understandable, of course.
Is your name listed on the book as one of the authors?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: drogulus on May 28, 2009, 02:43:15 PM
Post by: drogulus on May 28, 2009, 02:43:15 PM
Quote from: robnewman on May 28, 2009, 01:49:51 PM
Drogulus,
I will happily send you or Gurn Blanston, or Neil Zaslaw a book on this detailed analysis of the score, made by two Italian specialists in 2008 (which I helped produce) and which, at this time, it seems Mr Zaslaw has not actually read. It consists of microfiche images of this same opera score, musical analysis, and a detailed study of the background to its premiere in Vienna - the kind of things which people don't really read about.
Robert Newman
I read books about composers intended for moderately well-informed music lovers. The experts who comment on technical matters that are beyond me or questions of attribution would need to see this book and pronounce on its contents. What good would it do to send a book to me, leapfrogging over the people who would really know how to evaluate it?
Am I being recruited for an army of the Damnably Uninformed, fed on a poor diet of crankery so I'll march zombie-like into the line of fire of people who actually know about Mozart? It's a fine offer, and I'll give it due consideration. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 02:47:41 PM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 02:47:41 PM
Quote from: Bulldog on May 28, 2009, 02:01:42 PM
Is your name listed on the book as one of the authors?
No. He furnished a 'Free Translation with Additional Comments and Footnotes'.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on May 28, 2009, 02:52:05 PM
Post by: Cato on May 28, 2009, 02:52:05 PM
Dated 2004!
See: http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/showthread.php?t=966 (http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/showthread.php?t=966)
See also: http://www.italianopera.org/aboutE.html (http://www.italianopera.org/aboutE.html)
And: http://www.topix.com/who/mozart/2009/04/robert-newman-the-mozart-myth
An excerpt by "XAB":
"The only major classical music Board he hasn't tried to offer his loony views is Good Music Guide (GMG), most probably because he knows that he would be savaged to pieces in minutes by the canny bunch on there."
(My emphasis)
Quote"Some students of Mozart will already be aware of a series of extraordinary claims having been made in recent years on the life and career of the much neglected Italian composer Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801), who served for many years as Kapellmeister at Bonn, and is said by certain Italian writers to have been a force as great in musical history as Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven - since Luchesi is said by the same Italians to have written many symphonies which were or are today regarded as Haydn compositions, to have done exactly the same for Mozart, (this including the 'Prague Symphony' and the G Minor), and to have given Beethoven years of musical instruction without which he (Beethoven) could not have done what he did. These supposed achievements of Luchesi are said by the Italians to have been shamefully and deliberately suppressed by German musicology. (In one place Luchesi and his contribution to Beethoven is described as a 'black hole' in Beethoven biography).
It is further alleged by the same Italians that Andrea Luchesi must be credited with having written parts of Mozart's Requiem, this in 1771, since (supposedly) virtually the same theme found in the 'Tuba Mirum' of K626 is found in Luchesi's Requiem of that year, this indisputably written in Italy during that year.
As if this was not enough, the same Italians say Mozart's K297 is not a Mozart composition at all but one by Luchesi which Mozart impudently tried to pass of as his in Paris and was discovered doing so - Mozart then being forced to leave the city with the assistance of the Baron Grimm by the first available coach to Strasbourg.
Finally, it is claimed that Mozart's secret project of buying compositions from Luchesi is the root cause of the composer's debt in his final years and that it also explains the curious fact that writer after writer has claimed that Mozart was influenced by Haydn, whilst arguing that Haydn was in fact greatly influenced by Mozart - a curious claim since (the Italians point out) the Viennese of the 19th century had a joke that 'On Mondays Mozart wrote like Haydn and on Tuesday Haydn wrote like Mozart').
Such claims (and there are many others related to it) are not believed by me but I submit them here in the hope that some readers can tell us how great or small the musical achievements of Luchesi actually were during his lifetime and can also tell us whether they think the composer deserves more credit than has so far been given to him.
Robert Newman"
See: http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/showthread.php?t=966 (http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/showthread.php?t=966)
See also: http://www.italianopera.org/aboutE.html (http://www.italianopera.org/aboutE.html)
And: http://www.topix.com/who/mozart/2009/04/robert-newman-the-mozart-myth
An excerpt by "XAB":
"The only major classical music Board he hasn't tried to offer his loony views is Good Music Guide (GMG), most probably because he knows that he would be savaged to pieces in minutes by the canny bunch on there."
(My emphasis)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: c#minor on May 28, 2009, 03:39:42 PM
Post by: c#minor on May 28, 2009, 03:39:42 PM
I say let him rant.
You know Rob, I had this dream where I was flying... like really flying above the Grand Canyon. While I was flying I encountered a flying piano where I played Chopin Prelude in em. The next day I awoke, printed out some music, and learned how to play the Prelude. So I interpret this to mean that Chopin visited me in the 4th dimension while I was sleeping and suggested that I play his music.
So my theory is that Chopin is a ghost that lives in the 4th dimension haunting all those who love solo piano music while they sleep.
What are your views on this?
You know Rob, I had this dream where I was flying... like really flying above the Grand Canyon. While I was flying I encountered a flying piano where I played Chopin Prelude in em. The next day I awoke, printed out some music, and learned how to play the Prelude. So I interpret this to mean that Chopin visited me in the 4th dimension while I was sleeping and suggested that I play his music.
So my theory is that Chopin is a ghost that lives in the 4th dimension haunting all those who love solo piano music while they sleep.
What are your views on this?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 03:53:55 PM
Post by: not edward on May 28, 2009, 03:53:55 PM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 02:47:41 PMAm I the only one who immediately thought of Nabokov's Pale Fire on reading this?
No. He furnished a 'Free Translation with Additional Comments and Footnotes'.
I must admit, this shooting fish in a barrel that we're doing is rapidly paling. Newman's playbook seems to becoming smaller all the time: make outrageous claims, refuse to provide evidence for them, then demand we prove accepted historical knowledge. When we do prove it, either he ignores it or the evidence miraculously turns out to be all part of the conspiracy, and therefore discounted (as we all predicted in advance).
I've heard this form of argument all before. Last time it was talking to the shabby guy with a 6" beard, ripped jacket and jeans and terrible body odour who was explaining to all and sundry how 9/11 was a US government plot.
Anyway, Mr Newman, go ahead and let us know when you publish your imaginary book. I imagine it will have enormous intellectual clout, coming from someone who appears to have no knowledge of the primary or secondary sources regarding the life of Mozart. Untll then, enjoy your imaginative fantasy life.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: drogulus on May 28, 2009, 03:59:19 PM
Post by: drogulus on May 28, 2009, 03:59:19 PM
robnewman, can you prove that Mozart wrote any music? What's the evidence that he did? I have a suspicious nature. It seems to me you're deliberately obscuring the obvious fact that Mozart wasn't a composer at all. Why are you genuflecting before a corrupt musical establishment that wishes to exercise total authority over the minds of a docile musical public? Clearly you aren't interested in doing anything to correct the situation, no doubt because you benefit from it as well. You wish to continue the charade of Mozart the universally recognized genius by posing as a critic while really working for
Now, we plainly see you are malicious!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/A_Man_for_All_Seasons.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 04:06:48 PM
Post by: PSmith08 on May 28, 2009, 04:06:48 PM
Everyone knows that Mozart was a Viennese confectioner. They don't call them Mozartkugeln because he didn't invent them, right? It wasn't until the Jesuits, Freemasons, and the Holy Roman Empire decided, for various reasons, that the Fatherland needed a composer that they pulled Wolfgang away from his candy thermometer and his simple syrup to "write" music. The rest, as you know, is invented history.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 04:13:28 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 04:13:28 PM
Well, Robert, I am not too sure that your esteemed collaborators have quite the credentials as you say, or at the least, that they have earned them fairly. Perhaps they purchased something on the Internet to help them get through.
I know you will reject this too, but I am going to post 3 sections of a rebuttal essay by someone who I personally consider to be not only above average in applied logic, but also a pretty good researcher. Since you will undoubtedly dismiss it out of hand, it is here for the benefit of any of our members who wonder what the hell you're talking about vis-a-vis Figaro. The author is a musicologist named Gary Smith. I have been reading his various essays for several years, much to my favor.
FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa
Pt 1
UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS
1) First off, the researchers of this new Figaro tract keep making comments concerning the duly noted KT315 collection on how "Alan Tyson was aware of and urged their detailed study almost 20 years ago." Alan Tyson does speak on KT315 in his book Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores. What Tyson says on pages 325-326 instead refers to further study of into the various copyists that produced the various Abschriften (which are copies of the official score, the Hoftheater version, the standard performance version used in Vienna), not further study into the background of the scores themselves. No such commentary concerning further investigations into dating scores appears in his book. The Abschriften in fact viewed by Tyson as "secondary sources" to the primary one, which is Mozart's own autograph manuscript. The NMA ( the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe, an internationally known and highly regarded organization dedicated to the study of Mozart's works) instead reviewed the scores, and found no such "astonishing" find. They did find, at the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien, under the signature KT315, that there is the Abschrift KT315 B3, which is in fact reported in the NMA. Those wishing to read the NMA's material on Figaro can find it here:
http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/nmapub_srch.php?l=2,
Tyson's Chapter 18 concerning Figaro involves looking at the oldest of these Abschriften with a view of determining how various copyists/theaters took Mozart's Figaro and made local changes (cuts and additions) in order to fit the opera to the performances at hand. In fact, when one reads the chapter, Mozart himself (via handwriting analysis) is shown to have actually made several of these changes on a couple of the Abschriften.
2) We now have the claim submitted that Alan Tyson himself dates the German text material declared to be pre-Figaro. If this "claim" is the sum total of investigative research of the age and date of this "overlooked" German work to be found in KT315, then the paucity of the argument is revealed. As has been mentioned many times, the German work in question was instead "looked over" by the NMA, and from various internal evidence ascribed a date of 1798.
Hence, if Mozart stole from this German work, then we can only marvel that a dead man (some 7 years removed) was able to do such a credible job! I suspect that even for a genius, Mozart wasn't able to do a fully competent job, when dead. The only "claim" on dating Alan Tyson made concerning KT315 is described on page 295 in Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores by Alan Tyson as follows (with bold emphasis by me):
"Vienna. ÖSTERREICHISCHE Nationalbibliothek, KT315 (that is, from the Kärnthnerthortheater). This is a collection of thirteen volumes, the contents being different parts of the opera, copied at different dates, sometimes including music not by Mozart, as well as scoring that includes harps and trombones. Some volumes have a German text and no secco recitatives (only the words, on tipped-in blue letter paper). But others have the Italian text and the secco recitatives."
"Most of the volumes are from Vienna, on paper of the first, or more often the second, decade of the nineteenth century. But portions of two volumes, one containing Act III, and one Act IV, probably date from the 1780's, and merit investigation."
Again, the entire discussion of this chapter "Problems in the Text of Le nozze di Figaro" is that of viewing the earliest known Italian Abschriften in order to determine any differences between Mozart's autograph what changes (if any) the various theaters may have made for their specific performance runs, and if Mozart himself may have had a hand in such changes (which, it can be shown in some cases, he did).
3) If the case then devolves entirely down as to whether the German work "discovered" actually predates the Figaro manuscript, which of course drives the entire discussion (and any reason for paying $15US for this particular tract), then one should suspect that researchers would have gone down a checklist of points and investigated them in order to "bullet-proof" any such assertion. These ought to be along the lines of:
Who is the copyist of this work? This copy is a theater copy from Vienna; there are several independent reference works that would establish who created the document (though one might find the copyist identified to be, say, X4, as no name is to be found).
When did this person create their work? At least a range of time (an example might be 1795-98) would be indicated.
What is the watermark of the paper the material is written on? Newer paper mills established after the 1786 timeframe could be involved, or the paper might not be found in Vienna during that time period at all.
Pens changed after Mozart's death. One can examine the writing and determine if the pen used dates from Mozart's time, or some time later.
Singspiels often use topical references that can be dated. Are there any, and if so, do they date from after Figaro or not?
What do Count Zinzendorf and the standard periodicals/newspapers have to say?
Any better standard of musicology works off of dealing with the basics of research, and then expands upon them. Where then, are the citations for checking (or not checking, as the case appears to be) for such an earth-shattering work? Where is the irrefutable proof? If it can't be cited and documented, then it mustn't exist.
4) As a sample of research, the preliminary comments supplied for this tract states that there is another volume in Vienna indexed as KT319. This KT319 is a stepping stone of the "evolvement" of the spurious "original" German work into Figaro. As noted in these preliminary comments:
"KT 319 is a version made slightly later in Italian language (as is that of Modena), the second of these ending with the Countess Aria in Act 3 and differing in that version (as elsewhere) with what we find in the NMA version. (Neue Mozart Ausgabe). On closer examination, as said, it too can be showed beyond reasonable doubt that KT315 preceded the making of KT319 which, itself, definitely preceded creation of F791."
A note here that F791 is a very early copy of Figaro, held in Modena. It's listed in Tyson's Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores as:
"Modena, Biblioteca Estense, Mus.F.791. All four acts, in two volumes. The Act I title page runs: "Le Nozze di Figaro / Comedia per Musica / in Quattro Atti / Rappresentata nel Teatro di Corte / a Vienna L'Anno 1786 / La Musica e del Sig'- Wolfg. Ama: Mozart."
Apparently of Viennese origin, and very early; a date of 1786, or 1787, or perhaps 1788 is probable."
Hence, it is perhaps the earliest surviving theater-produced copy of Mozart's opera.
The major problem in here devolves down to this: the work KT319 called out above as a "significant step" isn't by Mozart. Pity.
KT319 is not discussed in the NMA at all, nor does Tyson so much as even mention it in his book or writings. This very well could be because, as listed in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien, Signature KT.319.Mus corresponds to:
AutorIn: Rossini
Titel: "L'occasione fa il ladro"
Fussnote: Part.
Verknüpfung: Zettel
1.Signatur: KT.319. Mus
1.SW-Kette: Musikhandschrift /
2.SW-Kette: Datensatz in Bearbeitung /
Which, of course, makes it NOT a Mozart work. Hence, the gist of the initial research is that by overturning paper studies and handwriting analysis done by the NMA, one can reverse the order of production of F791 and KT315 to indicate that which does not apparently exist. Further, one reads repeatedly that KT319 is a vital stepping stone in this switching around of dates and authorship. However, KT319 IS NOT BY MOZART, RATHER IT IS BY ROSSINI AND DATES FROM 1812!
If this is an example of conclusions reached based on research done "after months of analysis", you can easily see WHY such "conclusions" can have little if any merit. Now, one can assume that one of these researchers, well, mis-labeled KT319, and that perhaps this particular document really does exists under a different number. First off, that's not saying much for the in-depth research involved. But, as the front man for these preliminary comments has stated: "It's not I or the writers of the booklet who have invented such labels. But the Viennese Library itself." As you can plainly see, it IS NOT (note in there the word "writers", NOT researchers; very telling slip) the Library which is making claims with no apparent material sustenance behind them.
Advice: Save your $15US until verifiable proofs can be supplied.
pt. 1
8)
I know you will reject this too, but I am going to post 3 sections of a rebuttal essay by someone who I personally consider to be not only above average in applied logic, but also a pretty good researcher. Since you will undoubtedly dismiss it out of hand, it is here for the benefit of any of our members who wonder what the hell you're talking about vis-a-vis Figaro. The author is a musicologist named Gary Smith. I have been reading his various essays for several years, much to my favor.
FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa
Pt 1
UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS
1) First off, the researchers of this new Figaro tract keep making comments concerning the duly noted KT315 collection on how "Alan Tyson was aware of and urged their detailed study almost 20 years ago." Alan Tyson does speak on KT315 in his book Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores. What Tyson says on pages 325-326 instead refers to further study of into the various copyists that produced the various Abschriften (which are copies of the official score, the Hoftheater version, the standard performance version used in Vienna), not further study into the background of the scores themselves. No such commentary concerning further investigations into dating scores appears in his book. The Abschriften in fact viewed by Tyson as "secondary sources" to the primary one, which is Mozart's own autograph manuscript. The NMA ( the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe, an internationally known and highly regarded organization dedicated to the study of Mozart's works) instead reviewed the scores, and found no such "astonishing" find. They did find, at the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien, under the signature KT315, that there is the Abschrift KT315 B3, which is in fact reported in the NMA. Those wishing to read the NMA's material on Figaro can find it here:
http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/nmapub_srch.php?l=2,
Tyson's Chapter 18 concerning Figaro involves looking at the oldest of these Abschriften with a view of determining how various copyists/theaters took Mozart's Figaro and made local changes (cuts and additions) in order to fit the opera to the performances at hand. In fact, when one reads the chapter, Mozart himself (via handwriting analysis) is shown to have actually made several of these changes on a couple of the Abschriften.
2) We now have the claim submitted that Alan Tyson himself dates the German text material declared to be pre-Figaro. If this "claim" is the sum total of investigative research of the age and date of this "overlooked" German work to be found in KT315, then the paucity of the argument is revealed. As has been mentioned many times, the German work in question was instead "looked over" by the NMA, and from various internal evidence ascribed a date of 1798.
Hence, if Mozart stole from this German work, then we can only marvel that a dead man (some 7 years removed) was able to do such a credible job! I suspect that even for a genius, Mozart wasn't able to do a fully competent job, when dead. The only "claim" on dating Alan Tyson made concerning KT315 is described on page 295 in Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores by Alan Tyson as follows (with bold emphasis by me):
"Vienna. ÖSTERREICHISCHE Nationalbibliothek, KT315 (that is, from the Kärnthnerthortheater). This is a collection of thirteen volumes, the contents being different parts of the opera, copied at different dates, sometimes including music not by Mozart, as well as scoring that includes harps and trombones. Some volumes have a German text and no secco recitatives (only the words, on tipped-in blue letter paper). But others have the Italian text and the secco recitatives."
"Most of the volumes are from Vienna, on paper of the first, or more often the second, decade of the nineteenth century. But portions of two volumes, one containing Act III, and one Act IV, probably date from the 1780's, and merit investigation."
Again, the entire discussion of this chapter "Problems in the Text of Le nozze di Figaro" is that of viewing the earliest known Italian Abschriften in order to determine any differences between Mozart's autograph what changes (if any) the various theaters may have made for their specific performance runs, and if Mozart himself may have had a hand in such changes (which, it can be shown in some cases, he did).
3) If the case then devolves entirely down as to whether the German work "discovered" actually predates the Figaro manuscript, which of course drives the entire discussion (and any reason for paying $15US for this particular tract), then one should suspect that researchers would have gone down a checklist of points and investigated them in order to "bullet-proof" any such assertion. These ought to be along the lines of:
Who is the copyist of this work? This copy is a theater copy from Vienna; there are several independent reference works that would establish who created the document (though one might find the copyist identified to be, say, X4, as no name is to be found).
When did this person create their work? At least a range of time (an example might be 1795-98) would be indicated.
What is the watermark of the paper the material is written on? Newer paper mills established after the 1786 timeframe could be involved, or the paper might not be found in Vienna during that time period at all.
Pens changed after Mozart's death. One can examine the writing and determine if the pen used dates from Mozart's time, or some time later.
Singspiels often use topical references that can be dated. Are there any, and if so, do they date from after Figaro or not?
What do Count Zinzendorf and the standard periodicals/newspapers have to say?
Any better standard of musicology works off of dealing with the basics of research, and then expands upon them. Where then, are the citations for checking (or not checking, as the case appears to be) for such an earth-shattering work? Where is the irrefutable proof? If it can't be cited and documented, then it mustn't exist.
4) As a sample of research, the preliminary comments supplied for this tract states that there is another volume in Vienna indexed as KT319. This KT319 is a stepping stone of the "evolvement" of the spurious "original" German work into Figaro. As noted in these preliminary comments:
"KT 319 is a version made slightly later in Italian language (as is that of Modena), the second of these ending with the Countess Aria in Act 3 and differing in that version (as elsewhere) with what we find in the NMA version. (Neue Mozart Ausgabe). On closer examination, as said, it too can be showed beyond reasonable doubt that KT315 preceded the making of KT319 which, itself, definitely preceded creation of F791."
A note here that F791 is a very early copy of Figaro, held in Modena. It's listed in Tyson's Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores as:
"Modena, Biblioteca Estense, Mus.F.791. All four acts, in two volumes. The Act I title page runs: "Le Nozze di Figaro / Comedia per Musica / in Quattro Atti / Rappresentata nel Teatro di Corte / a Vienna L'Anno 1786 / La Musica e del Sig'- Wolfg. Ama: Mozart."
Apparently of Viennese origin, and very early; a date of 1786, or 1787, or perhaps 1788 is probable."
Hence, it is perhaps the earliest surviving theater-produced copy of Mozart's opera.
The major problem in here devolves down to this: the work KT319 called out above as a "significant step" isn't by Mozart. Pity.
KT319 is not discussed in the NMA at all, nor does Tyson so much as even mention it in his book or writings. This very well could be because, as listed in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek Wien, Signature KT.319.Mus corresponds to:
AutorIn: Rossini
Titel: "L'occasione fa il ladro"
Fussnote: Part.
Verknüpfung: Zettel
1.Signatur: KT.319. Mus
1.SW-Kette: Musikhandschrift /
2.SW-Kette: Datensatz in Bearbeitung /
Which, of course, makes it NOT a Mozart work. Hence, the gist of the initial research is that by overturning paper studies and handwriting analysis done by the NMA, one can reverse the order of production of F791 and KT315 to indicate that which does not apparently exist. Further, one reads repeatedly that KT319 is a vital stepping stone in this switching around of dates and authorship. However, KT319 IS NOT BY MOZART, RATHER IT IS BY ROSSINI AND DATES FROM 1812!
If this is an example of conclusions reached based on research done "after months of analysis", you can easily see WHY such "conclusions" can have little if any merit. Now, one can assume that one of these researchers, well, mis-labeled KT319, and that perhaps this particular document really does exists under a different number. First off, that's not saying much for the in-depth research involved. But, as the front man for these preliminary comments has stated: "It's not I or the writers of the booklet who have invented such labels. But the Viennese Library itself." As you can plainly see, it IS NOT (note in there the word "writers", NOT researchers; very telling slip) the Library which is making claims with no apparent material sustenance behind them.
Advice: Save your $15US until verifiable proofs can be supplied.
pt. 1
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 04:14:43 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 04:14:43 PM
And part 2:
FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa
UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS
Pt. 2
INTRODUCTION
In part 1 of this review, we looked at what our writers of the FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa tract didn't do to attempt to inject a modicum of factual basis to show that the 1798 German language singspiel they have "discovered" dates from before the composition of Le nozze di Figaro. This "spurious" pre-1785 work was then, according to our writers, was "stolen" in part by Mozart and changed around in order to produce the opera Le nozze de Figaro, one of the great operas of all times. Part 2 will focus on what they did do to attempt to substantiate their claims.
An important part of this discussion will draw on Chapter 18 of Alan Tyson's book Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores, published in 1987 ISBN 0-674-58831-2, which is entitled "Some Problems in the Text of Le nozze di Figaro: Did Mozart Have a Hand in Them?" Anyone not familiar with this work is urged to go out and read it at once, as first it's simply a great read, and second because it's a fine example of dedicated research that achieves great results.
In a nutshell, Chapter 18 looks at the many changes (large and small) the opera Figaro was subjected to early on in its life. Naturally, we have Mozart's autograph as the basis of what constitutes "Figaro". However, as Alan Tyson points out, this is only the starting point of this journey. For, once Mozart "turned in" Figaro to the Court theater, a series of near-inevitable changes were bound to occur.
First off, the theater for which Mozart composed the work made at least two copies; one Hoftheater master copy (the official court theater score) and then a copy (or, more likely, copies) of the vocal and orchestral parts, for use by, obviously, the singers and orchestra members. These would be the "working" copies used at the theater. Second, when rehearsals start, should a singer find a problem with part, or with notes in an aria, Alan Tyson reasoned, quite correctly, that Mozart would probably not go home to change his autograph, he would instead first himself change (or have changed) the part copies, and then these changes would be made in the Hoftheater master copy. Later, he would perhaps change his own autograph, kept at home. Now, we also find that the court copyists often made these changes by adding in extra pages with the changes noted, providing potential productions with options as to which version, aria or even scene they would choose to use.
Now, once Figaro became popular enough so that other Court theaters in the Austrian Empire would want to stage it, the corrected/modified Hoftheater copy, not the autograph, would be copied again, and sent out. Naturally, the new theater would hold rehearsals, and various changes would inevitably be made locally to their copy, sometimes including dropping some of Mozart's material entirely, and then substituting lesser arias, recitatives, etc.. Which mean that somewhere down the road this marked up copy might again get copied and sent to another Austrian theater. Now, figure that some copyist along the line might make a mistake in entering changes, and, given human nature, the error wasn't caught. As one can see, there is the potential for a multitude of minor changes to be floating about in the oldest theater copies, referred to by Tyson in this chapter as Abschriften.
Hence, the story told in Chapter 18 by Alan Tyson is his identification of the oldest known copies of Mozart's opera Figaro, the reviewing of these Abschriften by him to determine:
1) What changes occur within them,
2) What the possible chronology of these changes are,
3) Whether Mozart may have had a hand in these changes;
in order to try and see what Mozart's final performing intentions were, and in consequence to more accurately date these various Abschriften.
What can muddy the water here is that, as we know, Figaro was revived for the 1789 opera season in Vienna. Mozart made, as one would expect, several changes in his opera for this new production. Briefly, he gave Susanna a replacement aria and rondo, raised the register of Count Almaviva's 3rd Act aria to accommodate a baritone, as opposed to the original bass, and modified the Countess's aria "Dove sono" by shortening the center section and adding more vocal fireworks at the end. Naturally, with new rehearsals and a new cast, these additions and changes were added to the Hoftheater copy and parts once again. Which were again copied and sent out.
Alan Tyson reviewed only the Italian copies of Figaro, a true reading of this chapter shows that he was in the end only interested in what changes Mozart brought to the table. The NMA, for their part, were working on a parallel path, in that their efforts were geared to producing a "master text" of Figaro, incorporating all known (or at least highly suspected) changes by Mozart in order to produce a fully realized version of the opera. Neither spent much time with the inevitable German text adaptations or singspiel versions that cropped up after Figaro became popular; we have no evidence (except for one occasion) that Mozart ever dealt with any German version. All popular Italian operas saw German language versions spring up; this was the common outgrowth of such operatic popularity. Hence, neither Tyson nor the NMA found much of any value in these later German Figaro hybrids, except to note their existence, date and whether they were opera versions with German text, or German singspiel versions, without secco recitatives.
Now, on with the main text.
DATING FOLLIES
The 228 page tract "FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa" under review here, purports to show that Mozart was aware of and stole from a pre-1786 datable singspiel composed on Beaumarchais's play The Marriage of Figaro. It spends page after page showing some sort of progression from this newly recognized singspiel, located in Vienna and cataloged as KT315-1 (check this) (which the writers re-identify as MS 'A' as well as KT315a), up to the F.791 Modena copy of Figaro, purportedly showing how Mozart took a beautifully composed work (this tract centering on analyzing the just aria "Dove sono") and botched it up, inevitably leading to Some UNKNOWN Other Party (or Parties) "rescuing" Mozart and producing the version we know today, which Mozart obviously copied out to keep, which would be his autograph.
Now, as shown in Part 1, the viability of this MS 'A', being a pre-1786 German singspiel, is the obvious key to all of these 228 pages. Show it truly exists, and one has a truly solid basis to pursue the sorts of avenues our writers have trod out on. FAIL to prove this singspiel exists, given the wealth of information on Figaro, and the rest of the paper is a mere fantasy, piling speculative platitudes one on top of another.
I won't keep the surprise from you.
One only has to read two paragraphs, in the writers own words, to see what paths have been chosen. Wading through 65 pages of opening verbage in this tract, we find tucked away on page 66 this nugget of information in the first paragraph:
"MS 'A' is a copy of a previously existing but now missing version that was in Vienna between 1785 and 1786 which served as the basis for the Aria..."
A copy. Original now missing. The copy, dated by the NMA as 1798, by the way. Of a work existing in 1785/1786.
It's rather strange, but you won't find any example given of this "original" existing, in the previous 65 pages. Now, you will find, on pgs 24-26 mention of a FIVE-act play given in Frankfurt in April of 1785 called Der Lustige Tag oder Figaro's Hochzeit, but as our writers point out diffidently later on, the 1798 "copy" is the standard FOUR acts. Further, the 1785 PLAY has a character list twice as long as the 1798 SINGSPIEL. There is absolutely no bridging the gap between these two works, except that the writers wait 40 pages to lay it on you gently that the core of their argument is rapped around an unsubstantiated 1798 copy of "something" maybe composed earlier, that Mozart stole from.
If it weren't libel, so to speak, it would be funny.
The second paragraph in question here IS funny, because it includes no libel within it. Remember, the core of all 228 pages of this tract is that the writers have uncovered this pre-1786 German Figaro. Mozart, according to them, from 1786 on, took this work and stole it, mangled and wrestled with it, vainly trying to make it his own but inevitably messing it up enough so that OTHERS had to work the opera up into the gem it is today. Obviously, a post-1786 is of no value to "prove" this point, because that work would have been stolen from Figaro. It MUST be a 1785 work. So, it is with a sense of near-astonishment and then with a knowing smile we read this paragraph on page 71 (emphasis mine):
"Regarding dating, we must be prudent. For these are simple copies of originals which have long since vanished. Though of course a later version often has contents that date much earlier. We therefore do not encourage speculation about the date of KT315a"
Oh, I sure bet they don't!
Why, naturally they don't encourage speculation as to dates of composition; it would get in the way of their 228 pages of speculation BASED on the DATING of a 1798 singspiel to 1785 (which is, of course, a date)! Besides, what's the date on the frontispage of the copy of the singspiel? Per standard practice, it ought to be the date of composition, not the recopy date. But, showing that might be, well, dating, and we have to be prudent, after all. Would probably give away the game, as well. This entire tract is based on nothing but date speculation, from the mis-dating of the singspiel to the order of composition of the two versions of Figaro they so neatly have chosen, to as well the suppression/disregarding of real dates. But, IT ALL HINGES ON DATING. ALL OF IT. Disrupt their dating timeline, and this tract is nothing but a house of cards that collapses with the flick of one's little finger.
The writers simply don't want You to speculate on dates; but for them, it's no big deal.
However, this tract is then caught on the dilemma of horns. The writers have shown no way (as per the example checklist thoughtfully provided in Part 1), to authenticate their findings (How could they, since they looked just at microfilm copies). So, obviously, they can't wave scientifically proved dates in our faces as proof. They don't have anything concrete to wave, as they said. But, they've got to show SOME sort of dating, or else they have nothing at all to talk about. And as you can see, they do have 228 pages of something to talk about.
So, where does one get dates, when there are no dates to get?
The standard practice used in cases such as these is to mine the available literature and sift out such dates/information where you can find them, or rework dates/information when you can't quite get what you need. The primary literature on early copies of Figaro would appear to be found in Chapter 18 of Alan Tyson's book Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores. But not all, as we shall see.
QUOTABLE QUOTES (or not)
There's nothing like starting out by quoting authorities to spiff up the opening of any work. The English section of the tract FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa begins by quoting on page 23 of the English script Edward Dent, one of the early pioneers in Mozart's operas. Dent is quoted as saying:
'The Mozart documentation for this period is really a remarkable gap...Our main source of information on these matters is paltry indeed."
Which, of course, is what this tract intends to fill, this gap of which Dent speaks. There's only one problem with using this Dent quote to setup this looming gap. That is, what's the date of this quote? Edward Dent's pioneering book on Mozart's operas was originally published in 1913. The latest revision dates from 1946. So, the gap of which Dent speaks is either 62 years past or 95 years removed, depending when he penned those sentences. We've learned a lot about Mozart since either time; I mean, consider the gaps in the knowledge of medicine or science from even 46 years ago, let alone 95, compared to what we know today. However, using Dent's words does follow good salesmanship logic, whether it's fertilizer, deodorant or tissue: Show the potential buyer the need, then fill it with your product.
However, we only need to come across the second quoted authority to discover the type of "research" being inflicted upon us here. First, let's have the quote, assigned to the early Mozart biographer (not an "early Mozart writer" as assigned by the writers here; don't they know the difference?) Franz Niemetschek, followed by commentary by the writers:
'At this time (I.e. around 1785 onwards) the comedy of Beaumarchais's Figaro prevailed in all the theatres. Mozart was allowed by the Emperor to equally render it famous with music on the Italian version, after that a Singspiel was expanded.'
"Figaro first existed as a Singspiel!"
Right away, there are three BIG problems with this quote as given, the cumulative total of which shows us just how poorly the brand of "research" is to be done in this tract. First, let's have the real quote as written by Niemetschek:
"The French comedy Figaro, by Beaumarchais, was being acted at all the theatres at about this time and it was to change his whole fortune. Mozart turned it into an opera on the instructions of Emperor Joseph, and through the addition of music made it famous in the Italian Opera Theater." (Life of Mozart, English version 1956)
Do you see how the first "quote" has been "improved" by rewriting to support the writers preconceived theories? This is a huge deliberate error on the part of the writers, regardless of where their intent leads to. You might note that Niemetschek says "opera" in there, which the writers DON'T have him say. Now, in reviewing Niemetschek's writings concerning Mozart's operas in this biography, we DO see him refer to both Cosi fan tutte as a singspiel, as well as Die Entführung. So it's rather obvious that his choice of descriptive text for operatic works is very loose, meaning that any particular commentary for any one opera has to be judged in the context of the surrounding material. Again, something not done by the writers. Second, where did that last phrase; after that a Singspiel was expanded ? Sorry, not in the copy of Niemetschek's book that I have. That's generally called lying in the trade. Third, note that parenthesis in there. That's an editorial insertion made by the writers. Of course, you're suppose to NOTE when you make interjected comments, so we the readers don't, well, mistake the author's words for those of the quoted person, unless of course that's the intention. Since the intention of the this tract is to somehow show a pre-1786 Figaro singspiel stolen by Mozart actually existed, they have to add dates (which again they don't encourage elsewhere) to add phony substantiation. Very, very poor research methodology.
Hence, a little further along on page 27, where the writers conclude "Niemetschek's statement there was a Figaro Singspiel was common knowledge at the time he wrote (1797/8). It was an undeniable fact that may however surprise us today."
Well, no, such bad, unsubstantiated conclusions based on tampered quotes actually still surprises us. The writers have offered no proof of anything, other than a slim talent to tamper.
Moving on to page 29, we are offered this quote from a letter by Leopold Mozart (11th November 1785), where the writers have Leopold say that his son 'must work at breakneck speed on Figaro' and that 'of the music I have no doubt'. This is fine so far, but then their work is immediately suspect again by adding the quote 'he (Wolfgang) is instructed by Count Rosenberg', given here in the sense by the writers that the Count is instructing Mozart in regards to producing his opera from this putative singspiel. The standard translation of this last line by Anderson (given in full here) is instead: "So now he must set to work seriously, as Count Rosenberg is prodding him."
In other words, the Count is urging Mozart to hurry, NOT instructing theft. Again, a serious misconstruction, slanting text in order to try and prove something that does not exist, either in the text or reality, as well as failing to take in to account the context of the surrounding material.
Now, this tract keeps flailing about, attempting to show that Mozart's Figaro is a piece of claptrap, poorly written and known by the audiences of the time to be inferior work. The fact that not one written review of the time ever veers in that area is studious ignored, but the writers must also show that there weren't even any potential claims on the popularity of Figaro. Ruins the effect, you know. So, they quote the famous Edict against encores, dated 9th May:
To prevent the excessive duration of the operas, without however prejudicing the fame often sought by opera singers from the reception of vocal pieces I deem the enclosed notice to the public that no piece for more than a single voice is to be repeated is the most reasonable expedient.
and they then note that this edict really didn't apply to Figaro, then playing, since to the authors, Figaro was the subject of writers "who baldly exaggerated its true reception." Of course, the source they draw this from, namely Deutsch, accurately footnotes this Edict with "It seems likely that this decree was occasioned by Figaro -- On 3 May five items were encored, on the 8th seven, including a duet twice."
Yep, musta been a baaaad reception there.
Further, they quote the second Edict (dated 12th May:
It is hereby publicly intimated that from now on, in order not to exceed the duration fixed for Singspiel, no piece for more than a single voice will be repeated.
Then add the commentary: "This order was given to the Burgtheater but had nothing to do with "Le nozze di Figaro." It really related to the successful run of L'italiana in Londra by Domenico Cimarosa." Naturally, if you read the Deutsch footnotes, they note that L'italiana happened to have been given that evening at the Burgtheater, the day this particular Edict was posted. So indeed Figaro, with its well-received opening run, had been the driving force here. Nothing anywhere shows that L'italian or any other opera significantly contributed to these Edicts. Despite the "alternate" non-research performed here, these Edicts spring from Figaro.
It should be apparent to this point that the writers, even with easily available references to quote from, are bound and determined to throw dust into our eyes, by misquoting, misinterpreting and misdirecting the information in these sources. Once again we have to pause and ask:
If they can do this with the EASY material with no shame, what are they going to do with the more difficult-to-justify material? Would you then trust it?
At this point, the date-challenged writers have to start justifying their dates, so starting on page 41, they begin to heavily depend on Alan Tyson's work, which, as we noted at the beginning, does not touch upon the German text materials in the existing Abschriften he examined. Naturally, this point doe not concern them
First off, we are shown a slide noted KT315 which is the folder in Vienna containing first the 1798 German version Figaro (which the writers renumber MS A, then second Acts III and IV of Figaro dated to 1786 (renumbered MS B), the third listing being an incomplete undated partial copy of the opening of Figaro. Our writers then bring onstage the F791 Modena copy of Figaro, which they then renumber MS C. Having presented us these copies, they gone to state:
"When we more closely examine these versions it can be shown that Singspiel MS A was made before MS B and that Modena manuscript MS C has been made last. As Tyson has said: In sequence of appearance those of Viennese origin are more ancient and datable to 1786, 1787 or perhaps 1788."
Note the sly sequence of events here. We are presented with the 1798 German text work MS A first and then MS B second (which is the way the VIENNA library has placed them in the collection, for whatever reason), and then the Modena MS C last. Alan Tyson is then brought in to show that these three works of "Viennese origin" are datable to 1786, 1787 or 1788.
NOT TRUE.
Alan Tyson's quote from pg 293 is given below exactly, and in its proper reference and context:
(1) Modena, Biblioteca Estense, Mus.F.791. All four acts, in two volumes. The Act I title page runs: "Le Nozze di Figaro / Comedia per Musica / in Quattro Atti / Rappresentata nel Teatro di Corte / a Vienna L'Anno 1786 / La Musica e del Sigro Wolfg. Ama: Mozart."
Apparently of Viennese origin, and very early; a date of 1786, or 1787, or perhaps 1788 is probable.
So, as we can see, the writers have again stolen a quote, rewritten it and placed it in an out-of context setting in order to try and re-date this 1798 German work. Tyson say NOTHING about in in the context of this quote; he ONLY refers to dating in regards to this MS C, the Modena. This quote can mean nothing else, unless the writers are really trying to actually say that the Italian works are very early, and the German ones later, which is, in fact, true. That really doesn't really seem to be the thrust of the tract, though!
Let's take a look at another misplaced quote by Tyson. We find the next mention of him on page 68. The discussion here is how "damaged" the aria "Dove sono" is within MS B and MS C, as opposed to how divine it is in the German singspiel of 1798. The text as written in this tract runs as follows (Tyson's words emphasized):
"Tyson suggested the first appearance of this Aria of the Countess in MS A supports it being composed by Mozart in 1789: "I am convinced very seriously that we should consider the suggestion that in August 1789 Mozart.....gave the Countess a new version of 'Dove sono' (Tyson arrived at this conclusion having analyzed versions of this Aria of the Countess in manuscripts now in London and Florence that are perhaps copies of MS B coming from Vienna and written c.1803-6.)"
Really?
Hey, did you see those dots......in that quote, denoting missing words? What is Tyson really saying here? Here's the quote in full:
I am convinced that we should consider very seriously the suggestion that in August 1789 Mozart not merely supplied Susanna with a new aria and a rondo, but also provided the Count with an alternative higher version of the end of his aria, gave the Countess a new version of 'Dove sono' and organized a shortened version of the duettino that is No. 5 of Act I.
Quite a bit different now, isn't it? As the writers never mention anywhere in their tract, but is common knowledge in the Mozart lexicon, Mozart reworked the opera for it's re-debut in 1789 in Vienna. Tyson's analysis of the various Abschriften was to determine the various changes wrought by the various theaters and hence to confirm what it was that Mozart may have authorized, aside from noting any interesting changes made otherwise. 'Dove sono' was always known by any beginning researcher and/or music lover to date from the premiere; to suppose that Tyson thought otherwise is not only insulting, but such a poor piece of hack work that one should expect that such a level would not get descended to by our writers.
Let's take the next mangled quote (they DO seem to pile up, don't they?).
From the end of page 68 through the top of page 69 we read:
"The Critical Report of NMA published in its new edition of 2007 does not analyze or even describe MS KT315B [the writers MS B ed.] at the Austrian Library in Vienna and provided only a cursory description of its contents in 3 short line citing Tyson who wrote - 'this version seems not to have been discussed in the literature and it remains unpublished' and also saying that - 'portions of two volumes, one containing Act 3 and Act 4 probably date from the 1780's and merit investigations'.
There are two quotes buried in here; the first is footnoted as from page 319, the second from page 295 of Tyson's book. Please note here, that the KT315b referred to as the setup for Tyson's first quote as shown above is from the Vienna ÖSTERREICHISCHE Nationalbibliothek. Now, from page 319 as footnoted by our writers, we read the following words Tyson really wrote:
"The Florentine Abschrift is also one of many that includes an altered version of the Countess's famous Act III aria, "Dove sono." This version seems not to have been discussed in the literature, and it has remained unpublished;"
Note it's the Florentine F.P.T. 262 Abschrift talked about here, NOT THE VIENNA KT315 work! This quote has been lifted and applied totally incorrect, to buttress an ongoing fixed idea in this paper, that no one has reviewed the various Abschriften the writers claim are so vital. They have been reviewed, and nothing of such earth-shattering knowledge has been turned up.
The second quote IS given and applied correctly (small wonders), but this is done as a setup for another fact mangling a bit further along. We read just after the second Tyson quote 'portions of two volumes, one containing Act 3 and Act 4 probably date from the 1780's and merit investigations' this long-winded sentence:
At pg. 72 of the Critical Edition it quickly disposes of the subject of KT315 in Vienna by saying it dates from 1798 referring briefly again to Alan Tyson as it does so, but strangely forgetting the same Tyson on page 323 affirms that this music is actually from a time closer to 1789 (ie within the lifetime of Mozart.)
Again, note the juxtaposition of this quoting. As we showed above, the quote from page 323 is directed more or less at the Florentine Abschrift; nowhere on page 323 is any KT315 parts even mentioned. Further, the "portions of two volumes" quote in fact does refer to KT315, but NOT to the German singspiel! It refers to two volumes of Italian material. Tyson makes no dating claims for this "spurious" pre-Figaro work what-so-ever; the NMA does, and they date it to 1798.
Here's a hilarious quote, which when you read Tyson's quote, just goes to show again the apparent paucity of research one has to suffer through reading this tract. On page 70 one reads (emphasis mine):
"NMA, in its Critical Report of 2007 transcribes partially the other version of the Aria (part of MS B) between p.383-388 as did Tyson 20 years previously in his book about Mozart autographs (pp.319-320 and on p.322) considering it to be a variant. But NMA does not notice that this aria of the Countess in MS B cannot be performed as it is written there, since it is clearly the result of superimposing two incompatible and different versions of the same Aria one on the other. In MS B the musical dialogue is interrupted numerous times and you can clearly see that they are two different versions composed subsequently and linked together at a number of points. In at least two places this music is interrupted by returning to music of previous measures. Entire pages are deleted and restored again, and yet the performance is still not feasible."
Here's Alan Tyson's explanation, as found on page 321. He is speaking of the new additions Mozart added to Figaro for the 1789 revival. Note this is the page the writers DON'T cite from Tyson's book in the above paragraph (emphasis mine):
"As with the higher version of the Count's aria, it is important to note that this new version of "Dove sono" is not to be found in those Abschriften of the opera that have been identified as the early ones -- the scores in Modena, in Budapest, and in the British Library. But it is in many Abschriften of Viennese origin from the early 19th century: two in Brno, in two in the Vienna Nationalbibliothek's collection KT315 (in one of which four leaves with the new version's measures are inserted in the middle of a score containing the earlier version), and in the Royal Music Library score in the British Library. Once again, one is tempted to reach the conclusion that this revised version of "Dove sono", which evidently came from Vienna, was probably made by Mozart for the 1789 revival of the opera there."
So, this may all be a horrible mistake!
As Alan Tyson points out, both Italian versions of Figaro making up the KT315 collection have Mozart's 1789 version of "Dove sono", one version of which has the new version slipped into the old one! Now, you or I might look at this and decide that the theater was pretty smart; they give the director and singer both versions, so they can choose which one they'd prefer to use. After all, they probably rather easily could piece either version together, if it got mixed up in the archives. Alan Tyson, a musician himself who could read music, apparently had no problem understanding this concept.
Yet our writers appear to see here a bizarre and incompatible mixture of music that they seem to insist is due to Mozart's inability to compose properly.
Sorry, I'm not sold.
CLOSING PT. 2
As I've attempted to point out here, the "spurious" pre-Figaro Singspiel has no basis. It cannot be shown to exist in Vienna; the writers admit they have, at the very best, a copy of this fabled work, which they concede dates from 1798. They cannot point to ANY pre-Figaro German work that resembles it more than in passing, as any rendering of the play would. They have not tried (or do not report that they've done so) to date the German copy in the KT315 collection. They tell us on one hand that dating doesn't really matter and they'd prefer not to speculate, yet they butcher quote after quote to try and "date" their "discoveries". Because, they have to have dates to establish anything they talk about.
They have written a very long tale, attempting to show that the German singspiel of 1798 was a well written work, and that Mozart and da Ponte stole it, laboured mightily to make an Italian opera from it, failed, and that Someone or Some Other Parties finally turned this into the Figaro we all know. Which Mozart then copied for his own collection, to fool posterity.
All of us have dealt with people who, when asked to explain themselves over something they've done, will go on and on and on, spinning out a tale complete with a lot of details, people who will give them a sold alibi, a chronological accounting of their comings and goings, and descriptions that make you feel you were there as well. But once you find out they weren't really where they say they were, all the rest turns out to be just sugar-coating in order to fool you.
The writers can't establish their singspiel as pre-Figaro. Anything else derived from it is automatically suspect, especially if they botch quote after quote in an attempt to prove assertions.
Again, save your money. Watch out for the Pliocine clams.
8)
FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa
UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS
Pt. 2
INTRODUCTION
In part 1 of this review, we looked at what our writers of the FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa tract didn't do to attempt to inject a modicum of factual basis to show that the 1798 German language singspiel they have "discovered" dates from before the composition of Le nozze di Figaro. This "spurious" pre-1785 work was then, according to our writers, was "stolen" in part by Mozart and changed around in order to produce the opera Le nozze de Figaro, one of the great operas of all times. Part 2 will focus on what they did do to attempt to substantiate their claims.
An important part of this discussion will draw on Chapter 18 of Alan Tyson's book Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores, published in 1987 ISBN 0-674-58831-2, which is entitled "Some Problems in the Text of Le nozze di Figaro: Did Mozart Have a Hand in Them?" Anyone not familiar with this work is urged to go out and read it at once, as first it's simply a great read, and second because it's a fine example of dedicated research that achieves great results.
In a nutshell, Chapter 18 looks at the many changes (large and small) the opera Figaro was subjected to early on in its life. Naturally, we have Mozart's autograph as the basis of what constitutes "Figaro". However, as Alan Tyson points out, this is only the starting point of this journey. For, once Mozart "turned in" Figaro to the Court theater, a series of near-inevitable changes were bound to occur.
First off, the theater for which Mozart composed the work made at least two copies; one Hoftheater master copy (the official court theater score) and then a copy (or, more likely, copies) of the vocal and orchestral parts, for use by, obviously, the singers and orchestra members. These would be the "working" copies used at the theater. Second, when rehearsals start, should a singer find a problem with part, or with notes in an aria, Alan Tyson reasoned, quite correctly, that Mozart would probably not go home to change his autograph, he would instead first himself change (or have changed) the part copies, and then these changes would be made in the Hoftheater master copy. Later, he would perhaps change his own autograph, kept at home. Now, we also find that the court copyists often made these changes by adding in extra pages with the changes noted, providing potential productions with options as to which version, aria or even scene they would choose to use.
Now, once Figaro became popular enough so that other Court theaters in the Austrian Empire would want to stage it, the corrected/modified Hoftheater copy, not the autograph, would be copied again, and sent out. Naturally, the new theater would hold rehearsals, and various changes would inevitably be made locally to their copy, sometimes including dropping some of Mozart's material entirely, and then substituting lesser arias, recitatives, etc.. Which mean that somewhere down the road this marked up copy might again get copied and sent to another Austrian theater. Now, figure that some copyist along the line might make a mistake in entering changes, and, given human nature, the error wasn't caught. As one can see, there is the potential for a multitude of minor changes to be floating about in the oldest theater copies, referred to by Tyson in this chapter as Abschriften.
Hence, the story told in Chapter 18 by Alan Tyson is his identification of the oldest known copies of Mozart's opera Figaro, the reviewing of these Abschriften by him to determine:
1) What changes occur within them,
2) What the possible chronology of these changes are,
3) Whether Mozart may have had a hand in these changes;
in order to try and see what Mozart's final performing intentions were, and in consequence to more accurately date these various Abschriften.
What can muddy the water here is that, as we know, Figaro was revived for the 1789 opera season in Vienna. Mozart made, as one would expect, several changes in his opera for this new production. Briefly, he gave Susanna a replacement aria and rondo, raised the register of Count Almaviva's 3rd Act aria to accommodate a baritone, as opposed to the original bass, and modified the Countess's aria "Dove sono" by shortening the center section and adding more vocal fireworks at the end. Naturally, with new rehearsals and a new cast, these additions and changes were added to the Hoftheater copy and parts once again. Which were again copied and sent out.
Alan Tyson reviewed only the Italian copies of Figaro, a true reading of this chapter shows that he was in the end only interested in what changes Mozart brought to the table. The NMA, for their part, were working on a parallel path, in that their efforts were geared to producing a "master text" of Figaro, incorporating all known (or at least highly suspected) changes by Mozart in order to produce a fully realized version of the opera. Neither spent much time with the inevitable German text adaptations or singspiel versions that cropped up after Figaro became popular; we have no evidence (except for one occasion) that Mozart ever dealt with any German version. All popular Italian operas saw German language versions spring up; this was the common outgrowth of such operatic popularity. Hence, neither Tyson nor the NMA found much of any value in these later German Figaro hybrids, except to note their existence, date and whether they were opera versions with German text, or German singspiel versions, without secco recitatives.
Now, on with the main text.
DATING FOLLIES
The 228 page tract "FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa" under review here, purports to show that Mozart was aware of and stole from a pre-1786 datable singspiel composed on Beaumarchais's play The Marriage of Figaro. It spends page after page showing some sort of progression from this newly recognized singspiel, located in Vienna and cataloged as KT315-1 (check this) (which the writers re-identify as MS 'A' as well as KT315a), up to the F.791 Modena copy of Figaro, purportedly showing how Mozart took a beautifully composed work (this tract centering on analyzing the just aria "Dove sono") and botched it up, inevitably leading to Some UNKNOWN Other Party (or Parties) "rescuing" Mozart and producing the version we know today, which Mozart obviously copied out to keep, which would be his autograph.
Now, as shown in Part 1, the viability of this MS 'A', being a pre-1786 German singspiel, is the obvious key to all of these 228 pages. Show it truly exists, and one has a truly solid basis to pursue the sorts of avenues our writers have trod out on. FAIL to prove this singspiel exists, given the wealth of information on Figaro, and the rest of the paper is a mere fantasy, piling speculative platitudes one on top of another.
I won't keep the surprise from you.
One only has to read two paragraphs, in the writers own words, to see what paths have been chosen. Wading through 65 pages of opening verbage in this tract, we find tucked away on page 66 this nugget of information in the first paragraph:
"MS 'A' is a copy of a previously existing but now missing version that was in Vienna between 1785 and 1786 which served as the basis for the Aria..."
A copy. Original now missing. The copy, dated by the NMA as 1798, by the way. Of a work existing in 1785/1786.
It's rather strange, but you won't find any example given of this "original" existing, in the previous 65 pages. Now, you will find, on pgs 24-26 mention of a FIVE-act play given in Frankfurt in April of 1785 called Der Lustige Tag oder Figaro's Hochzeit, but as our writers point out diffidently later on, the 1798 "copy" is the standard FOUR acts. Further, the 1785 PLAY has a character list twice as long as the 1798 SINGSPIEL. There is absolutely no bridging the gap between these two works, except that the writers wait 40 pages to lay it on you gently that the core of their argument is rapped around an unsubstantiated 1798 copy of "something" maybe composed earlier, that Mozart stole from.
If it weren't libel, so to speak, it would be funny.
The second paragraph in question here IS funny, because it includes no libel within it. Remember, the core of all 228 pages of this tract is that the writers have uncovered this pre-1786 German Figaro. Mozart, according to them, from 1786 on, took this work and stole it, mangled and wrestled with it, vainly trying to make it his own but inevitably messing it up enough so that OTHERS had to work the opera up into the gem it is today. Obviously, a post-1786 is of no value to "prove" this point, because that work would have been stolen from Figaro. It MUST be a 1785 work. So, it is with a sense of near-astonishment and then with a knowing smile we read this paragraph on page 71 (emphasis mine):
"Regarding dating, we must be prudent. For these are simple copies of originals which have long since vanished. Though of course a later version often has contents that date much earlier. We therefore do not encourage speculation about the date of KT315a"
Oh, I sure bet they don't!
Why, naturally they don't encourage speculation as to dates of composition; it would get in the way of their 228 pages of speculation BASED on the DATING of a 1798 singspiel to 1785 (which is, of course, a date)! Besides, what's the date on the frontispage of the copy of the singspiel? Per standard practice, it ought to be the date of composition, not the recopy date. But, showing that might be, well, dating, and we have to be prudent, after all. Would probably give away the game, as well. This entire tract is based on nothing but date speculation, from the mis-dating of the singspiel to the order of composition of the two versions of Figaro they so neatly have chosen, to as well the suppression/disregarding of real dates. But, IT ALL HINGES ON DATING. ALL OF IT. Disrupt their dating timeline, and this tract is nothing but a house of cards that collapses with the flick of one's little finger.
The writers simply don't want You to speculate on dates; but for them, it's no big deal.
However, this tract is then caught on the dilemma of horns. The writers have shown no way (as per the example checklist thoughtfully provided in Part 1), to authenticate their findings (How could they, since they looked just at microfilm copies). So, obviously, they can't wave scientifically proved dates in our faces as proof. They don't have anything concrete to wave, as they said. But, they've got to show SOME sort of dating, or else they have nothing at all to talk about. And as you can see, they do have 228 pages of something to talk about.
So, where does one get dates, when there are no dates to get?
The standard practice used in cases such as these is to mine the available literature and sift out such dates/information where you can find them, or rework dates/information when you can't quite get what you need. The primary literature on early copies of Figaro would appear to be found in Chapter 18 of Alan Tyson's book Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores. But not all, as we shall see.
QUOTABLE QUOTES (or not)
There's nothing like starting out by quoting authorities to spiff up the opening of any work. The English section of the tract FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa begins by quoting on page 23 of the English script Edward Dent, one of the early pioneers in Mozart's operas. Dent is quoted as saying:
'The Mozart documentation for this period is really a remarkable gap...Our main source of information on these matters is paltry indeed."
Which, of course, is what this tract intends to fill, this gap of which Dent speaks. There's only one problem with using this Dent quote to setup this looming gap. That is, what's the date of this quote? Edward Dent's pioneering book on Mozart's operas was originally published in 1913. The latest revision dates from 1946. So, the gap of which Dent speaks is either 62 years past or 95 years removed, depending when he penned those sentences. We've learned a lot about Mozart since either time; I mean, consider the gaps in the knowledge of medicine or science from even 46 years ago, let alone 95, compared to what we know today. However, using Dent's words does follow good salesmanship logic, whether it's fertilizer, deodorant or tissue: Show the potential buyer the need, then fill it with your product.
However, we only need to come across the second quoted authority to discover the type of "research" being inflicted upon us here. First, let's have the quote, assigned to the early Mozart biographer (not an "early Mozart writer" as assigned by the writers here; don't they know the difference?) Franz Niemetschek, followed by commentary by the writers:
'At this time (I.e. around 1785 onwards) the comedy of Beaumarchais's Figaro prevailed in all the theatres. Mozart was allowed by the Emperor to equally render it famous with music on the Italian version, after that a Singspiel was expanded.'
"Figaro first existed as a Singspiel!"
Right away, there are three BIG problems with this quote as given, the cumulative total of which shows us just how poorly the brand of "research" is to be done in this tract. First, let's have the real quote as written by Niemetschek:
"The French comedy Figaro, by Beaumarchais, was being acted at all the theatres at about this time and it was to change his whole fortune. Mozart turned it into an opera on the instructions of Emperor Joseph, and through the addition of music made it famous in the Italian Opera Theater." (Life of Mozart, English version 1956)
Do you see how the first "quote" has been "improved" by rewriting to support the writers preconceived theories? This is a huge deliberate error on the part of the writers, regardless of where their intent leads to. You might note that Niemetschek says "opera" in there, which the writers DON'T have him say. Now, in reviewing Niemetschek's writings concerning Mozart's operas in this biography, we DO see him refer to both Cosi fan tutte as a singspiel, as well as Die Entführung. So it's rather obvious that his choice of descriptive text for operatic works is very loose, meaning that any particular commentary for any one opera has to be judged in the context of the surrounding material. Again, something not done by the writers. Second, where did that last phrase; after that a Singspiel was expanded ? Sorry, not in the copy of Niemetschek's book that I have. That's generally called lying in the trade. Third, note that parenthesis in there. That's an editorial insertion made by the writers. Of course, you're suppose to NOTE when you make interjected comments, so we the readers don't, well, mistake the author's words for those of the quoted person, unless of course that's the intention. Since the intention of the this tract is to somehow show a pre-1786 Figaro singspiel stolen by Mozart actually existed, they have to add dates (which again they don't encourage elsewhere) to add phony substantiation. Very, very poor research methodology.
Hence, a little further along on page 27, where the writers conclude "Niemetschek's statement there was a Figaro Singspiel was common knowledge at the time he wrote (1797/8). It was an undeniable fact that may however surprise us today."
Well, no, such bad, unsubstantiated conclusions based on tampered quotes actually still surprises us. The writers have offered no proof of anything, other than a slim talent to tamper.
Moving on to page 29, we are offered this quote from a letter by Leopold Mozart (11th November 1785), where the writers have Leopold say that his son 'must work at breakneck speed on Figaro' and that 'of the music I have no doubt'. This is fine so far, but then their work is immediately suspect again by adding the quote 'he (Wolfgang) is instructed by Count Rosenberg', given here in the sense by the writers that the Count is instructing Mozart in regards to producing his opera from this putative singspiel. The standard translation of this last line by Anderson (given in full here) is instead: "So now he must set to work seriously, as Count Rosenberg is prodding him."
In other words, the Count is urging Mozart to hurry, NOT instructing theft. Again, a serious misconstruction, slanting text in order to try and prove something that does not exist, either in the text or reality, as well as failing to take in to account the context of the surrounding material.
Now, this tract keeps flailing about, attempting to show that Mozart's Figaro is a piece of claptrap, poorly written and known by the audiences of the time to be inferior work. The fact that not one written review of the time ever veers in that area is studious ignored, but the writers must also show that there weren't even any potential claims on the popularity of Figaro. Ruins the effect, you know. So, they quote the famous Edict against encores, dated 9th May:
To prevent the excessive duration of the operas, without however prejudicing the fame often sought by opera singers from the reception of vocal pieces I deem the enclosed notice to the public that no piece for more than a single voice is to be repeated is the most reasonable expedient.
and they then note that this edict really didn't apply to Figaro, then playing, since to the authors, Figaro was the subject of writers "who baldly exaggerated its true reception." Of course, the source they draw this from, namely Deutsch, accurately footnotes this Edict with "It seems likely that this decree was occasioned by Figaro -- On 3 May five items were encored, on the 8th seven, including a duet twice."
Yep, musta been a baaaad reception there.
Further, they quote the second Edict (dated 12th May:
It is hereby publicly intimated that from now on, in order not to exceed the duration fixed for Singspiel, no piece for more than a single voice will be repeated.
Then add the commentary: "This order was given to the Burgtheater but had nothing to do with "Le nozze di Figaro." It really related to the successful run of L'italiana in Londra by Domenico Cimarosa." Naturally, if you read the Deutsch footnotes, they note that L'italiana happened to have been given that evening at the Burgtheater, the day this particular Edict was posted. So indeed Figaro, with its well-received opening run, had been the driving force here. Nothing anywhere shows that L'italian or any other opera significantly contributed to these Edicts. Despite the "alternate" non-research performed here, these Edicts spring from Figaro.
It should be apparent to this point that the writers, even with easily available references to quote from, are bound and determined to throw dust into our eyes, by misquoting, misinterpreting and misdirecting the information in these sources. Once again we have to pause and ask:
If they can do this with the EASY material with no shame, what are they going to do with the more difficult-to-justify material? Would you then trust it?
At this point, the date-challenged writers have to start justifying their dates, so starting on page 41, they begin to heavily depend on Alan Tyson's work, which, as we noted at the beginning, does not touch upon the German text materials in the existing Abschriften he examined. Naturally, this point doe not concern them
First off, we are shown a slide noted KT315 which is the folder in Vienna containing first the 1798 German version Figaro (which the writers renumber MS A, then second Acts III and IV of Figaro dated to 1786 (renumbered MS B), the third listing being an incomplete undated partial copy of the opening of Figaro. Our writers then bring onstage the F791 Modena copy of Figaro, which they then renumber MS C. Having presented us these copies, they gone to state:
"When we more closely examine these versions it can be shown that Singspiel MS A was made before MS B and that Modena manuscript MS C has been made last. As Tyson has said: In sequence of appearance those of Viennese origin are more ancient and datable to 1786, 1787 or perhaps 1788."
Note the sly sequence of events here. We are presented with the 1798 German text work MS A first and then MS B second (which is the way the VIENNA library has placed them in the collection, for whatever reason), and then the Modena MS C last. Alan Tyson is then brought in to show that these three works of "Viennese origin" are datable to 1786, 1787 or 1788.
NOT TRUE.
Alan Tyson's quote from pg 293 is given below exactly, and in its proper reference and context:
(1) Modena, Biblioteca Estense, Mus.F.791. All four acts, in two volumes. The Act I title page runs: "Le Nozze di Figaro / Comedia per Musica / in Quattro Atti / Rappresentata nel Teatro di Corte / a Vienna L'Anno 1786 / La Musica e del Sigro Wolfg. Ama: Mozart."
Apparently of Viennese origin, and very early; a date of 1786, or 1787, or perhaps 1788 is probable.
So, as we can see, the writers have again stolen a quote, rewritten it and placed it in an out-of context setting in order to try and re-date this 1798 German work. Tyson say NOTHING about in in the context of this quote; he ONLY refers to dating in regards to this MS C, the Modena. This quote can mean nothing else, unless the writers are really trying to actually say that the Italian works are very early, and the German ones later, which is, in fact, true. That really doesn't really seem to be the thrust of the tract, though!
Let's take a look at another misplaced quote by Tyson. We find the next mention of him on page 68. The discussion here is how "damaged" the aria "Dove sono" is within MS B and MS C, as opposed to how divine it is in the German singspiel of 1798. The text as written in this tract runs as follows (Tyson's words emphasized):
"Tyson suggested the first appearance of this Aria of the Countess in MS A supports it being composed by Mozart in 1789: "I am convinced very seriously that we should consider the suggestion that in August 1789 Mozart.....gave the Countess a new version of 'Dove sono' (Tyson arrived at this conclusion having analyzed versions of this Aria of the Countess in manuscripts now in London and Florence that are perhaps copies of MS B coming from Vienna and written c.1803-6.)"
Really?
Hey, did you see those dots......in that quote, denoting missing words? What is Tyson really saying here? Here's the quote in full:
I am convinced that we should consider very seriously the suggestion that in August 1789 Mozart not merely supplied Susanna with a new aria and a rondo, but also provided the Count with an alternative higher version of the end of his aria, gave the Countess a new version of 'Dove sono' and organized a shortened version of the duettino that is No. 5 of Act I.
Quite a bit different now, isn't it? As the writers never mention anywhere in their tract, but is common knowledge in the Mozart lexicon, Mozart reworked the opera for it's re-debut in 1789 in Vienna. Tyson's analysis of the various Abschriften was to determine the various changes wrought by the various theaters and hence to confirm what it was that Mozart may have authorized, aside from noting any interesting changes made otherwise. 'Dove sono' was always known by any beginning researcher and/or music lover to date from the premiere; to suppose that Tyson thought otherwise is not only insulting, but such a poor piece of hack work that one should expect that such a level would not get descended to by our writers.
Let's take the next mangled quote (they DO seem to pile up, don't they?).
From the end of page 68 through the top of page 69 we read:
"The Critical Report of NMA published in its new edition of 2007 does not analyze or even describe MS KT315B [the writers MS B ed.] at the Austrian Library in Vienna and provided only a cursory description of its contents in 3 short line citing Tyson who wrote - 'this version seems not to have been discussed in the literature and it remains unpublished' and also saying that - 'portions of two volumes, one containing Act 3 and Act 4 probably date from the 1780's and merit investigations'.
There are two quotes buried in here; the first is footnoted as from page 319, the second from page 295 of Tyson's book. Please note here, that the KT315b referred to as the setup for Tyson's first quote as shown above is from the Vienna ÖSTERREICHISCHE Nationalbibliothek. Now, from page 319 as footnoted by our writers, we read the following words Tyson really wrote:
"The Florentine Abschrift is also one of many that includes an altered version of the Countess's famous Act III aria, "Dove sono." This version seems not to have been discussed in the literature, and it has remained unpublished;"
Note it's the Florentine F.P.T. 262 Abschrift talked about here, NOT THE VIENNA KT315 work! This quote has been lifted and applied totally incorrect, to buttress an ongoing fixed idea in this paper, that no one has reviewed the various Abschriften the writers claim are so vital. They have been reviewed, and nothing of such earth-shattering knowledge has been turned up.
The second quote IS given and applied correctly (small wonders), but this is done as a setup for another fact mangling a bit further along. We read just after the second Tyson quote 'portions of two volumes, one containing Act 3 and Act 4 probably date from the 1780's and merit investigations' this long-winded sentence:
At pg. 72 of the Critical Edition it quickly disposes of the subject of KT315 in Vienna by saying it dates from 1798 referring briefly again to Alan Tyson as it does so, but strangely forgetting the same Tyson on page 323 affirms that this music is actually from a time closer to 1789 (ie within the lifetime of Mozart.)
Again, note the juxtaposition of this quoting. As we showed above, the quote from page 323 is directed more or less at the Florentine Abschrift; nowhere on page 323 is any KT315 parts even mentioned. Further, the "portions of two volumes" quote in fact does refer to KT315, but NOT to the German singspiel! It refers to two volumes of Italian material. Tyson makes no dating claims for this "spurious" pre-Figaro work what-so-ever; the NMA does, and they date it to 1798.
Here's a hilarious quote, which when you read Tyson's quote, just goes to show again the apparent paucity of research one has to suffer through reading this tract. On page 70 one reads (emphasis mine):
"NMA, in its Critical Report of 2007 transcribes partially the other version of the Aria (part of MS B) between p.383-388 as did Tyson 20 years previously in his book about Mozart autographs (pp.319-320 and on p.322) considering it to be a variant. But NMA does not notice that this aria of the Countess in MS B cannot be performed as it is written there, since it is clearly the result of superimposing two incompatible and different versions of the same Aria one on the other. In MS B the musical dialogue is interrupted numerous times and you can clearly see that they are two different versions composed subsequently and linked together at a number of points. In at least two places this music is interrupted by returning to music of previous measures. Entire pages are deleted and restored again, and yet the performance is still not feasible."
Here's Alan Tyson's explanation, as found on page 321. He is speaking of the new additions Mozart added to Figaro for the 1789 revival. Note this is the page the writers DON'T cite from Tyson's book in the above paragraph (emphasis mine):
"As with the higher version of the Count's aria, it is important to note that this new version of "Dove sono" is not to be found in those Abschriften of the opera that have been identified as the early ones -- the scores in Modena, in Budapest, and in the British Library. But it is in many Abschriften of Viennese origin from the early 19th century: two in Brno, in two in the Vienna Nationalbibliothek's collection KT315 (in one of which four leaves with the new version's measures are inserted in the middle of a score containing the earlier version), and in the Royal Music Library score in the British Library. Once again, one is tempted to reach the conclusion that this revised version of "Dove sono", which evidently came from Vienna, was probably made by Mozart for the 1789 revival of the opera there."
So, this may all be a horrible mistake!
As Alan Tyson points out, both Italian versions of Figaro making up the KT315 collection have Mozart's 1789 version of "Dove sono", one version of which has the new version slipped into the old one! Now, you or I might look at this and decide that the theater was pretty smart; they give the director and singer both versions, so they can choose which one they'd prefer to use. After all, they probably rather easily could piece either version together, if it got mixed up in the archives. Alan Tyson, a musician himself who could read music, apparently had no problem understanding this concept.
Yet our writers appear to see here a bizarre and incompatible mixture of music that they seem to insist is due to Mozart's inability to compose properly.
Sorry, I'm not sold.
CLOSING PT. 2
As I've attempted to point out here, the "spurious" pre-Figaro Singspiel has no basis. It cannot be shown to exist in Vienna; the writers admit they have, at the very best, a copy of this fabled work, which they concede dates from 1798. They cannot point to ANY pre-Figaro German work that resembles it more than in passing, as any rendering of the play would. They have not tried (or do not report that they've done so) to date the German copy in the KT315 collection. They tell us on one hand that dating doesn't really matter and they'd prefer not to speculate, yet they butcher quote after quote to try and "date" their "discoveries". Because, they have to have dates to establish anything they talk about.
They have written a very long tale, attempting to show that the German singspiel of 1798 was a well written work, and that Mozart and da Ponte stole it, laboured mightily to make an Italian opera from it, failed, and that Someone or Some Other Parties finally turned this into the Figaro we all know. Which Mozart then copied for his own collection, to fool posterity.
All of us have dealt with people who, when asked to explain themselves over something they've done, will go on and on and on, spinning out a tale complete with a lot of details, people who will give them a sold alibi, a chronological accounting of their comings and goings, and descriptions that make you feel you were there as well. But once you find out they weren't really where they say they were, all the rest turns out to be just sugar-coating in order to fool you.
The writers can't establish their singspiel as pre-Figaro. Anything else derived from it is automatically suspect, especially if they botch quote after quote in an attempt to prove assertions.
Again, save your money. Watch out for the Pliocine clams.
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 04:16:09 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 04:16:09 PM
And finally, part 3:
FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa
UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS
Pt. 3
INTRODUCTION
In part 1 of this review, we looked at what our writers of the FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa tract didn't do to attempt to inject a modicum of factual basis to show that the 1798 German language singspiel they have "discovered" dates from before the composition of Le nozze di Figaro. This "spurious" pre-1785 work was then, according to our writers, was "stolen" in part by Mozart and changed around in order to produce the opera Le nozze de Figaro, one of the great operas of all times. Part 2 focused on what they did do to attempt to substantiate their claims, and the mangled quoting of secondary sources they made in order to attempt to do so. Part 3 takes a look at what they apparently found in viewing the aria "Dove sono" in the KT315b volumes, which is the writer's MS B.
"Dove sono" AS FOUND
The case here is fairly straight forward. The writers of the tract FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa are attempting to lay out a chain of events, purporting to show that their MS A (the NMA KT315B3; note the proper order, the singspiel is the last of the three works in this collection), is a pre-1786 (i.e. pre-Figaro) German singspiel, stolen by Mozart and badly reworked by him, and then ultimately salvaged into a great work by SOMEONE (or somebody) else. Mozart then ultimately copied out this final version in order to produce a forged autograph of his own work.
No substantiation that will bear any scrutiny shows any dating of any type for this particular singspiel to be a pre-1786 work. Neither by scientific dating methodology (which the writers claim to have used, but didn't) or by outstanding datable copies can this 1798 copy (as the writers agree that it is; see pg 66 of their tract) be dated other than it is, which is 1798.
The second point concerns Mozart's aria "Dove sono" as found in manuscript in the writer's MS B in the KT315 collection. The writers claim that, as they have found this aria in that collection, that it is ineptly written, poorly constructed and badly resolved; in fact the claim is that, as is, it is unplayable as a cohesive unit. Hence, their claim that it is really a pastiche work, of which Mozart is the poorer contributor.
What the reader needs to understand here is this:
Assuming that this particular aria section (i.e. "Dove sono") is part of a Hoftheater copy (which, as mentioned before in Pts 1 and 2, would be an official Court theater copy used for staging the work), you would have at least eight different variables involved to consider here for dating, cohesiveness and authenticity.
1) The original 1786 version of "Dove sono", as copied by the theater copyist(s).
2) The 1789 version of "Dove sono" known to have been a modification of the 1786 version, done to exploit the differing talents of the 1789 singer, Catarina Cavalieri. Alan Tyson (as noted earlier on page 321 of his book Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores), states that when he examined this section, he found that "...four leaves with the new version's measures are inserted in the middle of the score containing the earlier version." (Obviously, this would allow the theater to mount either version, should they want to choose to do so.)
3) Changes, if any, made to the 1786 "Dove sono" version, done from 1786 to 1789.
4) Changes, if any, made to the 1789 "Dove sono" version, done from 1789 onwards.
5) Changes, if any, made to the 1786 "Dove sono" version, done from 1789 onwards.
6) Identifiable copyist errors, if any, to all of the above.
7) Missing pages (whole or in part) if any, and which ones.
8) Mozart's actual involvement in any change, which must involve handwriting analysis.
To be sure, all of the 8 points above are going to involve paper watermark analysis and copyist handwriting identification, which is far easier now than 25 years ago, thanks to Alan Tyson and Cliff Eisen, respectively.
Therefore, if one is going to actually consider whether Mozart is, or is not, an inept composer, then each of these points must be addressed, identified and cleared, in order to state with conviction and proof whether or not one of the greatest composers known is, in fact, a hack.
The tract FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa does not address any of these issues systematically, or otherwise. In fact, they cannot accept the fact that Mozart even revised "Dove sono" in 1789 for Figaro's documented revival in Vienna (see pgs 68-69 in the tract). None of these points are thus cleared up. Granted, all sorts of problems are pointed out with the "Dove sono" material the writers reviewed in KT315B2, but the obvious points noted above don't seem to have bothered any one of the three.
Since the writers did not perform the due diligence required, their comments are, in the end, simply that: Commentary Opinions. Which should therefore show that such commentary ought not to be taken any more seriously than as being unsubstantiated opinion.
Gary Smith
8)
FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa
UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS
Pt. 3
INTRODUCTION
In part 1 of this review, we looked at what our writers of the FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa tract didn't do to attempt to inject a modicum of factual basis to show that the 1798 German language singspiel they have "discovered" dates from before the composition of Le nozze di Figaro. This "spurious" pre-1785 work was then, according to our writers, was "stolen" in part by Mozart and changed around in order to produce the opera Le nozze de Figaro, one of the great operas of all times. Part 2 focused on what they did do to attempt to substantiate their claims, and the mangled quoting of secondary sources they made in order to attempt to do so. Part 3 takes a look at what they apparently found in viewing the aria "Dove sono" in the KT315b volumes, which is the writer's MS B.
"Dove sono" AS FOUND
The case here is fairly straight forward. The writers of the tract FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa are attempting to lay out a chain of events, purporting to show that their MS A (the NMA KT315B3; note the proper order, the singspiel is the last of the three works in this collection), is a pre-1786 (i.e. pre-Figaro) German singspiel, stolen by Mozart and badly reworked by him, and then ultimately salvaged into a great work by SOMEONE (or somebody) else. Mozart then ultimately copied out this final version in order to produce a forged autograph of his own work.
No substantiation that will bear any scrutiny shows any dating of any type for this particular singspiel to be a pre-1786 work. Neither by scientific dating methodology (which the writers claim to have used, but didn't) or by outstanding datable copies can this 1798 copy (as the writers agree that it is; see pg 66 of their tract) be dated other than it is, which is 1798.
The second point concerns Mozart's aria "Dove sono" as found in manuscript in the writer's MS B in the KT315 collection. The writers claim that, as they have found this aria in that collection, that it is ineptly written, poorly constructed and badly resolved; in fact the claim is that, as is, it is unplayable as a cohesive unit. Hence, their claim that it is really a pastiche work, of which Mozart is the poorer contributor.
What the reader needs to understand here is this:
Assuming that this particular aria section (i.e. "Dove sono") is part of a Hoftheater copy (which, as mentioned before in Pts 1 and 2, would be an official Court theater copy used for staging the work), you would have at least eight different variables involved to consider here for dating, cohesiveness and authenticity.
1) The original 1786 version of "Dove sono", as copied by the theater copyist(s).
2) The 1789 version of "Dove sono" known to have been a modification of the 1786 version, done to exploit the differing talents of the 1789 singer, Catarina Cavalieri. Alan Tyson (as noted earlier on page 321 of his book Mozart: Study of the Autograph Scores), states that when he examined this section, he found that "...four leaves with the new version's measures are inserted in the middle of the score containing the earlier version." (Obviously, this would allow the theater to mount either version, should they want to choose to do so.)
3) Changes, if any, made to the 1786 "Dove sono" version, done from 1786 to 1789.
4) Changes, if any, made to the 1789 "Dove sono" version, done from 1789 onwards.
5) Changes, if any, made to the 1786 "Dove sono" version, done from 1789 onwards.
6) Identifiable copyist errors, if any, to all of the above.
7) Missing pages (whole or in part) if any, and which ones.
8) Mozart's actual involvement in any change, which must involve handwriting analysis.
To be sure, all of the 8 points above are going to involve paper watermark analysis and copyist handwriting identification, which is far easier now than 25 years ago, thanks to Alan Tyson and Cliff Eisen, respectively.
Therefore, if one is going to actually consider whether Mozart is, or is not, an inept composer, then each of these points must be addressed, identified and cleared, in order to state with conviction and proof whether or not one of the greatest composers known is, in fact, a hack.
The tract FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa does not address any of these issues systematically, or otherwise. In fact, they cannot accept the fact that Mozart even revised "Dove sono" in 1789 for Figaro's documented revival in Vienna (see pgs 68-69 in the tract). None of these points are thus cleared up. Granted, all sorts of problems are pointed out with the "Dove sono" material the writers reviewed in KT315B2, but the obvious points noted above don't seem to have bothered any one of the three.
Since the writers did not perform the due diligence required, their comments are, in the end, simply that: Commentary Opinions. Which should therefore show that such commentary ought not to be taken any more seriously than as being unsubstantiated opinion.
Gary Smith
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 04:18:08 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 04:18:08 PM
I know you prefer long posts only when they are authored by your esteemed self, but I really needed to do this, not least to save myself from having to research and type it all out myself. BTW, this is what the product of honest research is supposed to look like.... :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Collegium Musicum 90 / Standage - Marcello Concerto #3 in b for Violin La Cetra 3rd mvmt
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Collegium Musicum 90 / Standage - Marcello Concerto #3 in b for Violin La Cetra 3rd mvmt
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on May 28, 2009, 04:20:51 PM
Post by: bhodges on May 28, 2009, 04:20:51 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 04:18:08 PM
BTW, this is what the product of honest research is supposed to look like.... :)
Word. 8)
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 10:49:32 PM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 28, 2009, 10:49:32 PM
"Gary Smith is obviously blinded by the Mozart fabrication."
The opening sentence of Mr Newman's lengthy rebuttal.
This thread has been very useful in that it has made me want to listen to Mozart more closely. I think I'll give Figaro a spin again, this coming weekend.
The opening sentence of Mr Newman's lengthy rebuttal.
This thread has been very useful in that it has made me want to listen to Mozart more closely. I think I'll give Figaro a spin again, this coming weekend.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on May 28, 2009, 11:06:14 PM
Post by: snyprrr on May 28, 2009, 11:06:14 PM
y'know, it get's really quiet and peaceful aroun' here at night.
I'm jus' moppin' up after y'party here earlier...m,mmm, y'all must've had sooome glad spankin' good time. Teeth everywhere...m,mmm.
uh, uh...like I said, gets reeeal peaceful roun' here at night. Oh, by t'way, I'm raisin' the bar for tomorrow's festivities, so don't none y'all bump y'haids on the way in. Y'hear?...awright now, g'night y'all.
The Janitor
I'm jus' moppin' up after y'party here earlier...m,mmm, y'all must've had sooome glad spankin' good time. Teeth everywhere...m,mmm.
uh, uh...like I said, gets reeeal peaceful roun' here at night. Oh, by t'way, I'm raisin' the bar for tomorrow's festivities, so don't none y'all bump y'haids on the way in. Y'hear?...awright now, g'night y'all.
The Janitor
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 01:36:59 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 01:36:59 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 28, 2009, 04:18:08 PM
I know you prefer long posts only when they are authored by your esteemed self, but I really needed to do this, not least to save myself from having to research and type it all out myself. BTW, this is what the product of honest research is supposed to look like.... :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Collegium Musicum 90 / Standage - Marcello Concerto #3 in b for Violin La Cetra 3rd mvmt
Gurn Blanston,
In the middle of last year (2008) two Italian experts on 18th century musical operatic scores, Professor Luca Bianchini and Professor Anna Trombetta (both with decades of experience of working with operas of that period for public performance in Italy) and myself, Robert Newman, collaborated on a research project which was to last several months and which ended in us producing a book entitled 'Figaro - L'Aria della Contessa'. A book on the world famous opera, 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. Today attributed to W.A. Mozart. (Focusing in detail on the manuscript of the aria of the Countess from the actual score used at the premiere in May of 1786 in Vienna).
http://www.lulu.com/content/2710313
But this work, we are disappointed to learn, neither your goodself, nor your highly recommended colleague Gary Smith, nor even the highly respected Mozart catalogue editor Neil Zaslaw read in any detail ! As an honest confession why not admit this fact ? And a year later this still remains true. The Figaro book (which we have donated more copies of than we have sold commercially) contains amongst many things images of the music score used for rehearsals and for the actual premiere of May 1786 - the one used by Mozart himself - and is today held at the Austrian National Library in Vienna. We were able to microfiche the complete document.
For Prof. Zaslaw (as we saw in your post of yesterday) to imply that we, its 3 authors, have been 'liars' is bad enough. Since, as said, Zaslaw has not read the book nor ever examined its detailed analysis. His loose comments do not even refer to a single page of it ! For Gary Smith to write for disciples of Mozart Forum as he did (not having read the book or studied its contents either) is almost as bizzare. And for you, Gurn, to write as you now do - this is the 'icing on the cake' of how the corporate face of the Mozart industry operates these days !
Gary Smith's articles in defence of Mozart's authorship of 'Figaro' tried to condemn our work immediately after its publication but were almost laughably inaccurate. They are some of the funniest things ever written by a person who clearly does not know the contents of the book he is criticising !!!!!! And if you were fair enough to post my replies to Gary Smith's articles (which I sent to him in reply within a few days of him writing them) we could all see this fairly and clearly. Smith's posts against the Figaro book were a farce. So filled with generalisms and inaccuracies I'm surprised you remind us of this public relations disaster. Why not post my replies to Gary Smith right here on this thread, Gurn ?
The truth is 3 researchers made a remarkable series of discoveries on the history and the score of 'Figaro' which first of all exposed the truth that hardly anyone has studied that most famous opera score in almost 200 years. A fact we see confirmed by detailed study of the NMA 'Critical Edition' of that same opera - a document made by 'Mozart experts' (so-called) which discusses Figaro at great length without ever examining the background to the score ! And which does not say anything of the history of its text. Nor does the well known 'Critical Edition' of Figaro (editor Ulrich Leisinger) tell us of the association of this Vienna score with an early performance known at Donaueschingen, or its association with the early Figaro score today held at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy ! The glaring deficiencies in the NMA 'Critical Report' on Figaro are systematic and they are amazing. Needless to say, today, on the internet, we can buy what is today being called the 'Mozart autograph score of Le Nozze di Figaro' from Packard Institute - this for the Mozartean faithful -though THAT score was made much later than the premiere of that disastrous opera in Vienna and is (as can be proved) a composite later version and NOT an autograph at all ! This is further confirmed by the text we see in that online Packard score (being sold today at hundreds of dollars in hard copy to the Mozartean faithful) since it's NOT the score used by Mozart in Vienna in May of 1786 and is NOT therefore an 'autograph' at all !! And all of this is being done in the name of musicological 'truthfulness and honesty' !!!! At the expense of calling us 'liars'.
In almost 200 years this same score used in the premiere of Figaro and today held at the Austrian National Library has hardly been studied. This was said almost 20 years ago by leading musicologists themselves. Including Alan Tyson. Our book provides images of this score for general appreciation for almost the first time, together with detailed musical analysis of its musical and textual contents, and it provides little known background information to the premiere in Vienna of the opera on 1st May 1786. And you've never read it. It cost us dearly.
Please do this forum and music students a service. Give me an email address so I can post you 3 complimentary copies of the book in question without further delay. One for your goodself, one for Prof. Zaslaw, and one for Gary Smith. So that years will not pass with this hostility, this amazing ignorance, with even more insults and downright bending of facts being the main feature of 'Mozart research' (so-called) on 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. That opera by any fair analysis, is really a hastily made arrangement made for Vienna by May 1786 of Mozart/da Ponte made from ALREADY EXISTING music by other composer/s which had in its original form a German text.
The evidence overwhelming shows W.A. Mozart did NOT compose the music of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. He, the falsely named 'Kapellmeister Mozart', (a scam which he continued to use throughout his Vienna career) was only its clumsy arranger from German into a new 4 act Italian form for Vienna from an already existing version. A verdict you can arrive at yourself by close study of the documentary evidence itself.
http://www.lulu.com/content/2710313
Regards
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 29, 2009, 01:58:16 AM
Post by: Herman on May 29, 2009, 01:58:16 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 01:36:59 AM
Last year (2008) two Italian experts on 18th century operatic scores, Professor Luca Bianchini and Professor Anna Trombetta (both of which have decades of experience of working with operas of that period for performance in Italy) and myself, Robert Newman,
Looks like none of these folks (including the Tobago fellow) has any degree in musicology.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 02:03:35 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 02:03:35 AM
Quote from: Herman on May 29, 2009, 01:58:16 AM
Looks like none of these folks (including the Tobago fellow) has any degree in musicology.
And do you have enough honesty to read my last post Herman ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 29, 2009, 02:22:08 AM
Post by: Herman on May 29, 2009, 02:22:08 AM
Yes I did read your latest twaddle, making ever more clear here are a bunch of people with no training and expertise in musicology, and they're saying people who are trained in the methods and rigour of musicological historical research are wrong. You have zero credibility. And your constant refusal to come up with any substantiation speaks volumes. You're last chance was addressing Gurn's material in detail, and you didn't. I will continue to call upon people to ignore you.
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:06:46 AM
STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 02:30:50 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 02:30:50 AM
I've already answered Gurn's last post in great detail. It's contained in replies to the series of nonsense articles by Gary Smith. Made over a year ago. But you've not read them also, have you ? Shall I post them here on this thread ? So readers can see for themselves and form their own honest judgement ? Maybe Gurn himself will post them here. So readers can judge this fairly. The scale of dishonesty we see today in propping up the Mozart myth is becoming more and more well known to ordinary people.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 03:03:13 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 03:03:13 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 28, 2009, 10:49:32 PM
"Gary Smith is obviously blinded by the Mozart fabrication."
The opening sentence of Mr Newman's lengthy rebuttal.
This thread has been very useful in that it has made me want to listen to Mozart more closely. I think I'll give Figaro a spin again, this coming weekend.
Jezetha,
Can you please post us the link to Gary Smith's articles and my own replies to them - some of which you appear to have read ? So that readers can see both ? I do not have these links to hand, am not a member of Mozart forum, and it's only fair that people can form a fair judgement on this issue. I've already asked Gurn Blanston to do so without response.
Many thanks
Robert (Newman)
Johann Sebastian Bach
Opening Chorus
'Ich rif zu dir'
Cantata BWV 177/1
(Music of this kind makes every honest musician think seriously of taking up truck driving !!! LOL !! :)
http://www.mediafire.com/?homuumkquvh
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 29, 2009, 03:19:41 AM
Post by: J.Z. Herrenberg on May 29, 2009, 03:19:41 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 03:03:13 AM
Jezetha,
Can you please post us the link to Gary Smith's articles and my own replies to them - some of which you appear to have read ? So that readers can see both ? I do not have these links to hand, am not a member of Mozart forum, and it's only fair that people can form a fair judgement on this issue. I've already asked Gurn Blanston to do so without response.
Many thanks
Robert (Newman)
Sorry, Mr Newman, can't help. My 'quote' was guesswork and is wholly fictitious. I simply assumed you would have said it and that you would have written a lenghty rebuttal. By the way - why would you need your links, where there is a book in statu nascendi? Why not simply plunder a chapter? If you're on the attack, you must have your ammunition ready, I would think.
So, I repeat, and for the last time - history is your forum, not GMG. Finish your tome and let Mozart scholarship (around which you undoubtedly would put quotation marks) react. Personally, I found Gary Smith's piece well-argued, reasonable and cogent. I can live with you feeling sorry for my incurable blindness. But you haven't yet made me see the light.
Regards. And good luck.
Johan
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 03:25:05 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 03:25:05 AM
Quote from: Jezetha on May 29, 2009, 03:19:41 AM
Sorry, Mr Newman, can't help. My 'quote' was guesswork and is wholly fictitious. I simply assumed you would have said it and that you would have written a lenghty rebuttal. By the way - why would you need your links, where there is a book in statu nascendi? Why not simply plunder a chapter? If you're on the attack, you must have your ammunition ready, I would think.
So, I repeat, and for the last time - history is your forum, not GMG. Finish your tome and let Mozart scholarship (around which you undoubtedly would put quotation marks) react. Personally, I found Gary Smith's piece well-argued, reasonable and cogent. I can live with you feeling sorry for my incurable blindness. But you haven't yet made me see the light.
Regards. And good luck.
Johan
Guesswork and fictitious 'quotes' ? Well, read both sides. I 'simply assumed' Mozart was a musical genius. These guys are a bunch of jesuitical con men.
Thanks for the time here.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on May 29, 2009, 03:35:55 AM
Post by: Herman on May 29, 2009, 03:35:55 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 03:25:05 AM
These guys are a bunch of jesuitical con men.
who just happen to have solid qualifications in musicology and historical research, whereas you and your Italian "professores" have none.
Quote from: Scarpia on May 28, 2009, 10:06:46 AM
STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on May 29, 2009, 03:38:43 AM
Post by: karlhenning on May 29, 2009, 03:38:43 AM
QuoteThese guys are a bunch of jesuitical con men.
As ever, a propagandist's hot air. Da Vinci Code re-retread. Yawn.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on May 29, 2009, 03:42:04 AM
Post by: Cato on May 29, 2009, 03:42:04 AM
There is a scoundrel Congressman from Massachusetts: one of his favorite techniques for avoiding the truth is to shout that the opponent is not listening, and that the opponent is interrupting him, when in fact nobody, including the Truth, can get a word in edgewise, up, down, over, or under while this character keeps lisping his lies.
I am reminded of this character from Congress as I read The Mozart Conspiracy, whose author keeps insisting that people have not read his posts, or read them carefully, or that they believe lies from his opponents instead of his unproven and unprovable fantasies, etc.
The ultimate question for you: why would a group of composers with Mozartean Talent hide their talents under the basket of a Mozart Fraud, and then put their own names on works of demonstrably second or third rank ?
I am reminded of this character from Congress as I read The Mozart Conspiracy, whose author keeps insisting that people have not read his posts, or read them carefully, or that they believe lies from his opponents instead of his unproven and unprovable fantasies, etc.
The ultimate question for you: why would a group of composers with Mozartean Talent hide their talents under the basket of a Mozart Fraud, and then put their own names on works of demonstrably second or third rank ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on May 29, 2009, 03:44:35 AM
Post by: Cato on May 29, 2009, 03:44:35 AM
I will not post any longer under this topic: it is time to starve the beast! 0:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 29, 2009, 04:32:04 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on May 29, 2009, 04:32:04 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 03:03:13 AM
Jezetha,
Can you please post us the link to Gary Smith's articles and my own replies to them - some of which you appear to have read ? So that readers can see both ? I do not have these links to hand, am not a member of Mozart forum, and it's only fair that people can form a fair judgement on this issue. I've already asked Gurn Blanston to do so without response.
Many thanks
Robert (Newman)
Johann Sebastian Bach
Opening Chorus
'Ich rif zu dir'
Cantata BWV 177/1
(Music of this kind makes every honest musician think seriously of taking up truck driving !!! LOL !! :)
http://www.mediafire.com/?homuumkquvh
Well, even the Gurnatron has to sleep sometimes, Robert, I don't live in the Greenwich time zone. :)
I'll be honest with you, I never saw a response by you, either at the time they were written nor when I went back and looked for them last night. But I'll look again, there are only 112 posts in that thread so it shouldn't be too hard to find. You might hint to me what user name you were using at the time...
In any case, I can scarcely see how these rebuttals to that book are unfair in any way. Gary Smith DID have a copy of the book, which he quotes from liberally. But I want to point out to you that it isn't even the musicological facts or anything to do with Mozart that is under attack here, it is the method that is used to make the case and convey it to the public. If it can't bear scrutiny of even the casual amateur, how would it stand up to true peer review? Good Lord, Robert, you can't take an end product and then work backwards picking out of context items and calling it evidence. You may be dealing with people who aren't Mozart specialists, but they aren't idiots either. Most of us have been to school, and many even learned the scientific method.
I am at work right now, and can do no more than check back for the occasional reply, which I will do. Please don't say anything mean about me until I get back. :D
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 29, 2009, 04:38:39 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 29, 2009, 04:38:39 AM
Quote from: edward on May 28, 2009, 03:53:55 PMYes. I thought of Borges. 8)
Am I the only one who immediately thought of Nabokov's Pale Fire on reading this?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on May 29, 2009, 05:00:52 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on May 29, 2009, 05:00:52 AM
Quote from: Cato on May 29, 2009, 03:42:04 AMThat's the second mention of the Dis-Honorable Barney Frank in comparison to this Newman character, whose tactics and disdain for the truth are quite similar, but who is of no more consequence than a pimple on a gnat's bum, whereas the scoundrel Congressman was a major player in causing the financial services meltdown and thus has helped bring misery and suffering to millions.
There is a scoundrel Congressman from Massachusetts: one of his favorite techniques for avoiding the truth is to shout that the opponent is not listening, and that the opponent is interrupting him, when in fact nobody, including the Truth, can get a word in edgewise, up, down, over, or under while this character keeps lisping his lies.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 05:05:08 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 05:05:08 AM
Neil Zaslaw, USA, Music Editor and well known author of many books on Mozart - Again Spills the Beans on the Deceptions of the Cult of Mozart -
''Because of Mozart's status as an archetypal "original genius," those who write about his music have been squeamish about facing up to the not inconsiderable totality of his musical borrowings. It has long been comfortably accepted that Mozart quoted from, paraphrased or alluded to earlier music of his own. The categories that have been proposed to deal with his borrowings from other sources have, however, tended to be restricted to explanations which can be harmonized with notions of originality, autonomy and genius: common coinages, programmatic references, emulation of or tributes to mentors, or clever in-jokes aimed at friends, patrons and colleagues. Consideration of a host of other potentially embarrassing possibilities has generally been avoided (one might even say suppressed); among them are theft, fraud, laziness, failure of inspiration, mockery of colleagues, or an ill-concealed competitive desire to - as Mozart said of Giuseppe Cambini in 1778 - "die Augen ... ausgelöscht." Mozart is a 'genius', geniuses create masterpieces, masterpieces are "perfect". Many of Mozart's admirers, who seem to want not only his music but his person to be "perfect," have exercised damage control in their naming of possible motivations for his borrowings. In establishing the extent and nature of Mozart's borrowings, my talk will necessarily speculate about both his psychology and the psychologies of those who have been too eager to sanitize his character ''
Neal Zaslaw - (Koechel Catalogue Editor) - A remarkable Lecture which stunned audiences of the Mozart Cult - given at the British Library Conference Centre, London, 'Mozart the Borrower' in January 2006
''Because of Mozart's status as an archetypal "original genius," those who write about his music have been squeamish about facing up to the not inconsiderable totality of his musical borrowings. It has long been comfortably accepted that Mozart quoted from, paraphrased or alluded to earlier music of his own. The categories that have been proposed to deal with his borrowings from other sources have, however, tended to be restricted to explanations which can be harmonized with notions of originality, autonomy and genius: common coinages, programmatic references, emulation of or tributes to mentors, or clever in-jokes aimed at friends, patrons and colleagues. Consideration of a host of other potentially embarrassing possibilities has generally been avoided (one might even say suppressed); among them are theft, fraud, laziness, failure of inspiration, mockery of colleagues, or an ill-concealed competitive desire to - as Mozart said of Giuseppe Cambini in 1778 - "die Augen ... ausgelöscht." Mozart is a 'genius', geniuses create masterpieces, masterpieces are "perfect". Many of Mozart's admirers, who seem to want not only his music but his person to be "perfect," have exercised damage control in their naming of possible motivations for his borrowings. In establishing the extent and nature of Mozart's borrowings, my talk will necessarily speculate about both his psychology and the psychologies of those who have been too eager to sanitize his character ''
Neal Zaslaw - (Koechel Catalogue Editor) - A remarkable Lecture which stunned audiences of the Mozart Cult - given at the British Library Conference Centre, London, 'Mozart the Borrower' in January 2006
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 29, 2009, 05:14:37 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on May 29, 2009, 05:14:37 AM
(http://www.untwistedvortex.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/dontfeedthetroll.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 05:15:40 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 05:15:40 AM
Neal Zaslaw, USA, Music Editor and well known author of many books on Mozart - Again Spills the Beans on the Deceptions of the Cult of Mozart -
''Because of Mozart's status as an archetypal "original genius," those who write about his music have been squeamish about facing up to the not inconsiderable totality of his musical borrowings. It has long been comfortably accepted that Mozart quoted from, paraphrased or alluded to earlier music of his own. The categories that have been proposed to deal with his borrowings from other sources have, however, tended to be restricted to explanations which can be harmonized with notions of originality, autonomy and genius: common coinages, programmatic references, emulation of or tributes to mentors, or clever in-jokes aimed at friends, patrons and colleagues. Consideration of a host of other potentially embarrassing possibilities has generally been avoided (one might even say suppressed); among them are theft, fraud, laziness, failure of inspiration, mockery of colleagues, or an ill-concealed competitive desire to - as Mozart said of Giuseppe Cambini in 1778 - "die Augen ... ausgelöscht." Mozart is a 'genius', geniuses create masterpieces, masterpieces are "perfect". Many of Mozart's admirers, who seem to want not only his music but his person to be "perfect," have exercised damage control in their naming of possible motivations for his borrowings. In establishing the extent and nature of Mozart's borrowings, my talk will necessarily speculate about both his psychology and the psychologies of those who have been too eager to sanitize his character ''
Neal Zaslaw - (Koechel Catalogue Editor) - A remarkable lecture which stunned adoring audiences of the jesuitical Mozart Cult - given at the British Library Conference Centre, London, 'Mozart the Borrower' in January 2006
Let's pretend the above statements mean differently from what they mean !! ;D
Mozart - the FOX News of Classical Music
''Because of Mozart's status as an archetypal "original genius," those who write about his music have been squeamish about facing up to the not inconsiderable totality of his musical borrowings. It has long been comfortably accepted that Mozart quoted from, paraphrased or alluded to earlier music of his own. The categories that have been proposed to deal with his borrowings from other sources have, however, tended to be restricted to explanations which can be harmonized with notions of originality, autonomy and genius: common coinages, programmatic references, emulation of or tributes to mentors, or clever in-jokes aimed at friends, patrons and colleagues. Consideration of a host of other potentially embarrassing possibilities has generally been avoided (one might even say suppressed); among them are theft, fraud, laziness, failure of inspiration, mockery of colleagues, or an ill-concealed competitive desire to - as Mozart said of Giuseppe Cambini in 1778 - "die Augen ... ausgelöscht." Mozart is a 'genius', geniuses create masterpieces, masterpieces are "perfect". Many of Mozart's admirers, who seem to want not only his music but his person to be "perfect," have exercised damage control in their naming of possible motivations for his borrowings. In establishing the extent and nature of Mozart's borrowings, my talk will necessarily speculate about both his psychology and the psychologies of those who have been too eager to sanitize his character ''
Neal Zaslaw - (Koechel Catalogue Editor) - A remarkable lecture which stunned adoring audiences of the jesuitical Mozart Cult - given at the British Library Conference Centre, London, 'Mozart the Borrower' in January 2006
Let's pretend the above statements mean differently from what they mean !! ;D
Mozart - the FOX News of Classical Music
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 05:42:28 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 29, 2009, 05:42:28 AM
Gurn Blanston has today quoted Gary Smith who 'defended' the official version of 'Le Nozze di Figaro's' history against the findings of modern documentary research. Here is the first reply I wrote to Smith last year after he posted his attack on Bianchini/Trombetta/Newmans book -
//
Gary Smith of Mozart Forum has just posted a long work on his home site designed for the consumption of the gullible Mozartean faithful. It is entitled - ''FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS'' and in his post he tries to defend the standard story of Mozart composing the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. You will not be surprised to learn that although this subject obviously involves such things as history, texts and music Gary Smith has no time for any of these. Not a single musical example or analysis of documents that are studied/reproduced in detail by Bianchini and Trombetta in their book is refered to. The contents of the German Figaro Singspiel and its relationship to the May 1786 conductor's score (on which Mozart worked before the premiere) play no part also in Gary Smith's post !! The music we find in the score used in Vienna is now an irrelevance !! Smith now joins Hansen as another Mozartean who cannot, will not, actually examine in any detail what has just been published. And yet he recommends nobody reads Bianchini and Trombetta's book !!!
I would not usually bother to reply to such stupidity. I simply ask you to read Bianchini and Trombetta's book. ('Figaro - l'Aria della Contessa'). But Gary Smith has now been encouraged by the applause of his fellow cultists and has even produced a Part 2. So some sort of reply is required. Here goes -
Dear Gary Smith,
The most striking feature of your two posts on Bianchini and Trombetta's book is that you do not discuss the powerful musical proofs they provided from no less than 3 early Figaro manuscripts ! One of which is the actual score used at the premiere on 1st May 1786 !! They've provided orchestral transcriptions of all 3 versions and literally dozens of pictures, with musical analysis. Proofs which include dozens of pictures from scores almost unkown to Mozart researchers. And so you make all kinds of silly errors. Once again you refuse to examine the actual documentary evidence. Such is the standard of your posts.
Let me start with your Part 1.
1. At the Vienna National Library is the score of a German Singspiel of Figaro. Will you, Gary Smith, finally provide the name of any published study on its musical and textual contents made over the past 20 years or more ? We have found none at all.
2. You insist this German Figaro Singspiel in KT315 at the Austrian National Library in Vienna was "looked over" by NMA, ''and from various internal evidence ascribed a date of 1798''. At the eleventh consecutive time of asking Gary (ELEVENTH !) will you please provide a list of the evidences which justify such a date of '1798' and provide details of its NMA study or that by anyone else ? Anyone at all ? We don't seem to be getting an answer from you. Perhaps I should ask this again -
Gary, on what internal evidence is the German Figaro Singspiel score held at the Austrian National Library being given a date of '1798' ? For it does not come from 1798 but is shown by musical analysis to have been used to create the conductors score of May 1786 itself . ?
Gary, on what textual evidence is the text of this German Singspiel today being attributed to von Knigge, since, in fact, the published German text of Knigge's Figaro first appeared the year after von Knigge's death (1797) in Bonn (published by Simrock) and is actually very different in that text in dozens, even hundreds of ways ?
Shall we continue to ask such very basic questions a hundred times ? At what point do you concede you are showing just how silly and how absurd this subject has become in your hands ? We are STILL waiting for your answer.
3. You ask where the 'irrefutable' proof is this Figaro Singspiel predates the May 1786 premiere of Le Nozze di Figaro. Well, since you are not interested in musical analysis you will not be interested in the musical analysis/proofs contained in Bianchini and Trombetta's book, will you ? You're a musicologist who never reads music, right ? Why not grow up and actually read Bianchini and Trombetta's detailed argument ?
4. Regarding the file KT319, you clearly have not read these posts. The reference 'KT319' was used by us (the book writers) solely as an internal reference during the time we wrote the book - to distinguish it from the other Vienna score. In fact (as you see in the book itself), we merely call these 3 documents MS 'A', 'B' and 'C'. Two of them come from KT315 in Vienna and the third comes from Modena. This fact has twice been explained here - so that even a Mozartean can understand it. If he/she wants to. It's rather simple, yes ?
PART 2
1. Your juvenile understanding becomes even more clear where you write in Part 2 of your post -
In a nutshell, Chapter 18 looks at the many changes (large and small) the opera Figaro was subjected to early on in its life. Naturally, we have Mozart's autograph as the basis of what constitutes "Figaro". However, as Alan Tyson points out, this is only the starting point of this journey. For, once Mozart "turned in" Figaro to the Court theater, a series of near-inevitable changes were bound to occur.
These 'large changes' that Figaro was subjected to 'early on its life'. Let's start with them. The work that was performed 9 times consecutively at Vienna in May 1786 is, beyond doubt, the music he wrote for Le Nozze di Figaro. Yet you do not examine it, Gary Smith ! It forms no part of your posts. It's THIS very music which Bianchini and Trombetta have studied in detail in their newly published book. So they know lots more about it than you do. Right ? This music is compared to that of the German Singspiel (the one you are going to date for us, right ?). And they discovered the latter document was used by Mozart to create that premiere conductor's score for Vienna. Such facts are the basis of their book. Right, Gary ? Get it now ? Since the date of the conductor's score is not under dispute we are able to say the German Singspiel was in existence PRIOR TO May of 1786. Simple, right ? And until you can provide evidence to the contrary we ask you to examine the musicological arguments that have just been produced by Bianchini and Trombetta. This too is simple enough for even a cultist of the Mozart myth to understand. The so-called 'autograph' of Mozart cannot possibly have existed in May 1786. Its musical content is massively different from that which we actually see here in the conductor's score. That is how we know, for 100% sure, what was performed in Vienna at that time. And what was not. The autograph was clearly made later.
2. You admit that -
Alan Tyson reviewed only the Italian copies of Figaro, a true reading of this chapter shows that he was in the end only interested in what changes Mozart brought to the table
Yes, that's right. He did NOT study the German Singspiel. As we have repeatedly told you.
3. Tyson did NOT study the German Singspiel.
Yes Gary. I believe you've finally got it !!!!
But Bianchini and Trombetta DID study the German Singspiel - Are you getting the picture now ???
4. You write -
IT ALL HINGES ON DATING. ALL OF IT. Disrupt their dating timeline, and this tract is nothing but a house of cards that collapses with the flick of one's little finger.
In reply, yes, of course. It all hinges on dating. The dating of the conductor's score IS indisputably May 1786. There is simply no doubt about it Gary. And the conductor's score is a true and faithful record of what music was performed as 'Le Nozze di Figaro' in Vienna, isn't it ? And what was not. The entire world realises this Gary. It cannot be hidden. Why not examine its music ? Why not read Bianchini and Trombetta's book properly to see the recitative and aria Dove Sono is clearly derived from pre-existing music contained in the German Singspiel ?
5. Of course the German Singspiel at the Austrian National Library is a copy of the original. If this was an original we would all see it's a pastiche work by various composers. This singspiel copy now at the Austrian National Library was used by Mozart to create the conductors score for the Vienna premiere of May 1786. In his own botched arrangement. So says all the evidence.
May I recommend you learn to read music ? And that you study the historical and textual aspects of Bianchini and Trombetta's book, without which you will forever remain hopelessly misinformed and the source of such nonsense as you have just posted ? Oh, and please don't forget to answer the basic questions, will you ?
Figaro - Aria della Contessa
Prof. Luca Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta
http://www.lulu.com/content/2710313
(June 2008 - R.E. Newman to Gary Smith)
- end -
//
This, Gurn, is an example of the rubbish Gary Smith used to attack the newly published book on Figaro last year. And within days of posting it he was being praised for brilliantly defending the 'status quo' !!!! Mozart Forum sang his praises as a champion of truth ! :)
If anybody asks how the fraudlent career of Mozart was achieved, let them look at the actions of various posters here on this thread, who pervert information, who are willing to play the fool, and who never actually read the published works of their critics. And if you, Gurn, are motivated by fairness, why read only the incompetent and laughably inept posts of Gary Smith ? I again repeat my offer to send you and your colleagues, free of charge, copies of the Figaro book by Bianchini/Trombetta. With compliments and a hope that you too will not contribute to this 'dumbing down' and downgrading of plain fact.
Thanks
Robert Newman
//
Gary Smith of Mozart Forum has just posted a long work on his home site designed for the consumption of the gullible Mozartean faithful. It is entitled - ''FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS'' and in his post he tries to defend the standard story of Mozart composing the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. You will not be surprised to learn that although this subject obviously involves such things as history, texts and music Gary Smith has no time for any of these. Not a single musical example or analysis of documents that are studied/reproduced in detail by Bianchini and Trombetta in their book is refered to. The contents of the German Figaro Singspiel and its relationship to the May 1786 conductor's score (on which Mozart worked before the premiere) play no part also in Gary Smith's post !! The music we find in the score used in Vienna is now an irrelevance !! Smith now joins Hansen as another Mozartean who cannot, will not, actually examine in any detail what has just been published. And yet he recommends nobody reads Bianchini and Trombetta's book !!!
I would not usually bother to reply to such stupidity. I simply ask you to read Bianchini and Trombetta's book. ('Figaro - l'Aria della Contessa'). But Gary Smith has now been encouraged by the applause of his fellow cultists and has even produced a Part 2. So some sort of reply is required. Here goes -
Dear Gary Smith,
The most striking feature of your two posts on Bianchini and Trombetta's book is that you do not discuss the powerful musical proofs they provided from no less than 3 early Figaro manuscripts ! One of which is the actual score used at the premiere on 1st May 1786 !! They've provided orchestral transcriptions of all 3 versions and literally dozens of pictures, with musical analysis. Proofs which include dozens of pictures from scores almost unkown to Mozart researchers. And so you make all kinds of silly errors. Once again you refuse to examine the actual documentary evidence. Such is the standard of your posts.
Let me start with your Part 1.
1. At the Vienna National Library is the score of a German Singspiel of Figaro. Will you, Gary Smith, finally provide the name of any published study on its musical and textual contents made over the past 20 years or more ? We have found none at all.
2. You insist this German Figaro Singspiel in KT315 at the Austrian National Library in Vienna was "looked over" by NMA, ''and from various internal evidence ascribed a date of 1798''. At the eleventh consecutive time of asking Gary (ELEVENTH !) will you please provide a list of the evidences which justify such a date of '1798' and provide details of its NMA study or that by anyone else ? Anyone at all ? We don't seem to be getting an answer from you. Perhaps I should ask this again -
Gary, on what internal evidence is the German Figaro Singspiel score held at the Austrian National Library being given a date of '1798' ? For it does not come from 1798 but is shown by musical analysis to have been used to create the conductors score of May 1786 itself . ?
Gary, on what textual evidence is the text of this German Singspiel today being attributed to von Knigge, since, in fact, the published German text of Knigge's Figaro first appeared the year after von Knigge's death (1797) in Bonn (published by Simrock) and is actually very different in that text in dozens, even hundreds of ways ?
Shall we continue to ask such very basic questions a hundred times ? At what point do you concede you are showing just how silly and how absurd this subject has become in your hands ? We are STILL waiting for your answer.
3. You ask where the 'irrefutable' proof is this Figaro Singspiel predates the May 1786 premiere of Le Nozze di Figaro. Well, since you are not interested in musical analysis you will not be interested in the musical analysis/proofs contained in Bianchini and Trombetta's book, will you ? You're a musicologist who never reads music, right ? Why not grow up and actually read Bianchini and Trombetta's detailed argument ?
4. Regarding the file KT319, you clearly have not read these posts. The reference 'KT319' was used by us (the book writers) solely as an internal reference during the time we wrote the book - to distinguish it from the other Vienna score. In fact (as you see in the book itself), we merely call these 3 documents MS 'A', 'B' and 'C'. Two of them come from KT315 in Vienna and the third comes from Modena. This fact has twice been explained here - so that even a Mozartean can understand it. If he/she wants to. It's rather simple, yes ?
PART 2
1. Your juvenile understanding becomes even more clear where you write in Part 2 of your post -
In a nutshell, Chapter 18 looks at the many changes (large and small) the opera Figaro was subjected to early on in its life. Naturally, we have Mozart's autograph as the basis of what constitutes "Figaro". However, as Alan Tyson points out, this is only the starting point of this journey. For, once Mozart "turned in" Figaro to the Court theater, a series of near-inevitable changes were bound to occur.
These 'large changes' that Figaro was subjected to 'early on its life'. Let's start with them. The work that was performed 9 times consecutively at Vienna in May 1786 is, beyond doubt, the music he wrote for Le Nozze di Figaro. Yet you do not examine it, Gary Smith ! It forms no part of your posts. It's THIS very music which Bianchini and Trombetta have studied in detail in their newly published book. So they know lots more about it than you do. Right ? This music is compared to that of the German Singspiel (the one you are going to date for us, right ?). And they discovered the latter document was used by Mozart to create that premiere conductor's score for Vienna. Such facts are the basis of their book. Right, Gary ? Get it now ? Since the date of the conductor's score is not under dispute we are able to say the German Singspiel was in existence PRIOR TO May of 1786. Simple, right ? And until you can provide evidence to the contrary we ask you to examine the musicological arguments that have just been produced by Bianchini and Trombetta. This too is simple enough for even a cultist of the Mozart myth to understand. The so-called 'autograph' of Mozart cannot possibly have existed in May 1786. Its musical content is massively different from that which we actually see here in the conductor's score. That is how we know, for 100% sure, what was performed in Vienna at that time. And what was not. The autograph was clearly made later.
2. You admit that -
Alan Tyson reviewed only the Italian copies of Figaro, a true reading of this chapter shows that he was in the end only interested in what changes Mozart brought to the table
Yes, that's right. He did NOT study the German Singspiel. As we have repeatedly told you.
3. Tyson did NOT study the German Singspiel.
Yes Gary. I believe you've finally got it !!!!
But Bianchini and Trombetta DID study the German Singspiel - Are you getting the picture now ???
4. You write -
IT ALL HINGES ON DATING. ALL OF IT. Disrupt their dating timeline, and this tract is nothing but a house of cards that collapses with the flick of one's little finger.
In reply, yes, of course. It all hinges on dating. The dating of the conductor's score IS indisputably May 1786. There is simply no doubt about it Gary. And the conductor's score is a true and faithful record of what music was performed as 'Le Nozze di Figaro' in Vienna, isn't it ? And what was not. The entire world realises this Gary. It cannot be hidden. Why not examine its music ? Why not read Bianchini and Trombetta's book properly to see the recitative and aria Dove Sono is clearly derived from pre-existing music contained in the German Singspiel ?
5. Of course the German Singspiel at the Austrian National Library is a copy of the original. If this was an original we would all see it's a pastiche work by various composers. This singspiel copy now at the Austrian National Library was used by Mozart to create the conductors score for the Vienna premiere of May 1786. In his own botched arrangement. So says all the evidence.
May I recommend you learn to read music ? And that you study the historical and textual aspects of Bianchini and Trombetta's book, without which you will forever remain hopelessly misinformed and the source of such nonsense as you have just posted ? Oh, and please don't forget to answer the basic questions, will you ?
Figaro - Aria della Contessa
Prof. Luca Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta
http://www.lulu.com/content/2710313
(June 2008 - R.E. Newman to Gary Smith)
- end -
//
This, Gurn, is an example of the rubbish Gary Smith used to attack the newly published book on Figaro last year. And within days of posting it he was being praised for brilliantly defending the 'status quo' !!!! Mozart Forum sang his praises as a champion of truth ! :)
If anybody asks how the fraudlent career of Mozart was achieved, let them look at the actions of various posters here on this thread, who pervert information, who are willing to play the fool, and who never actually read the published works of their critics. And if you, Gurn, are motivated by fairness, why read only the incompetent and laughably inept posts of Gary Smith ? I again repeat my offer to send you and your colleagues, free of charge, copies of the Figaro book by Bianchini/Trombetta. With compliments and a hope that you too will not contribute to this 'dumbing down' and downgrading of plain fact.
Thanks
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: c#minor on May 29, 2009, 11:47:18 AM
Post by: c#minor on May 29, 2009, 11:47:18 AM
What about my Chopin ghost theory Mr. Newman? You never addressed it. I say it's valid!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Opus106 on May 29, 2009, 11:52:14 AM
Post by: Opus106 on May 29, 2009, 11:52:14 AM
Quote from: c#minor on May 29, 2009, 11:47:18 AM
What about my Chopin ghost theory Mr. Newman? You never addressed it. I say it's valid!
Ssshhh... the last post was made 6 hours ago. Let this thing sleep. It's a weekend, after all. ;)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 30, 2009, 02:36:59 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 30, 2009, 02:36:59 AM
J.B. Vanhal
Concerto for Viola and Orchestra
2nd Movement
(c.1777)
http://www.mediafire.com/?ojuelljeyew
-ditto-
3rd Movement
http://www.mediafire.com/?2mimzmuwjy2
//
Concerto for Viola and Orchestra
2nd Movement
(c.1777)
http://www.mediafire.com/?ojuelljeyew
-ditto-
3rd Movement
http://www.mediafire.com/?2mimzmuwjy2
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 30, 2009, 04:41:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 30, 2009, 04:41:09 AM
5/5
'HAFFNER' SYMPHONY (CONCLUSION)
The version of the 'Haffner' Symphony, KV385 held at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy further confirms this work existed for over a decade before Mozart claimed it as his in Vienna. Examination of this score and of the background to this work indicates it existed soon after the arrival of Andrea Luchesi in Bonn as Kapellmeister in 1771 and is, itself, on Italian watermarked paper at Modena. This work was one of several sold in copyist versions to various princes of the Holy Roman Empire including Salzburg. The fact that this work is today with 8 other 'Mozart' symphonies at the music library of Modena when not a single work of that form is attributed to Mozart in Bonn Hofkappelle's inventory records of 1784 indicate that it became a 'Mozart' Symphony some time shortly after 1784. (In fact it was first performed and later published in Mozart's name by 1785 by Artaria in Vienna and has been known as 'his' ever since).
The scoring of the version at Modena (minus trumpets, timpani, flute and clarinet) further confirm this is its earliest version. But it (like versions at Modena of the 'Prague' Symphony and even of the 'Jupiter' etc.) go unmentioned decade after decade by editors of the Koechel Catalogue. An inconvenient truth (like this thread) which is still little known. Buried away and not easily accessed !!
Each 'Mozart' symphony has its own story. The 'Haffner' is no exception.
RN
'HAFFNER' SYMPHONY (CONCLUSION)
The version of the 'Haffner' Symphony, KV385 held at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy further confirms this work existed for over a decade before Mozart claimed it as his in Vienna. Examination of this score and of the background to this work indicates it existed soon after the arrival of Andrea Luchesi in Bonn as Kapellmeister in 1771 and is, itself, on Italian watermarked paper at Modena. This work was one of several sold in copyist versions to various princes of the Holy Roman Empire including Salzburg. The fact that this work is today with 8 other 'Mozart' symphonies at the music library of Modena when not a single work of that form is attributed to Mozart in Bonn Hofkappelle's inventory records of 1784 indicate that it became a 'Mozart' Symphony some time shortly after 1784. (In fact it was first performed and later published in Mozart's name by 1785 by Artaria in Vienna and has been known as 'his' ever since).
The scoring of the version at Modena (minus trumpets, timpani, flute and clarinet) further confirm this is its earliest version. But it (like versions at Modena of the 'Prague' Symphony and even of the 'Jupiter' etc.) go unmentioned decade after decade by editors of the Koechel Catalogue. An inconvenient truth (like this thread) which is still little known. Buried away and not easily accessed !!
Each 'Mozart' symphony has its own story. The 'Haffner' is no exception.
RN
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 30, 2009, 09:58:51 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 30, 2009, 09:58:51 AM
Andrea Luchesi (1741-1804)
Italian composer and teacher. The last holder of the prestigious post of Kapellmeister at Bonn in Germany (1774-1794) and little known composition teacher of music students there including the young Ludwig van Beethoven . He married locally and was to work for over 20 years there. His final years spent in writing operas for the new German National Theatre there - also lost. Most of Luchesi's works from 1771 onwards are lost or have been attributed to others (including various symphonies) but this early work written in Italy and a handful of others survive. This and several others of his are known to have been in the repertoire of Mozart and his sister and were played by them up until at least 1780. Luchesi's early sonatas for keyboard and violin, Op. 1, published at Bonn in the year after his arrival were the first music published there and are noted by several sources to anticipate the style of Beethoven. They've recently been recorded.
Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801)
Concerto in E Flat Major for Keyboard
First Movement
Allegro
c.1765/7
http://www.mediafire.com/?z040ojqqkmf
Italian composer and teacher. The last holder of the prestigious post of Kapellmeister at Bonn in Germany (1774-1794) and little known composition teacher of music students there including the young Ludwig van Beethoven . He married locally and was to work for over 20 years there. His final years spent in writing operas for the new German National Theatre there - also lost. Most of Luchesi's works from 1771 onwards are lost or have been attributed to others (including various symphonies) but this early work written in Italy and a handful of others survive. This and several others of his are known to have been in the repertoire of Mozart and his sister and were played by them up until at least 1780. Luchesi's early sonatas for keyboard and violin, Op. 1, published at Bonn in the year after his arrival were the first music published there and are noted by several sources to anticipate the style of Beethoven. They've recently been recorded.
Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801)
Concerto in E Flat Major for Keyboard
First Movement
Allegro
c.1765/7
http://www.mediafire.com/?z040ojqqkmf
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on May 31, 2009, 04:26:38 AM
Post by: robnewman on May 31, 2009, 04:26:38 AM
Thank you to this forum for allowing this thread to run. It says a great deal of its owners and administrators. And thank you for those who have been constructive in their posts on this subject.
//
'The Manufacture of Mozart' - (Preface)
In the last few years the difficult challenge of writing accurate and down to earth accounts of the life and career of the iconic composer W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) (i.e. those which do justice to modern discoveries), seem to have been met, at least partially, by the appearance of a number of works that are results of a new 'revisionist' trend within Mozart research. Examples include those by the German researcher Volkmar Braubehrens, whose ' Mozart in Vienna, 1781-1791' and Ruth Halliwell's, 'The Mozart Family - 4 Lives in a Social Context' are only two examples. Another (though it may be more accurately described as a 'damage limitation exercise') has been publication of William Stafford's, 'Mozart Myths'. All are results of a growing realisation and appreciation of the fact that the lives of music composers and their careers cannot, forever, include a Mozart who is presented as a naïve and transcendental genius, who floats through the episodes of his musical life as a mercurical creature of fiction and whose links with real people and places are treated as superficial backdrops to the telling of his extraordinary, often exaggerated and often incredible story. There is only so much mileage in the 'genius' tag.
Our subject here is Mozart. But to call in to question almost every aspect of his myth, to deny his immense status as a music composer, to separate facts from fictions, to argue that he, W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) was not a musical 'genius', to show that his reputation within the musical world and within western culture is largely undeserved, to present evidence that we are dealing in Mozart's case with a unique and clever cultural fraud foisted on generations of students, and to re-examine with a critical eye key details of his life and career and even those involved in the manufacture of his giant status - these are subjects which will make special demands on you, dear reader as they have on me during the research and writing of this book. My aim here is nothing less than to 'peel an onion', so to speak, and this with as few tears as possible. So that we might gain by having examined Mozart from more than the traditional perspective, and can arrive at a verdict that is sustainable and which is supported by documentary and other evidence.
I make a number of assumptions. First, that you as a reader may be reasonably familiar with the broad outlines of the Mozart story and may have read a biography or even seen a film on the subject. Second, I hope you take no offence if this survey, from time to time, pursues different lines of enquiry from those you usually come across in a biography, since the scale and implications of a far-reaching study cannot avoid dealing with little known aspects of Mozart and his reputation that are rarely discussed in polite company. And third, I assume you will be pleased to know this work is evidence-based and that considerable effort has been spent in trying to obtain reliable information on a man who, after all, is one of the great cultural heroes of our civilization.
Mozart is a paradigm, and in a paradigm we can so easily go round and round in circles without questioning the assumptions on which our beliefs are based. Besides, for almost 200 years Mozart, his music and his reputation have been subjects larger than the man himself, and, even as a child and at every stage of his short life Mozart was being described and portrayed as such. This virtual idolatry and the exaggeration which became such a feature of his life was to continue for decades after his death in December 1791 and it even accelerated. So, at least, says the evidence. In fact Mozart's posthumous rise to 'superstar' status at the hands of propagandists, publishers and biographers was as great a factor, if not more so, in creating the image we have today than that which he knew during his own lifetime. So that the study of Mozart is, from the very outset, virtually beyond biography alone. We think, we assume, the broad outlines of his story and of his legendary musical achievements must be true. That they're already worthy of our belief. That they have been confirmed by a mass of expert study. But, unlike virtually all areas of academic study we rarely question the assumptions on which the story itself is based.
Again, what place are we to give to the beliefs of Mozart in a study of his life and career ? Or those of his friends ? What place did beliefs and agendas play in the lives of Mozart's patrons ? Of his publishers and propagandists ? His fraternal associates ? What importance do we give to the creation of his posthumous reputation and of the later publication of literally hundreds of great musical works in his name ? Again, what of the glaring defects we find within standard biographies in glossing over dozens, even hundreds of musical works that have been falsely attributed to him over the past 200 years and more ? And what shall we make of the hyperbole that surrounds the mere mention of his name ? Since our ultimate appeal is to both documentary evidence and common sense what shall we make of the documentary evidence itself, its significance and reliability, especially if it has come mainly from correspondence of the Mozart family, or from anecdotes, testimony and diary entries that are closely associated with him if these are never subjected to fair and reasonable criticism and often without regard to their social, religious and other contexts ? Again, what do Mozart's music manuscripts have to say ?
Difficult as it may be, we can and must study Mozart as we would study the life, career and reputation of any other musical composer. The mere fact of doing so may commit ourselves to the most controversial, the most radical, possibly the most despised and surely the most honest approach of them all.
R.E. Newman
London
May 2009
//
'The Manufacture of Mozart' - (Preface)
In the last few years the difficult challenge of writing accurate and down to earth accounts of the life and career of the iconic composer W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) (i.e. those which do justice to modern discoveries), seem to have been met, at least partially, by the appearance of a number of works that are results of a new 'revisionist' trend within Mozart research. Examples include those by the German researcher Volkmar Braubehrens, whose ' Mozart in Vienna, 1781-1791' and Ruth Halliwell's, 'The Mozart Family - 4 Lives in a Social Context' are only two examples. Another (though it may be more accurately described as a 'damage limitation exercise') has been publication of William Stafford's, 'Mozart Myths'. All are results of a growing realisation and appreciation of the fact that the lives of music composers and their careers cannot, forever, include a Mozart who is presented as a naïve and transcendental genius, who floats through the episodes of his musical life as a mercurical creature of fiction and whose links with real people and places are treated as superficial backdrops to the telling of his extraordinary, often exaggerated and often incredible story. There is only so much mileage in the 'genius' tag.
Our subject here is Mozart. But to call in to question almost every aspect of his myth, to deny his immense status as a music composer, to separate facts from fictions, to argue that he, W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) was not a musical 'genius', to show that his reputation within the musical world and within western culture is largely undeserved, to present evidence that we are dealing in Mozart's case with a unique and clever cultural fraud foisted on generations of students, and to re-examine with a critical eye key details of his life and career and even those involved in the manufacture of his giant status - these are subjects which will make special demands on you, dear reader as they have on me during the research and writing of this book. My aim here is nothing less than to 'peel an onion', so to speak, and this with as few tears as possible. So that we might gain by having examined Mozart from more than the traditional perspective, and can arrive at a verdict that is sustainable and which is supported by documentary and other evidence.
I make a number of assumptions. First, that you as a reader may be reasonably familiar with the broad outlines of the Mozart story and may have read a biography or even seen a film on the subject. Second, I hope you take no offence if this survey, from time to time, pursues different lines of enquiry from those you usually come across in a biography, since the scale and implications of a far-reaching study cannot avoid dealing with little known aspects of Mozart and his reputation that are rarely discussed in polite company. And third, I assume you will be pleased to know this work is evidence-based and that considerable effort has been spent in trying to obtain reliable information on a man who, after all, is one of the great cultural heroes of our civilization.
Mozart is a paradigm, and in a paradigm we can so easily go round and round in circles without questioning the assumptions on which our beliefs are based. Besides, for almost 200 years Mozart, his music and his reputation have been subjects larger than the man himself, and, even as a child and at every stage of his short life Mozart was being described and portrayed as such. This virtual idolatry and the exaggeration which became such a feature of his life was to continue for decades after his death in December 1791 and it even accelerated. So, at least, says the evidence. In fact Mozart's posthumous rise to 'superstar' status at the hands of propagandists, publishers and biographers was as great a factor, if not more so, in creating the image we have today than that which he knew during his own lifetime. So that the study of Mozart is, from the very outset, virtually beyond biography alone. We think, we assume, the broad outlines of his story and of his legendary musical achievements must be true. That they're already worthy of our belief. That they have been confirmed by a mass of expert study. But, unlike virtually all areas of academic study we rarely question the assumptions on which the story itself is based.
Again, what place are we to give to the beliefs of Mozart in a study of his life and career ? Or those of his friends ? What place did beliefs and agendas play in the lives of Mozart's patrons ? Of his publishers and propagandists ? His fraternal associates ? What importance do we give to the creation of his posthumous reputation and of the later publication of literally hundreds of great musical works in his name ? Again, what of the glaring defects we find within standard biographies in glossing over dozens, even hundreds of musical works that have been falsely attributed to him over the past 200 years and more ? And what shall we make of the hyperbole that surrounds the mere mention of his name ? Since our ultimate appeal is to both documentary evidence and common sense what shall we make of the documentary evidence itself, its significance and reliability, especially if it has come mainly from correspondence of the Mozart family, or from anecdotes, testimony and diary entries that are closely associated with him if these are never subjected to fair and reasonable criticism and often without regard to their social, religious and other contexts ? Again, what do Mozart's music manuscripts have to say ?
Difficult as it may be, we can and must study Mozart as we would study the life, career and reputation of any other musical composer. The mere fact of doing so may commit ourselves to the most controversial, the most radical, possibly the most despised and surely the most honest approach of them all.
R.E. Newman
London
May 2009
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Catison on June 01, 2009, 02:17:11 AM
Post by: Catison on June 01, 2009, 02:17:11 AM
I found this article from The Onion news magazine to be apt.
Oh, No! It's Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run!
By Matthew Barnes
May 28, 2009 | Issue 45•22
I...I think it's finally over. Our reactionary emotional response seems to have stopped it dead in its tracks. If I'm right, all we have to do now is smugly reiterate our half-formed thesis and—oh, no! For the love of God, no! It's thoughtfully mulling things over!
Run! Run! It's making reasonable, fact-based arguments!
Quickly! Hide behind self-righteousness! The ad hominem rejoinders—ready the ad hominem rejoinders! Watch out! Dodge the issue at hand! Question its character and keep moving haphazardly from one flawed point to the next!
All together now! Put every bit of secondhand conjecture into it you've got!
Goddamn it, nothing's working! It's trapped us in our own unsubstantiated claims! We need to switch fundamentally unsound tactics. Hurry, throw up the straw man! Look, I think it's going for it. C'mon...c'mon...yes, it's going for it! Now hit it with the thing that one guy told us once while it's distracted by our ludicrous rationalizations!
Gah! It's calmly and evenhandedly deflecting everything we're throwing at it. Our deductive fallacies are only making it stronger! Wait...what on earth is it doing now? Oh, no, it has sources! My God, it's defending itself with ironclad sources! Someone stop the citing! Please, please stop the citing!
The language is impenetrable! For all that is good and holy, backpedal with all your might!
Where are the children? Someone overprotect the children! They cannot be exposed to this kind of illuminative reasoning. Their young, open minds are much too vulnerable to independent thought. We have to shield them behind our unshakeable intolerance for critical thinking.
What?!? Noooooooooo! Richard! For the love of God, it's convinced Richard!
No time for tears now. Richard's mind has been changed forever. But we mustn't let it weaken our resolve. Mark my words, our ignorance will hold, no matter the cost. Now, more than ever, we have to keep floundering ahead with blind faith in our increasingly fallacious worldview.
For Richard's sake.
What's that? Now it's making an appeal to reason? Never! Do you hear me, you eloquent, well-read behemoth? Never! We'll die before we recognize what we secretly know to be true! The cognitive dissonance only makes our denial stronger!
We have but one hope left: passive-aggressive slights disguised as impersonal discourse.† Okay, everyone, careful now...careful...if this is going to work, we have to arrogantly assume that it won't be smart enough to catch on to our attempt to salvage some feeling of superiority and—oh, God, it's calling us out! Quick, avoid eye contact and stammer an apology! Tell it we were just joking! Tell it we were joking!
Arrgh! Our pride! Oh, Lord, our pride! It burns!
All is lost. We don't stand a chance against its relentless onslaught of exhaustive research and immaculate rhetoric. We may as well lie down and—Christ, how it pains me to say it—admit that it's right. My friends, I would like to take these last few moments of stubborn close-mindedness to say that it's been an honor to dig myself into this hole with you.
Unless...wait, of course! Why didn't we think of it before? Volume! Sheer volume! It's so simple. Quickly now, we don't have much time! Don't let it get a word in edgewise! Derisively cut it off mid-sentence! Now, launch the sophomoric personal attacks! Louder, yes, that's it, louder! Be repetitive, juvenile, and obstinate! It's working! It's working!
We've done it! It's walking away and shaking its head in disgust! Huzzah! Finally—defeated with a single three-minute volley of irrelevant, off-topic shouting!
Ironic, really, isn't it?
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned
Oh, No! It's Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run!
By Matthew Barnes
May 28, 2009 | Issue 45•22
I...I think it's finally over. Our reactionary emotional response seems to have stopped it dead in its tracks. If I'm right, all we have to do now is smugly reiterate our half-formed thesis and—oh, no! For the love of God, no! It's thoughtfully mulling things over!
Run! Run! It's making reasonable, fact-based arguments!
Quickly! Hide behind self-righteousness! The ad hominem rejoinders—ready the ad hominem rejoinders! Watch out! Dodge the issue at hand! Question its character and keep moving haphazardly from one flawed point to the next!
All together now! Put every bit of secondhand conjecture into it you've got!
Goddamn it, nothing's working! It's trapped us in our own unsubstantiated claims! We need to switch fundamentally unsound tactics. Hurry, throw up the straw man! Look, I think it's going for it. C'mon...c'mon...yes, it's going for it! Now hit it with the thing that one guy told us once while it's distracted by our ludicrous rationalizations!
Gah! It's calmly and evenhandedly deflecting everything we're throwing at it. Our deductive fallacies are only making it stronger! Wait...what on earth is it doing now? Oh, no, it has sources! My God, it's defending itself with ironclad sources! Someone stop the citing! Please, please stop the citing!
The language is impenetrable! For all that is good and holy, backpedal with all your might!
Where are the children? Someone overprotect the children! They cannot be exposed to this kind of illuminative reasoning. Their young, open minds are much too vulnerable to independent thought. We have to shield them behind our unshakeable intolerance for critical thinking.
What?!? Noooooooooo! Richard! For the love of God, it's convinced Richard!
No time for tears now. Richard's mind has been changed forever. But we mustn't let it weaken our resolve. Mark my words, our ignorance will hold, no matter the cost. Now, more than ever, we have to keep floundering ahead with blind faith in our increasingly fallacious worldview.
For Richard's sake.
What's that? Now it's making an appeal to reason? Never! Do you hear me, you eloquent, well-read behemoth? Never! We'll die before we recognize what we secretly know to be true! The cognitive dissonance only makes our denial stronger!
We have but one hope left: passive-aggressive slights disguised as impersonal discourse.† Okay, everyone, careful now...careful...if this is going to work, we have to arrogantly assume that it won't be smart enough to catch on to our attempt to salvage some feeling of superiority and—oh, God, it's calling us out! Quick, avoid eye contact and stammer an apology! Tell it we were just joking! Tell it we were joking!
Arrgh! Our pride! Oh, Lord, our pride! It burns!
All is lost. We don't stand a chance against its relentless onslaught of exhaustive research and immaculate rhetoric. We may as well lie down and—Christ, how it pains me to say it—admit that it's right. My friends, I would like to take these last few moments of stubborn close-mindedness to say that it's been an honor to dig myself into this hole with you.
Unless...wait, of course! Why didn't we think of it before? Volume! Sheer volume! It's so simple. Quickly now, we don't have much time! Don't let it get a word in edgewise! Derisively cut it off mid-sentence! Now, launch the sophomoric personal attacks! Louder, yes, that's it, louder! Be repetitive, juvenile, and obstinate! It's working! It's working!
We've done it! It's walking away and shaking its head in disgust! Huzzah! Finally—defeated with a single three-minute volley of irrelevant, off-topic shouting!
Ironic, really, isn't it?
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on June 01, 2009, 03:33:50 AM
Post by: robnewman on June 01, 2009, 03:33:50 AM
In a nutshell - 'Always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth' - LOL !! :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on June 12, 2009, 03:29:52 AM
Post by: robnewman on June 12, 2009, 03:29:52 AM
(Some members here have asked for a chapter to be posted on the forthcoming work on Mozart's life, career and reputation. But, so as to avoid antagonising readers and to avoid endlessly exchanging emails I would like to post here only a short part of its Preface/Introduction. And to agree to disagree. In the hope that others can judge this issue from both sides, having the complete work available).
Anyway, here's a short excerpt from its 'Introduction' -
''That the official career of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) was 'stage managed', falsified, and virtually all invented from the time of his childhood in Salzburg onwards until the time of his death in December 1791 by the wholesale and systematic supply to him at each and every stage of his career (and even beyond it, in terms of its publication) of music he never composed is not a view shared by many people. That this fraudulent life was further exaggerated and even further invented and propagated by a series of later propagandists, biographers and publishers in the decades which followed Mozart's death in late 1791 - this too may be regarded as highly controversial. Nor are such things likely to be well received by those of more conservative musical and cultural view. And nor would it occur to many readers (even critics) that such opinions could be argued at length, let alone sustained over the span of an entire book. But no good will come of hiding this conviction of mine till the end of the work, seeing that its been obtained by detailed study of his life and career over many years, some aspects of which are now presented here for this first time on such a scale. This belief of mine, this thesis, is, I sincerely believe, reinforced by the fruits of long and fair examination of virtually all aspects of Mozart's life, career and reputation and is, I respectfully submit, able to shown true beyond reasonable doubt. Or, at least, is able to be expressed coherently for the first time for the sure criticism and judgement of music lovers and general readers by means of evidence. So they these same readers can at least form their own considered judgement on this important cultural, musical and historical issue having examined it from more than one perspective. This irrespective of the fact that the body of music today attributed to W.A. Mozart undoubtedly includes some of the finest ever written, by anyone, in any century.
This work examines the life and career of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791) in the light of modern discoveries. It also examines, in some detail, Mozart's posthumous rise to fame and the dissemination of his iconic status in the musical and cultural world over the decades which followed. The scale of this work, though large, has been condensed, so that an overview of what is a complex and multi-faceted subject is made possible, and so that particular aspects are seen in some detail.
I've made efforts to avoid continually revisiting a specific aspect of Mozart except where it clarifies a point on which there may be dispute. Nor has an attempt been made to follow a strict chronology. Nor have I used vast numbers of footnotes. So that this work is kept to manageable size and so that its contents can easily be compared with biographies and standard reference works.
Contrary to popular belief, the death of Mozart in Vienna in December 1791 was not the occasion of a great outpouring of public grief in the Austrian capital. But since the subject of Mozart's status, reputation and achievements in Vienna (1781-1791) are of obvious importance to the subject we begin by freshly examining his life and achievements during his final decade. We will soon appreciate that even this Vienna decade is a far from straightforward subject. Popularised versions of Mozart on this period are in fact riddled with paradoxes, contradictions, loose ends, exaggerations and omissions. Nowhere more so than in respect of his final days.
Mozart's own death in late 1791 was commemorated very differently in the Austrian capital than in, say, Prague. In Prague a memorial service was quickly organised and attended by thousands of adoring citizens from all classes of Bohemian society. In stark contrast to what happened in the Austrian capital. Of relevance to which is the statement by Mozart's close colleague and principal librettist, Lorenzo da Ponte -
''Mozart, thanks to the intrigues of his rivals, had never been able to exercise his divine genius in Vienna, and was living there unknown and obscure, like a precious jewel buried in the bowels of the earth and hiding the refulgent excellence of its splendours''.
(Lorenzo da Ponte - Librettist and working colleague of Mozart - 'Memoirs')
Da Ponte is keen that we believe in Mozart's musical genius. But he takes the unusual step of admitting, even emphasising, repeatedly, that his colleague was virtually 'unknown' in Vienna. A remarkable thing to say of the mercurial Mozart of those Vienna years. Mozart's invisibility and his musical failure in Vienna is stated, repeatedly. But such things tend to be glossed over by the casual reader and they easily become lost. He says Mozart at no time demonstrated his musical talents in Vienna. He compares his late friend to a buried and obscure jewel, etc.
It's one example of Mozart's life and career in Vienna which contradicts the version to which we are accustomed. And yet, as we will see, similar contradictions exist for virtually all key aspects of Mozart's life and career. They are rather typical. The benefits of fair and reasonable doubt on Mozart have tended by sheer tradition and hyperbole to influence what is generally believed. We find in favour of his 'genius'. So that Mozart's iconic status becomes a sort of biographical credit card. Extracting him and his well known story from even the most glaring contradictions and difficulties. So that when a contrary and radically opposing line of evidence is presented we seem hardly able to appreciate it for what it is. We assume his career in Vienna had periods of great personal success and acclaim followed by rapid decline. But no sooner is this challenged than we search for our 'credit card' and extol his musical genius.
The truth is that over the past two centuries biographers and propagandists have blown a cloud of dreamy and ever expanding bubbles over the Mozart scene, so to speak. These bubbles, of different size and colour, each more wonderful than the one before, have accompanied the legend of Mozart's musical genius, success and reputation. He is typically presented as a well known and greatly loved virtuoso and composer of legendary abilities in those same Vienna years. A teacher of literally dozens of talented pupils etc. One of the first freelance composers to earn an income from all his activities in a ceaseless blaze of creative activity. This is the Mozart of renown and of legendary ability loved and revered by musical Vienna but who, we discover, is unable to find a secure position of employment. 'Ah ! Such is the price of genius'. And this inability is counterbalanced by our ability to believe in his near miraculous talents and by crediting him with literally hundreds of great musical achievements over this same period for which, we are told, the documentary evidence is alone sufficient. Glaring contradictions are glossed over. Because Mozart was a genius. But the steady stream of 'bubbles' blown around his constantly inflated image, almost without us suspecting it, rob us of context or ability to accept criticism against the icon which stands before us. Obscuring reality, dulling our critical faculties, and eliminating any chance to understand the Vienna in which Mozart lived or the fuller details of his life. The emergence of a Mozart myth has come at the expense of these vital contexts being removed and, in their place, a disembodied figure is projected on to the screen of musical history which lacks virtually all context. The real Mozart further transformed by an endless stream of eulogies. Emerging as little more than a hologram whose main feature is that he and his life are, even in terms of biography, detached from reality. So that our belief in the Mozart myth, and our appreciation of the music of others at the time, its influence on his own, and a whole series of other vital issues have become peripheral. This sanitised and disembodied image of Mozart has become the stuff of biographies themselves on which a stream of further exaggerations and errors have been added as academic and nutritional supplements. This to our perpetual delight and fascination. Making the straightforward business of a Mozart biography far, far more challenging than it would otherwise be.
Mozart, from a biographical aspect, would present any self-respecting biographer with a series of unusual, almost unique challenges. Not least those underpinning Mozart's god-like status. A modern biographer would be aware that he is producing a work on a figure that would be eagerly awaited by those already familiar with its well known outlines. But its narrative, however well written and retold would be sure to consist of the usual list of major events in Mozart's 'official' life, his most famous works, these introduced chronologically and given some degree of context by reference to members of Mozart's family and reference to number of his musical patrons, though these discussed in only a superficial sense. The 'story' would unfold in highly predictable and even traditional fashion. Added footnotes and even inclusion of less well known facts on our hero. So that such a new biography would find its welcome place in an already vast library of the same.
But Mozart biographies (and there are several outstandingly good examples) have long tended to differ from those we may read on the lesser known figures of history. In several important ways. First because they rely so heavily on still earlier biographies. And second because biography is not an ideal form in which to critically examine or criticise established views on any person. Nor are journal articles. To repeat popular views or 'received wisdom' only to call its reliability into detailed question would be a tedious and clumsy business, hard to write, and even harder to read. The result of such a work would hardly be described as a biography at all. Besides, we can easily understand that Mozart biographies (and those of other 'great composers') have always tended towards a kind of circular argument in respect of the composer's 'official' life and achievements. This silent conservatism is due as much to the limitations of biography itself as to its contents. So that the closest we can come would seem to be a 'documentary biography'.
An alternative approach would be a series of Mozart articles of the kind we might find in, say, specialist music journals. Where the most important aspects are examined and cross-examined in the light of modern discoveries. This would have real value in a microscopic sense. But it would also, almost by definition, lack overview and linkage with a whole host of other important factors and would hardly allow appreciation of the whole subject.
All of these indicate that a solution exists in writing neither a biography nor a series of journal articles but a work which is a combination of both. In to which a third element is added - details of the posthumous manufacture by propagandists, authors and lecturers of Mozart's iconic status and its dissemination within the musical world and within western culture as a whole in the early to middle 19th century. The net result of incorporating all these aspects within the same work would, with difficulty, be a modern and critical study of the Mozart phenomenon, as a whole. Which is the aim here''.
R.E. Newman
2009
//
Anyway, here's a short excerpt from its 'Introduction' -
''That the official career of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) was 'stage managed', falsified, and virtually all invented from the time of his childhood in Salzburg onwards until the time of his death in December 1791 by the wholesale and systematic supply to him at each and every stage of his career (and even beyond it, in terms of its publication) of music he never composed is not a view shared by many people. That this fraudulent life was further exaggerated and even further invented and propagated by a series of later propagandists, biographers and publishers in the decades which followed Mozart's death in late 1791 - this too may be regarded as highly controversial. Nor are such things likely to be well received by those of more conservative musical and cultural view. And nor would it occur to many readers (even critics) that such opinions could be argued at length, let alone sustained over the span of an entire book. But no good will come of hiding this conviction of mine till the end of the work, seeing that its been obtained by detailed study of his life and career over many years, some aspects of which are now presented here for this first time on such a scale. This belief of mine, this thesis, is, I sincerely believe, reinforced by the fruits of long and fair examination of virtually all aspects of Mozart's life, career and reputation and is, I respectfully submit, able to shown true beyond reasonable doubt. Or, at least, is able to be expressed coherently for the first time for the sure criticism and judgement of music lovers and general readers by means of evidence. So they these same readers can at least form their own considered judgement on this important cultural, musical and historical issue having examined it from more than one perspective. This irrespective of the fact that the body of music today attributed to W.A. Mozart undoubtedly includes some of the finest ever written, by anyone, in any century.
This work examines the life and career of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791) in the light of modern discoveries. It also examines, in some detail, Mozart's posthumous rise to fame and the dissemination of his iconic status in the musical and cultural world over the decades which followed. The scale of this work, though large, has been condensed, so that an overview of what is a complex and multi-faceted subject is made possible, and so that particular aspects are seen in some detail.
I've made efforts to avoid continually revisiting a specific aspect of Mozart except where it clarifies a point on which there may be dispute. Nor has an attempt been made to follow a strict chronology. Nor have I used vast numbers of footnotes. So that this work is kept to manageable size and so that its contents can easily be compared with biographies and standard reference works.
Contrary to popular belief, the death of Mozart in Vienna in December 1791 was not the occasion of a great outpouring of public grief in the Austrian capital. But since the subject of Mozart's status, reputation and achievements in Vienna (1781-1791) are of obvious importance to the subject we begin by freshly examining his life and achievements during his final decade. We will soon appreciate that even this Vienna decade is a far from straightforward subject. Popularised versions of Mozart on this period are in fact riddled with paradoxes, contradictions, loose ends, exaggerations and omissions. Nowhere more so than in respect of his final days.
Mozart's own death in late 1791 was commemorated very differently in the Austrian capital than in, say, Prague. In Prague a memorial service was quickly organised and attended by thousands of adoring citizens from all classes of Bohemian society. In stark contrast to what happened in the Austrian capital. Of relevance to which is the statement by Mozart's close colleague and principal librettist, Lorenzo da Ponte -
''Mozart, thanks to the intrigues of his rivals, had never been able to exercise his divine genius in Vienna, and was living there unknown and obscure, like a precious jewel buried in the bowels of the earth and hiding the refulgent excellence of its splendours''.
(Lorenzo da Ponte - Librettist and working colleague of Mozart - 'Memoirs')
Da Ponte is keen that we believe in Mozart's musical genius. But he takes the unusual step of admitting, even emphasising, repeatedly, that his colleague was virtually 'unknown' in Vienna. A remarkable thing to say of the mercurial Mozart of those Vienna years. Mozart's invisibility and his musical failure in Vienna is stated, repeatedly. But such things tend to be glossed over by the casual reader and they easily become lost. He says Mozart at no time demonstrated his musical talents in Vienna. He compares his late friend to a buried and obscure jewel, etc.
It's one example of Mozart's life and career in Vienna which contradicts the version to which we are accustomed. And yet, as we will see, similar contradictions exist for virtually all key aspects of Mozart's life and career. They are rather typical. The benefits of fair and reasonable doubt on Mozart have tended by sheer tradition and hyperbole to influence what is generally believed. We find in favour of his 'genius'. So that Mozart's iconic status becomes a sort of biographical credit card. Extracting him and his well known story from even the most glaring contradictions and difficulties. So that when a contrary and radically opposing line of evidence is presented we seem hardly able to appreciate it for what it is. We assume his career in Vienna had periods of great personal success and acclaim followed by rapid decline. But no sooner is this challenged than we search for our 'credit card' and extol his musical genius.
The truth is that over the past two centuries biographers and propagandists have blown a cloud of dreamy and ever expanding bubbles over the Mozart scene, so to speak. These bubbles, of different size and colour, each more wonderful than the one before, have accompanied the legend of Mozart's musical genius, success and reputation. He is typically presented as a well known and greatly loved virtuoso and composer of legendary abilities in those same Vienna years. A teacher of literally dozens of talented pupils etc. One of the first freelance composers to earn an income from all his activities in a ceaseless blaze of creative activity. This is the Mozart of renown and of legendary ability loved and revered by musical Vienna but who, we discover, is unable to find a secure position of employment. 'Ah ! Such is the price of genius'. And this inability is counterbalanced by our ability to believe in his near miraculous talents and by crediting him with literally hundreds of great musical achievements over this same period for which, we are told, the documentary evidence is alone sufficient. Glaring contradictions are glossed over. Because Mozart was a genius. But the steady stream of 'bubbles' blown around his constantly inflated image, almost without us suspecting it, rob us of context or ability to accept criticism against the icon which stands before us. Obscuring reality, dulling our critical faculties, and eliminating any chance to understand the Vienna in which Mozart lived or the fuller details of his life. The emergence of a Mozart myth has come at the expense of these vital contexts being removed and, in their place, a disembodied figure is projected on to the screen of musical history which lacks virtually all context. The real Mozart further transformed by an endless stream of eulogies. Emerging as little more than a hologram whose main feature is that he and his life are, even in terms of biography, detached from reality. So that our belief in the Mozart myth, and our appreciation of the music of others at the time, its influence on his own, and a whole series of other vital issues have become peripheral. This sanitised and disembodied image of Mozart has become the stuff of biographies themselves on which a stream of further exaggerations and errors have been added as academic and nutritional supplements. This to our perpetual delight and fascination. Making the straightforward business of a Mozart biography far, far more challenging than it would otherwise be.
Mozart, from a biographical aspect, would present any self-respecting biographer with a series of unusual, almost unique challenges. Not least those underpinning Mozart's god-like status. A modern biographer would be aware that he is producing a work on a figure that would be eagerly awaited by those already familiar with its well known outlines. But its narrative, however well written and retold would be sure to consist of the usual list of major events in Mozart's 'official' life, his most famous works, these introduced chronologically and given some degree of context by reference to members of Mozart's family and reference to number of his musical patrons, though these discussed in only a superficial sense. The 'story' would unfold in highly predictable and even traditional fashion. Added footnotes and even inclusion of less well known facts on our hero. So that such a new biography would find its welcome place in an already vast library of the same.
But Mozart biographies (and there are several outstandingly good examples) have long tended to differ from those we may read on the lesser known figures of history. In several important ways. First because they rely so heavily on still earlier biographies. And second because biography is not an ideal form in which to critically examine or criticise established views on any person. Nor are journal articles. To repeat popular views or 'received wisdom' only to call its reliability into detailed question would be a tedious and clumsy business, hard to write, and even harder to read. The result of such a work would hardly be described as a biography at all. Besides, we can easily understand that Mozart biographies (and those of other 'great composers') have always tended towards a kind of circular argument in respect of the composer's 'official' life and achievements. This silent conservatism is due as much to the limitations of biography itself as to its contents. So that the closest we can come would seem to be a 'documentary biography'.
An alternative approach would be a series of Mozart articles of the kind we might find in, say, specialist music journals. Where the most important aspects are examined and cross-examined in the light of modern discoveries. This would have real value in a microscopic sense. But it would also, almost by definition, lack overview and linkage with a whole host of other important factors and would hardly allow appreciation of the whole subject.
All of these indicate that a solution exists in writing neither a biography nor a series of journal articles but a work which is a combination of both. In to which a third element is added - details of the posthumous manufacture by propagandists, authors and lecturers of Mozart's iconic status and its dissemination within the musical world and within western culture as a whole in the early to middle 19th century. The net result of incorporating all these aspects within the same work would, with difficulty, be a modern and critical study of the Mozart phenomenon, as a whole. Which is the aim here''.
R.E. Newman
2009
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on June 13, 2009, 11:47:02 PM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on June 13, 2009, 11:47:02 PM
It's a bit odd that the focal point of this most recent post is a quote that was originally posted by someone else early in this thread. It seems to have become the cornerstone of your argument.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on June 14, 2009, 04:51:12 AM
Post by: robnewman on June 14, 2009, 04:51:12 AM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on June 13, 2009, 11:47:02 PM
It's a bit odd that the focal point of this most recent post is a quote that was originally posted by someone else early in this thread. It seems to have become the cornerstone of your argument.
You are of course refering to the statement of Lorenzo da Ponte -
''Mozart, thanks to the intrigues of his rivals, had never been able to exercise his divine genius in Vienna, and was living there unknown and obscure, like a precious jewel buried in the bowels of the earth and hiding the refulgent excellence of its splendours''.
(Lorenzo da Ponte - Librettist and working colleague of Mozart - 'Memoirs')
Well, thanks, but not even the 'spin merchants' of the Mozart industry can avoid the implications of what is being said here by Lorenzo da Ponte, a close working associate of Mozart in Vienna, can they ?
Far from being the 'cornerstone' of my argument, it is an indisputable example of how the paradigm of Mozart's iconic status is maintained, by arguing from completely different points of view at the same time !
Such is the appeal of the Mozart myth and so dominant has it become within our society and within even the academic world today that the uniqueness of its appeal is to accustomise us to the absurdity of a 'genius' who is one moment the celebrated hero of musical Vienna, the composer of musical masterpieces by the dozen, the adored virtuoso of the Austrian capital, and teacher of more pupils than any biographer has ever been able to count. But is, on the other hand, unable to obtain a permanent post of employment in his entire life nor any detailed education in all the elements of composition, and whose adoring public is one moment able to include a list of the great musical dilettante of Vienna and, the very next, to contain only one concert patron's name by 1789 - this within a few years of his greatest, most public successes. The composer of 'Le Nozze di Figaro', 'Don Giovanni', 'Cosi fan Tutte', 'Die Zauberflote' and the same creature of Apollo who, we later learn, dies in poverty and obscurity in the winter of 1791. The glaring contradictions in this story, even of his Vienna years, are matched only by the glaring contradictions in all the earlier periods of his life and career.
To note that Mozart, during his whole lifetime, published only around 144 works in total of the 626 that were finally attributed to him by Ludwig Koechel, and that only 30 of these publications in Vienna date from his last Vienna decade (1781-1791) is almost bizzare in itself. Since he, Mozart, is portrayed as being a 'freelance' composer, more highly dependent on the sale of music than most of his own musical contemporaries.
Here's a question recently asked by a child here in London -
'Sir, if Mozart had no money in his last years, why didn't he try to sell some of the hundreds of musical masterpieces which he was keeping under his piano' ? :) :)
('Out of the mouths of babes' etc.).
The simplicity of the child's question is as devastating as the statements of Lorenzo da Ponte. Since there is no evidence of frantic attempts by Mozart to have published hundreds of his unpublished masterpieces all across Europe as his financial and social situation was in meltdown during those last Vienna years. Strange, right ? You are, after all, a genius composer. And a freelance composer. Now, if a baker runs in to difficulty, financially, does he not try, specially hard, to sell his cakes and bread, with more energy than ever before ? And what of a writer, or a painter ? But there is no evidence of any increase of publishing activity by Mozart in the last years of his life in Vienna. Something does not add up, does it ? The ability of people to believe B.S. in the face of common sense and downright simplicity never ceases to amaze me.
The statements of da Ponte are typical and are not a cornerstone of the argument. They come from a source we can and must consider. And, because they're easily accessible and have been discussed here. So I've repeated them. Play back the tape. Consider what the Mozart propagandists have said and play the darn stuff back at them. Isn't that the best way to counteract propaganda ? But entire chapters develop the case with much fuller evidence.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 06, 2009, 04:58:25 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 06, 2009, 04:58:25 AM
- Preface -
To criticise in some detail the 'official' career of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791), to call in to question his musical abilities, both as a composer and as a legendary performer, to ask if he was truly the composer of virtually all the great musical works that are published and widely performed in his name, to question the truthfulness and reliability of documents which date from his own time, many of them describing him as being a musical 'genius', to question the contents of well known Mozart biographies - to argue, instead, that the life and musical career of this Salzburg 'genius', this colossus of western culture, was really a gigantic cultural fraud of the late Holy Roman Empire virtually from beginning to end (a fraud continued and further exaggerated for decades after his death by sympathetic publishers and propagandists) - these are views so controversial, so unusual and so rarely considered within 'polite and educated society' that a number of experts who specialise in these areas of study, having heard that such a work may appear soon and being alarmed at the prospect of it becoming reality are queuing up to rescue the iconic status of their musical hero from such a strange, seemingly unprovoked and lengthy attack. Saying that I must have studied my subject for too long, that mine is the work of a man whose fertile imagination has 'got the better of him', that I've succumbed to a rare academic illness, that publication of a work against the Mozart we all know and love may even corrupt the young, that it might lead to ugliness within their beautiful world if read by the innocent etc., and that the views expressed here and the evidence presented in its support are the musicological equivalent of 'tilting at windmills' or of 'whistling in to the wind'.
Mozart is, of course, big business. And yet you may be surprised to know how rarely his huge musical status and his alleged achievements have ever been criticised in any detail. 'Mozart studies' (so-called) is an elitist and highly conservative offshoot of musicology whose workers assume 'everything we have heard and read of Mozart is true' or, at least, so worthy of belief that the paradigm that underpins this virtual secular religion is hardly appreciated. The first Austrian institute founded to propagate Mozart's music and to disseminate information on him, the Mozarteum of Salzburg (1841), is today seen internationally as one of the great centres of music study and is able to obtain funding, regularly, for vast promotional work that is read and believed as reliable worldwide. Mozart has been for almost two centuries one of the pillars of the musical establishment - a subject so complex and so highly regarded by teachers and schools in widely available literature that it may seem unthinkable that any complaint, however well researched, can be made against its ethos, and against the industry which promotes and has come to dominate the education of students in matters of musical history.
And yet criticise Mozart we must, since there is no science, nor any body of academic study, great or small, which should escape or avoid detailed criticism of the assumptions on which it is based and on which it has always been based.
R.E. Newman
London
2009
To criticise in some detail the 'official' career of W.A. Mozart (1756-1791), to call in to question his musical abilities, both as a composer and as a legendary performer, to ask if he was truly the composer of virtually all the great musical works that are published and widely performed in his name, to question the truthfulness and reliability of documents which date from his own time, many of them describing him as being a musical 'genius', to question the contents of well known Mozart biographies - to argue, instead, that the life and musical career of this Salzburg 'genius', this colossus of western culture, was really a gigantic cultural fraud of the late Holy Roman Empire virtually from beginning to end (a fraud continued and further exaggerated for decades after his death by sympathetic publishers and propagandists) - these are views so controversial, so unusual and so rarely considered within 'polite and educated society' that a number of experts who specialise in these areas of study, having heard that such a work may appear soon and being alarmed at the prospect of it becoming reality are queuing up to rescue the iconic status of their musical hero from such a strange, seemingly unprovoked and lengthy attack. Saying that I must have studied my subject for too long, that mine is the work of a man whose fertile imagination has 'got the better of him', that I've succumbed to a rare academic illness, that publication of a work against the Mozart we all know and love may even corrupt the young, that it might lead to ugliness within their beautiful world if read by the innocent etc., and that the views expressed here and the evidence presented in its support are the musicological equivalent of 'tilting at windmills' or of 'whistling in to the wind'.
Mozart is, of course, big business. And yet you may be surprised to know how rarely his huge musical status and his alleged achievements have ever been criticised in any detail. 'Mozart studies' (so-called) is an elitist and highly conservative offshoot of musicology whose workers assume 'everything we have heard and read of Mozart is true' or, at least, so worthy of belief that the paradigm that underpins this virtual secular religion is hardly appreciated. The first Austrian institute founded to propagate Mozart's music and to disseminate information on him, the Mozarteum of Salzburg (1841), is today seen internationally as one of the great centres of music study and is able to obtain funding, regularly, for vast promotional work that is read and believed as reliable worldwide. Mozart has been for almost two centuries one of the pillars of the musical establishment - a subject so complex and so highly regarded by teachers and schools in widely available literature that it may seem unthinkable that any complaint, however well researched, can be made against its ethos, and against the industry which promotes and has come to dominate the education of students in matters of musical history.
And yet criticise Mozart we must, since there is no science, nor any body of academic study, great or small, which should escape or avoid detailed criticism of the assumptions on which it is based and on which it has always been based.
R.E. Newman
London
2009
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 06, 2009, 06:56:29 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 06, 2009, 06:56:29 AM
'The Manufacture of Mozart'
Preface
Introduction
Chapter 1 - Mozart in Vienna (1781-1791)
Chapter 2 - The Symphonies
Chapter 3 - The Keyboard Concertos
Chapter 4 - The Operas
Chapter 5 - The Sonatas
Chapter 6 - The Chamber Music
Chapter 7 - The Wind Concertos
Chapter 8 - The Church Music
Chapter 9 - Childhood and Youth
Chapter 10 - The Structure of the Emerging Mozart Industry
Chapter 11 - Posthumous Mozart
Chapter 12 - Posthumous Mozart (2)
Chapter 13 - The Manuscripts
Chapter 14 - The European Tours
Chapter 15 - Mozart, composer without Context
Chapter 16 - The Mozart Family Correspondence
Chapter 17 - Corporate Mozart
Chapter 18 - Mozart goes Global
Footnotes, Diagrams, and Bibliography
//
Preface
Introduction
Chapter 1 - Mozart in Vienna (1781-1791)
Chapter 2 - The Symphonies
Chapter 3 - The Keyboard Concertos
Chapter 4 - The Operas
Chapter 5 - The Sonatas
Chapter 6 - The Chamber Music
Chapter 7 - The Wind Concertos
Chapter 8 - The Church Music
Chapter 9 - Childhood and Youth
Chapter 10 - The Structure of the Emerging Mozart Industry
Chapter 11 - Posthumous Mozart
Chapter 12 - Posthumous Mozart (2)
Chapter 13 - The Manuscripts
Chapter 14 - The European Tours
Chapter 15 - Mozart, composer without Context
Chapter 16 - The Mozart Family Correspondence
Chapter 17 - Corporate Mozart
Chapter 18 - Mozart goes Global
Footnotes, Diagrams, and Bibliography
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 06, 2009, 08:35:03 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 06, 2009, 08:35:03 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 06, 2009, 06:56:29 AMYes, at least I agree that his posthumous work s must have been produced by somebody else.
Chapter 11 - Posthumous Mozart
Chapter 12 - Posthumous Mozart (2)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 06, 2009, 09:07:39 AM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 06, 2009, 09:07:39 AM
Quote from: erato on July 06, 2009, 08:35:03 AM:D
Yes, at least I agree that his posthumous work s must have been produced by somebody else.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 06, 2009, 12:48:48 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 06, 2009, 12:48:48 PM
Quote from: erato on July 06, 2009, 08:35:03 AM
Yes, at least I agree that his posthumous work s must have been produced by somebody else.
He doesn't have any posthumous works. For sure. Not even Mozart ::) Well, don't quote me on that, will you ? LOL :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 01:48:11 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 01:48:11 AM
Mozart's iconic status within western musical culture is little more than a fantasy, a fairy story. But one that has a global fan base. Manufactured in the late 18th century and still, today, dominating the teaching of music history to a grotesque extent. But on issue after issue the facts surrounding Mozart's life, career and even his reputation as a performer and composer simply do not add up. Crucially important evidence was hidden, turned on its head, systematically, routinely, even traditionally, its sources often out of reach and massaged by an endless stream of biographers, each quoting the other, in a mockery of musicology. To subscribe to the Mozart myth you will be made ignorant, almost without realising it, of virtually all of Mozart's musical contemporaries, just for a start. You will be asked to believe things of him which dumb down your own critical faculties. And this is not new. Its been happening for over 200 years in countless publications, and even in film, in a storyline which is rarely, if ever, subjected to cross-examination and criticism but which we can and must give to any area of valid research. 'Mozart studies' (so-called) exist and have always existed in a bubble. As to whether they are a valid branch of musicology is for readers to decide.
Do yourself a favour. Examine this issue from more than one side so you can form your own judgement. This great music today attributed to W.A. Mozart is not that of a provincial Salzburgian musician. Mozart, in fact, spent not a single day at school in his entire life nor studied for any period of time under any recognised teacher of music. History deserves better. So does music. And so do you.
//
Do yourself a favour. Examine this issue from more than one side so you can form your own judgement. This great music today attributed to W.A. Mozart is not that of a provincial Salzburgian musician. Mozart, in fact, spent not a single day at school in his entire life nor studied for any period of time under any recognised teacher of music. History deserves better. So does music. And so do you.
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 08:57:57 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 08:57:57 AM
Vanhal, Myslivececk, Righini, Fiala, Luchesi, Paul Wranitsky, Anton Wranitsky and at least half a dozen other contemporary composers - all of them known to Mozart - (none of whose music is well known to Mozart fans and most of it hardly recorded) were all writing music in 'Mozart's' style long before Mozart was. :) And, in plain fact, MANY works today attributed to Mozart are NOT even 'Mozartean' in their own style ! Many symphonies, for example. And that's just a start. Must be a coincidence, of course. Pity their music has been so suppressed, right ?
Gee !!! ::)
Gee !!! ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: 71 dB on July 07, 2009, 09:09:31 AM
Post by: 71 dB on July 07, 2009, 09:09:31 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 08:57:57 AMPity their music has been so suppressed, right ?
Of course it is! :'(
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 06, 2009, 09:30:28 AM
Thanks for your answer, Poju.
No problem Karl! 0:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on July 07, 2009, 09:13:25 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on July 07, 2009, 09:13:25 AM
Natural selection isn't suppression. I think Mr Newman should stick to his own thread and refrain from trolling the rest of forum.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 09:15:42 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 09:15:42 AM
QuotePity their music has been so suppressed, right ?
Right; greatness is so oppressive to the run-of-the-mill!
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 07, 2009, 09:13:25 AM
Natural selection isn't suppression. I think Mr Newman should stick to his own thread and refrain from trolling the rest of forum.
Word (both remarks).
I think it's worse pity when so much of the for-dentist-office-waiting-rooms classical programming gives so much airtime to the mediocre contemporaries of Bach, Mozart & Beethoven.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: 71 dB on July 07, 2009, 09:16:23 AM
Post by: 71 dB on July 07, 2009, 09:16:23 AM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 07, 2009, 09:13:25 AM
Natural selection isn't suppression.
I think this time the selection process has been unnatural. :P
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 09:17:21 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 09:17:21 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 07, 2009, 09:16:23 AM
I think this time the selection process has been unnatural. :P
You mean, the artificial elevation of Vanhal? Probably you're right at that, Poju ;)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Lethevich on July 07, 2009, 09:17:55 AM
Post by: Lethevich on July 07, 2009, 09:17:55 AM
Please keep this crap in the conspiracy thread :P
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 09:19:47 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 09:19:47 AM
Quote from: Lethe on July 07, 2009, 09:17:55 AM
Please keep this crap in the conspiracy thread :P
Still lovin' that av, Sara!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: 71 dB on July 07, 2009, 09:21:47 AM
Post by: 71 dB on July 07, 2009, 09:21:47 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2009, 09:17:21 AM
You mean, the artificial elevation of Vanhal?
Well, if you think Vanhal is worthless then what can I do? I am sorry I like his music! I like Dittersdorf too. Sorry! Sorry! I am sorry I exist and like worthless composers!
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 09:25:56 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 09:25:56 AM
Paul Wranitsky (1756-1808)
Symphony in D Major
1st Movement
c. 1782/3
London Mozart Players
http://www.mediafire.com/?mdrndqwdwzd
Note - ''Any musical resemblance in this movement to the overture to 'Le Nozze di Figaro' of Herr Mozart of 1786 is purely coincidental'' ::)
Czech composer, conductor and violinist active in Vienna, brother of Anton Wranitzky. He studied singing and the organ, violin and viola at the Premonstratensian monastery grammar school in Nová Říše, and later at Jihlava (1770–71). At Olomouc he studied theology and became an excellent violinist. At 20 he went to Vienna, where he entered the theological seminary and served as its choirmaster. He continued his musical studies with J.M. Kraus (the Kapellmeister to the Swedish court, who visited Vienna in about 1783). Suggestions that he was also a pupil of Haydn remain unsubstantiated.
He served as music director for Count Johann Baptist Esterházy in the spring of 1784 and was appointed director of the newly created Kärntnertortheater orchestra in October 1785, a position he held until 1787, when he joined the Burgtheater orchestra. He was named its director in either 1792 or 1793. In about 1786 he started composing symphonies; he was asked to write one for the coronation of Franz II in 1792. He also composed several works for the private use of Franz's second wife, Marie Therese (1772–1807). Wranitzky conducted a gala performance of his Singspiel Oberon during the coronation festivities of Leopold II at Frankfurt (15 October 1790). During the next 15 years Wranizkty composed at least another 20 works for the stage. He maintained his position with the court theatres until his death in 1808 when his brother Anton replaced him.
Wranitzky played a prominent role in the musical life of Vienna. Both Haydn and Beethoven preferred him as a conductor of their works: Haydn insisted on his direction of the Viennese performances of The Creation (1799, 1800), and at Beethoven's request he conducted the première of that composer's First Symphony (2 April 1800). From 1805 he alternated with Gyrowetz as head of the Adelige Liebhaber- oder Cavalier-Konzerte of Vienna. Wranitzky was a member of the same freemasons' lodge as Mozart, 'Zur gekrönten Hoffnung' and after Mozart's death served as a legal mediator for his widow in her negotiations with the publisher André. As secretary of the Viennese Tonkünstler-Societät he succeeded in settling Haydn's lengthy quarrel with the society in December 1797. His friendly relations with Haydn are documented by Wranitzky's letter to John Bland (12 December 1790) and by Haydn's letter to Wranitzky (3 September 1800). Beethoven's personal relationship with both Paul and Anton Wranitzky is shown in Czerny's memoirs. Weber visited Paul Wranitzky in Vienna in 1803.
Wranitzky composed 51 symphonies, most of which have four movements in the standard Classical order, frequently with a slow introduction. The public performance of his Grande sinfonie caractéristique pour la paix avec la République françoise op.31 was forbidden by an imperial resolution (20 December 1797) as the title of the work was felt to be provocative. Like Beethoven's Eroica, this symphony contains a funeral march as the slow movement, which is given the subtitle 'The Fate and Death of Louis XVI'. Wranitzky also published 56 string quartets, the majority of which are set in the three-movement format of the Parisian quatour concertant. In these works Wranitzky explored the emerging Romantic style with daring harmonic progressions, theatrical gestures, and virtuoso display. Wranitzky's music quickly fell out of favour after his death, as noted by Fétis: 'The music of Wranitzky was in fashion when it was new because of his natural melodies and brilliant style. He treats the orchestra well, especially in symphonies. I recall that, in my youth, his works held up very well in comparison with those of Haydn. Their premature abandonment of today has been for me a source of astonishment'. Wranitzky's best-known stage work and also one of his longest-surviving compositions was his first Singspiel Oberon. The enthusiastic reception of this work in Vienna prompted Schikaneder to conceive Die Zauberflöte for Mozart, whose setting shows certain striking resemblances to Wranitzky's work. (Sheer coincidence, of course ! ). Goethe considered Wranitzky the most appropriate composer to set his Zauberflöte zweiter Teil, and sought his collaboration (letter, 1796). Oberon was eclipsed in popularity only in 1826 by Weber's opera of the same name. Even more popular in their day were Wranitzky's ballets, particularly Das Waldmädchen (though the 'thème russe' from this work, on which Beethoven wrote his 12 piano variations WoO71, is by Giornovichi).
Symphony in D Major
1st Movement
c. 1782/3
London Mozart Players
http://www.mediafire.com/?mdrndqwdwzd
Note - ''Any musical resemblance in this movement to the overture to 'Le Nozze di Figaro' of Herr Mozart of 1786 is purely coincidental'' ::)
Czech composer, conductor and violinist active in Vienna, brother of Anton Wranitzky. He studied singing and the organ, violin and viola at the Premonstratensian monastery grammar school in Nová Říše, and later at Jihlava (1770–71). At Olomouc he studied theology and became an excellent violinist. At 20 he went to Vienna, where he entered the theological seminary and served as its choirmaster. He continued his musical studies with J.M. Kraus (the Kapellmeister to the Swedish court, who visited Vienna in about 1783). Suggestions that he was also a pupil of Haydn remain unsubstantiated.
He served as music director for Count Johann Baptist Esterházy in the spring of 1784 and was appointed director of the newly created Kärntnertortheater orchestra in October 1785, a position he held until 1787, when he joined the Burgtheater orchestra. He was named its director in either 1792 or 1793. In about 1786 he started composing symphonies; he was asked to write one for the coronation of Franz II in 1792. He also composed several works for the private use of Franz's second wife, Marie Therese (1772–1807). Wranitzky conducted a gala performance of his Singspiel Oberon during the coronation festivities of Leopold II at Frankfurt (15 October 1790). During the next 15 years Wranizkty composed at least another 20 works for the stage. He maintained his position with the court theatres until his death in 1808 when his brother Anton replaced him.
Wranitzky played a prominent role in the musical life of Vienna. Both Haydn and Beethoven preferred him as a conductor of their works: Haydn insisted on his direction of the Viennese performances of The Creation (1799, 1800), and at Beethoven's request he conducted the première of that composer's First Symphony (2 April 1800). From 1805 he alternated with Gyrowetz as head of the Adelige Liebhaber- oder Cavalier-Konzerte of Vienna. Wranitzky was a member of the same freemasons' lodge as Mozart, 'Zur gekrönten Hoffnung' and after Mozart's death served as a legal mediator for his widow in her negotiations with the publisher André. As secretary of the Viennese Tonkünstler-Societät he succeeded in settling Haydn's lengthy quarrel with the society in December 1797. His friendly relations with Haydn are documented by Wranitzky's letter to John Bland (12 December 1790) and by Haydn's letter to Wranitzky (3 September 1800). Beethoven's personal relationship with both Paul and Anton Wranitzky is shown in Czerny's memoirs. Weber visited Paul Wranitzky in Vienna in 1803.
Wranitzky composed 51 symphonies, most of which have four movements in the standard Classical order, frequently with a slow introduction. The public performance of his Grande sinfonie caractéristique pour la paix avec la République françoise op.31 was forbidden by an imperial resolution (20 December 1797) as the title of the work was felt to be provocative. Like Beethoven's Eroica, this symphony contains a funeral march as the slow movement, which is given the subtitle 'The Fate and Death of Louis XVI'. Wranitzky also published 56 string quartets, the majority of which are set in the three-movement format of the Parisian quatour concertant. In these works Wranitzky explored the emerging Romantic style with daring harmonic progressions, theatrical gestures, and virtuoso display. Wranitzky's music quickly fell out of favour after his death, as noted by Fétis: 'The music of Wranitzky was in fashion when it was new because of his natural melodies and brilliant style. He treats the orchestra well, especially in symphonies. I recall that, in my youth, his works held up very well in comparison with those of Haydn. Their premature abandonment of today has been for me a source of astonishment'. Wranitzky's best-known stage work and also one of his longest-surviving compositions was his first Singspiel Oberon. The enthusiastic reception of this work in Vienna prompted Schikaneder to conceive Die Zauberflöte for Mozart, whose setting shows certain striking resemblances to Wranitzky's work. (Sheer coincidence, of course ! ). Goethe considered Wranitzky the most appropriate composer to set his Zauberflöte zweiter Teil, and sought his collaboration (letter, 1796). Oberon was eclipsed in popularity only in 1826 by Weber's opera of the same name. Even more popular in their day were Wranitzky's ballets, particularly Das Waldmädchen (though the 'thème russe' from this work, on which Beethoven wrote his 12 piano variations WoO71, is by Giornovichi).
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 09:33:35 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 09:33:35 AM
Quote from: 71 dB on July 07, 2009, 09:21:47 AM
Well, if you think Vanhal is worthless then what can I do? I am sorry I like his music! I like Dittersdorf too. Sorry! Sorry! I am sorry I exist and like worthless composers!
:P etc.
Actually, I like the hell out of Vanhal, Ditters, Wrantizky, Stamitz (the Younger), Myslivecek and any number of other composers of the time. I just haven't confused them with each other or with anyone else... ::)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 09:42:58 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 09:42:58 AM
Poju, there's a significant gap between calling Vanhal "worthless," and recognizing that he is no Mozart. And, be fair, lad: When I asked you to cite facts to support your assertion that he is "important," you gave two signally unmusical reasons (that he earned his living by an official appointment, and he was very popular).
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Lethevich on July 07, 2009, 09:43:47 AM
Post by: Lethevich on July 07, 2009, 09:43:47 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2009, 09:19:47 AM
Still lovin' that av, Sara!
It's the lion from the Vanhal coat of arms, coming to life from sheer force of concentrated rage at the injustice of Mozart's theft of his ancestor's music, and devouring the first portrait it can find.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 09:44:44 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 09:44:44 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 09:33:35 AM
Actually, I like the hell out of Vanhal, Ditters, Wrantizky, Stamitz (the Younger), Myslivecek and any number of other composers of the time. I just haven't confused them with each other or with anyone else... ::)
8)
If you gave me a blind listening test I promise you I would confuse them with each other! :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 09:45:33 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 09:45:33 AM
Great tag, David 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 09:46:24 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 09:46:24 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 09:44:44 AM
If you gave me a blind listening test I promise you I would confuse them with each other! :D
Maybe, maybe not. Although I haven't made my requisite 100+ listenings yet... :D
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 09:49:47 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 09:49:47 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 09:46:24 AM
Maybe, maybe not. Although I haven't made my requisite 100+ listenings yet... :D
8)
Well I think only Bach could stand up to that level of scrutiny. But at the end of it you would have a special counterpoint tumor to process all of the fugues. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 09:51:05 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 09:51:05 AM
Is it . . . benign?
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 09:54:33 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 09:54:33 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 09:49:47 AM
Well I think only Bach could stand up to that level of scrutiny. But at the end of it you would have a special counterpoint tumor to process all of the fugues. ;D
Tumor? Well, I was thinking maybe a nice little callus... ;)
Of course, there is always the problem of people who speak the same musical language sounding confusingly alike. IMO, if you have real problems telling 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' apart, you will never be able to tell Vanhal from Ditters. I speak from experience here... :-\
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 09:54:44 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 09:54:44 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2009, 09:51:05 AM
Is it . . . benign?Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
It's meant to elicit endless frenzied reactions to baroque music. Is that benign? I'll let you be the judge. 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 09:58:06 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 09:58:06 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 09:54:33 AM
Tumor? Well, I was thinking maybe a nice little callus... ;)
Of course, there is always the problem of people who speak the same musical language sounding confusingly alike. IMO, if you have real problems telling 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' apart, you will never be able to tell Vanhal from Ditters. I speak from experience here... :-\
8)
We should set up an abx test for esoteric classical, heck do Haydn vs Mozart first. Choose say BAT piano trio recordings of either one, similar tempo, and call one one mp3 A, the other B. Present it for download, and we can all fire up our ABX comparators and give it a whirl and post our findings! :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 10:05:30 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 10:05:30 AM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 07, 2009, 09:13:25 AM
Natural selection isn't suppression. I think Mr Newman should stick to his own thread and refrain from trolling the rest of forum.
What an excellent idea ! Maybe Josquin des Prez will start practicing what he preaches ! ??? Has he anything to troll here on 'Mozart a Fraud' ? But Josquin des Prez has real trouble telling Mozart from Mozart. We should let him hear more music.
As for my posts on other subjects, these are all made on the thread correct for their discussion. For example, you might care to read the thread on Paul Wranitsky. LOL ::) And one coming soon on Vanhal's masses.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 10:18:47 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 10:18:47 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2009, 09:42:58 AM
Poju, there's a significant gap between calling Vanhal "worthless," and recognizing that he is no Mozart. And, be fair, lad: When I asked you to cite facts to support your assertion that he is "important," you gave two signally unmusical reasons (that he earned his living by an official appointment, and he was very popular).Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Here's some homework for you Professor Henning. Listen to the masses of Vanhal written in Vienna between 1782 and 1791. If you would like a recording of one just let me know. And tell us the difference in their style with that of 'Mozart' if you can. Bet you can't.
LOL !!
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 10:20:44 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 10:20:44 AM
Karl, I hear a buzzing sound and it's not from my counterpoint tumor. Whatever could it be?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 10:24:49 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 10:24:49 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 10:20:44 AM
Karl, I hear a buzzing sound and it's not from my counterpoint tumor. Whatever could it be?
I think it's the fact this thread is on 'Mozart a Fraud ?'. But hey, why let reality get in the way of harmonic disturbances and the suppressed musical career of around 20 composers of Mozart's own time ? LOL :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on July 07, 2009, 10:25:13 AM
Post by: Cato on July 07, 2009, 10:25:13 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 01:48:11 AM
Mozart's iconic status within western musical culture is little more than a fantasy, a fairy story.
Do yourself a favour. Examine this issue from more than one side so you can form your own judgement. This great music today attributed to W.A. Mozart is not that of a provincial Salzburgian musician. Mozart, in fact, spent not a single day at school in his entire life nor studied for any period of time under any recognised teacher of music. History deserves better. So does music. And so do you.
Es gibt hier viele Märchen!
Herr Neumann: ich möchte Ihnen eine Frage stellen, nämlich ob Sie Deutsch können?
Dann habe ich eine zweite wichtigere Frage: haben Sie persönlich die originellen Manuskripte von Mozart, Vanhal, Myslivececk, Righini, Fiala, Luchesi, Paul Wranitsky, Anton Wranitsky etc. gelesen und verglichen?
Wenn ja, dann haben Sie zweifellos eine Liste der Namen der Bibliothekare, die Ihnen mit den MSS. geholfen haben, und auch eine Liste der Tage und Jahre, an denen Sie die verschiedenen Bibliotheken und Archiven besucht haben? Können Sie das uns zeigen?
So eine Unternehmung muss viel Geld kosten: wer hat Sie finanziell unterstützt, damit Sie Wien, Prag, u.s.w. besuchen können, um zu beweisen, Mozart sei ein grosser Betrüger?
Translation:
There are many fairy tales here! 0:)
Mr. Neumann: I would like to ask you a question, namely, can you read and speak German?
Then I have a second, more important question: have you personally read and compared the original manuscripts ofMozart, Vanhal, Myslivececk, Righini, Fiala, Luchesi, Paul Wranitsky, Anton Wranitsky etc.?
If so, then you indubitably have a list of all the librarians who helped you with the manuscripts, along with a list of the days and years when you visited the various libraries and archives? Can you show us that?
Such an undertaking costs much money: who has supported you financially, so that you can visit Vienna, Prague, and so on, in order to prove that Mozart was a grand fake?
Zeigen Sie uns, bitte, solchen Beweis! Dann können wir Ihnen eine Glaubensgelegenheit schenken!
Show us such evidence, please! Then we can grant you a chance to be believed!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 10:49:02 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 10:49:02 AM
Thank you Cato,
You write -
Mr. Neumann: I would like to ask you a question, namely, can you read and speak German?
Then I have a second, more important question: have you personally read and compared the original manuscripts of Mozart, Vanhal, Myslivececk, Righini, Fiala, Luchesi, Paul Wranitsky, Anton Wranitsky etc.?
If so, then you indubitably have a list of all the librarians who helped you with the manuscripts, along with a list of the days and years when you visited the various libraries and archives? Can you show us that?
Such an undertaking costs much money: who has supported you financially, so that you can visit Vienna, Prague, and so on, in order to prove that Mozart was a grand fake?
Show us such evidence, please! Then we can grant you a chance to be believed!
Thank you Cato,
Please do not grant me a chance to be believed by yourself. Since the fair consideration of an alternative view is really your own decision and not mine to make. However, do yourself a big favour. Please grant yourself the chance to examine these controversial issues from more than one side. That is, please examine the life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart over the past 200 years or so of Mozart publications and give us please a list of books you have read which call his musical abilities and reputation into serious question. Just a few titles will be sufficient to have a very interesting conversation, I promise !
Regarding your question of which music archives have been visited/studied/consulted over the past 15 years or so, these range from music libraries in Vienna, to those of Paris, London, Prague, Portugal and Italy. And, as far as the names of archivists and librarians are concerned these range from the head librarian of the Gesselschaft die Musikfreunde in Vienna, to various librarians of the Austrian National Library in Vienna, to the Librarian of the Goethe Insitutue in Frankfurt, to many German music libraries including those of Berlin and Bonn, to the librarian of the National Library of France (in Paris) to the librarians of the Portuguese national library, to the archivist of the Lobkowitz archives in the Czech Republic, to those of various libraries in Prague, to the librarians of the Estense Library in Modena, Italy and various other Italian cities including Bologna and Florence, to the Mozarteum in Salzburg, to the music archives of the British Library in London, to literally dozens of specialist music libraries, to the correspondence of dozens of musical individuals (many of them published authors on music), to ongoing correspondence with various musicologists including Prof. L. Bianchini and Prof. A. Trombetta of Italy, with Mozartean publishers/teachers such as Cliff Eisen, Professor of King's College London, with music writers such as Norman Lebrecht and various others.
Regarding my knowledge of German, it is not good and I have often had to consult others.
Please send me an email and I will happily post you a free copy of a publication on the opera, 'Le Nozze di Figaro' (2008) made last year in collaboration with Prof. Bianchini and Prof. Trombetta of Italy - showing much evidence that opera is really an arrangement of music already written by others earlier to a German text. This was hastily re-arranged by Mozart/da Ponte for its Vienna premiere in May of 1786 in Vienna.
And so on.
In answer to your questions on Myslivececek, Vanhal, Fiala, Luchesi, Wranitsky, Righini, etc. etc. I have recordings of many of these works and am familiar with the life and official career of W.A. Mozart. But I do not claim to be an expert in anything. The last 15 years or so has been a major lesson for me. Perhaps the next year or so will be one for you and I also. I hope so.
You write -
Mr. Neumann: I would like to ask you a question, namely, can you read and speak German?
Then I have a second, more important question: have you personally read and compared the original manuscripts of Mozart, Vanhal, Myslivececk, Righini, Fiala, Luchesi, Paul Wranitsky, Anton Wranitsky etc.?
If so, then you indubitably have a list of all the librarians who helped you with the manuscripts, along with a list of the days and years when you visited the various libraries and archives? Can you show us that?
Such an undertaking costs much money: who has supported you financially, so that you can visit Vienna, Prague, and so on, in order to prove that Mozart was a grand fake?
Show us such evidence, please! Then we can grant you a chance to be believed!
Thank you Cato,
Please do not grant me a chance to be believed by yourself. Since the fair consideration of an alternative view is really your own decision and not mine to make. However, do yourself a big favour. Please grant yourself the chance to examine these controversial issues from more than one side. That is, please examine the life, career and reputation of W.A. Mozart over the past 200 years or so of Mozart publications and give us please a list of books you have read which call his musical abilities and reputation into serious question. Just a few titles will be sufficient to have a very interesting conversation, I promise !
Regarding your question of which music archives have been visited/studied/consulted over the past 15 years or so, these range from music libraries in Vienna, to those of Paris, London, Prague, Portugal and Italy. And, as far as the names of archivists and librarians are concerned these range from the head librarian of the Gesselschaft die Musikfreunde in Vienna, to various librarians of the Austrian National Library in Vienna, to the Librarian of the Goethe Insitutue in Frankfurt, to many German music libraries including those of Berlin and Bonn, to the librarian of the National Library of France (in Paris) to the librarians of the Portuguese national library, to the archivist of the Lobkowitz archives in the Czech Republic, to those of various libraries in Prague, to the librarians of the Estense Library in Modena, Italy and various other Italian cities including Bologna and Florence, to the Mozarteum in Salzburg, to the music archives of the British Library in London, to literally dozens of specialist music libraries, to the correspondence of dozens of musical individuals (many of them published authors on music), to ongoing correspondence with various musicologists including Prof. L. Bianchini and Prof. A. Trombetta of Italy, with Mozartean publishers/teachers such as Cliff Eisen, Professor of King's College London, with music writers such as Norman Lebrecht and various others.
Regarding my knowledge of German, it is not good and I have often had to consult others.
Please send me an email and I will happily post you a free copy of a publication on the opera, 'Le Nozze di Figaro' (2008) made last year in collaboration with Prof. Bianchini and Prof. Trombetta of Italy - showing much evidence that opera is really an arrangement of music already written by others earlier to a German text. This was hastily re-arranged by Mozart/da Ponte for its Vienna premiere in May of 1786 in Vienna.
And so on.
In answer to your questions on Myslivececek, Vanhal, Fiala, Luchesi, Wranitsky, Righini, etc. etc. I have recordings of many of these works and am familiar with the life and official career of W.A. Mozart. But I do not claim to be an expert in anything. The last 15 years or so has been a major lesson for me. Perhaps the next year or so will be one for you and I also. I hope so.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 10:52:55 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 10:52:55 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistMozart's iconic status within western musical culture is little more than a fantasy, a fairy story.
Empty assertion. (* yawn *)
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistMozart, in fact, spent not a single day at school in his entire life . . .
Correct, though it does not mean what you imagine it means.
Quote from: the eccentric propagandist. . . nor studied for any period of time under any recognised teacher of music.
False, and a convenient example of how the repetition of a blatant falsehood does not "convert" it into truth. Mozart's father was a recognized teacher of music.
Newman continually avoids the pointed question regarding his own "proof"; and (like a Communist in the 1920s) blares patent untruths from a megaphone, on faith that the noise level will impress itself upon the listener as indicating verity.
History deserves better. So does music. And so do we.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Opus106 on July 07, 2009, 10:56:33 AM
Post by: Opus106 on July 07, 2009, 10:56:33 AM
No, not this again. Don't let it grow! Let us all go back to listening to sublime clips from Bach's cantatas.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 11:08:26 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 11:08:26 AM
Quote from: opus106 on July 07, 2009, 10:56:33 AM
No, not this again. Don't let it grow! Let us all go back to listening to sublime clips from Bach's cantatas.
Dear Op. 106,
You may be free to go to other threads if you have nothing to contribute to this one. Yes ?
But, congratulations on being a great admirer of J.S. Bach. Here we are in total agreement.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 11:14:50 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 11:14:50 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2009, 10:52:55 AM
Empty assertion. (* yawn *)
Correct, though it does not mean what you imagine it means.
False, and a convenient example of how the repetition of a blatant falsehood does not "convert" it into truth. Mozart's father was a recognized teacher of music.
Newman continually avoids the pointed question regarding his own "proof"; and (like a Communist in the 1920s) blares patent untruths from a megaphone, on faith that the noise level will impress itself upon the listener as indicating verity.
History deserves better. So does music. And so do we.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Professor Henning,
The megaphone was invented by a Jesuit propagandist named Kirchner (as you may be aware) and over the past 200 years 'Mozart studies' has been dominated (literally) be the absence of any book which criticises or calls in to question the myth of 'Mozart, musical genius'. But if you can show differently, please do so. So, who is 'blaring' and who is not ? The evidence of the past 200 years or so suggests very differently from what you are saying. Science (if 'Mozart studies' are a science) must be based on ongoing criticism of what is believed. Do you not agree ? And yet, we see the very opposite.
Contrary to your view, Leopold Mozart was NOT a music teacher of any repute at any time. In fact, he was first hired as a 4th Violinist and rose to the post of Deputy Kapellmeister only a few weeks before he left for a tour of Europe with Wolfgang. It was so ridiculous that people in Salzburg themselves questioned whether he deserved this nominal promotion. Leopold Mozart was a plagiarist and a musician of no great musical talent at any time. To suggest he was a well known teacher of music and music theory/composition is moonshine. He was not. Ever. But if you have some evidence to the contrary, please, let us see it.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Opus106 on July 07, 2009, 11:15:19 AM
Post by: Opus106 on July 07, 2009, 11:15:19 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 11:08:26 AM
You may be free to go to other threads if you have nothing to contribute to this one. Yes ?
I'm sorry, it's true that I have nothing to contribute here. I'm really a novice at coming up with baseless arguments, you see, and I also don't have the patience to put up with someone who has mastered the craft. I shall see myself out. What I said earlier was just for the good of the board. 0:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 11:17:06 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 11:17:06 AM
Quote from: opus106 on July 07, 2009, 11:15:19 AM
I'm sorry, it's true that I have nothing to contribute here. I'm really a novice at coming up with baseless arguments, you see, and I also don't have the patience to put up with someone who is mastered the craft. I shall see myself out. What I said earlier was just for the good of the board. 0:)
Thank you for determining what is 'for the good of the board'. Since you are a novice you may learn, in time, that such things are determined by members of the board themselves, within, of course, the context of the threads themselves. But, in any event, nice to have witnessed your visit here. Back to Bach, yes ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 07, 2009, 11:20:46 AM
Post by: snyprrr on July 07, 2009, 11:20:46 AM
Oh no, am I going to have to start counting pages again?
So, Rob, here's the deal. When you first got here, I had just gotten the ABQ/Teldec set of Mozz SQs. Never really heard them before in my adult life. I was devouring them when this thread originally started.
And I was impressed by your challenge to people that did they really know any other composers from the era. So my conscience was pricked. In the last few months then, I have picked up as many different "classical" era composers' SQs as I can afford, and I noted that @1787 was a big year, so I tried to get as many SQs from around that time as I could.
Now I have Mozz, Haydn, Bocc, Pleyel, Ditters, and Kraus. The Vanhal/Stamic costs $100, so..., but my point is, NONE of these guys sounds ANYTHING like "The Artist Known as Mozart." No one else utilizes those dribbling, slithery chromatics the way "Artist" does. Even when Mozz's influence can be seen in Haydn (Op.54/1), in the way Haydn utilizes chromatics here, it still sounds like Haydn.
Whoever "Artist" is, it does not appear to me to be ANY of the top baker's dozen. Even if some sound close, none of them have this stereotypical "Mozartean" chromatics (check 2nd mvmt of K387 for a good example).
Frankly, I don't even care if Mozz is really Mozz or not. All I know is, is that these SQs by "Artist" are head and shoulders above anything I've heard so far, and my research indicates that I'm probably NOT going to find another composer of 30min. SQs until post-1800.
I haven't heard the Eybler Op.1 yet, or the Forster Quintets, or the Albrechtsberger Op.7, or the Richter Op.5, so maybe, who knows?
I just can't see it being an Italian. Rosetti? Viotti? nah, really???
All I can see is that the SQs "attributed" to "Artist" are the greatest SQs (in terms of depth and scope), and that they are definitely by a "singular" personality, one who is far beyond any of his peers.
The best I could give you in my ignorance would be that ComposerX gave Mozart "templates," which then Mozart "added to" or "rewrote." I just can't get beyond those drooly, slithery chromatics: NO ONE ELSE even seems to have the idea to use them.
Otherwise, it appears that the idiot savant DID write his own SQs.
ps- it IS plain that as far as SQs goes, all other composers who wrote numerous, numerous SQs have been virtually shut out by the record companies. Whether this is a conspiracy, or because the music sucks, I don't know, but yea, it does make me wonder what's going on there. I really doubt that there aren't any more masterpieces to be uncovered (ex. Reicha).
I know they pretty much ALL were FreeMasons and that there IS room to introduce "secrecy" into your arguement (no one seems to give the Masons, a group based on secrecy, any credit for keeping secrets), so I can understand why one will never find any "receipts," or "proofs."
But then who, who ,WHO wrote these singular SQs??? They are just too unique.
(am I banned yet? ;D)
So, Rob, here's the deal. When you first got here, I had just gotten the ABQ/Teldec set of Mozz SQs. Never really heard them before in my adult life. I was devouring them when this thread originally started.
And I was impressed by your challenge to people that did they really know any other composers from the era. So my conscience was pricked. In the last few months then, I have picked up as many different "classical" era composers' SQs as I can afford, and I noted that @1787 was a big year, so I tried to get as many SQs from around that time as I could.
Now I have Mozz, Haydn, Bocc, Pleyel, Ditters, and Kraus. The Vanhal/Stamic costs $100, so..., but my point is, NONE of these guys sounds ANYTHING like "The Artist Known as Mozart." No one else utilizes those dribbling, slithery chromatics the way "Artist" does. Even when Mozz's influence can be seen in Haydn (Op.54/1), in the way Haydn utilizes chromatics here, it still sounds like Haydn.
Whoever "Artist" is, it does not appear to me to be ANY of the top baker's dozen. Even if some sound close, none of them have this stereotypical "Mozartean" chromatics (check 2nd mvmt of K387 for a good example).
Frankly, I don't even care if Mozz is really Mozz or not. All I know is, is that these SQs by "Artist" are head and shoulders above anything I've heard so far, and my research indicates that I'm probably NOT going to find another composer of 30min. SQs until post-1800.
I haven't heard the Eybler Op.1 yet, or the Forster Quintets, or the Albrechtsberger Op.7, or the Richter Op.5, so maybe, who knows?
I just can't see it being an Italian. Rosetti? Viotti? nah, really???
All I can see is that the SQs "attributed" to "Artist" are the greatest SQs (in terms of depth and scope), and that they are definitely by a "singular" personality, one who is far beyond any of his peers.
The best I could give you in my ignorance would be that ComposerX gave Mozart "templates," which then Mozart "added to" or "rewrote." I just can't get beyond those drooly, slithery chromatics: NO ONE ELSE even seems to have the idea to use them.
Otherwise, it appears that the idiot savant DID write his own SQs.
ps- it IS plain that as far as SQs goes, all other composers who wrote numerous, numerous SQs have been virtually shut out by the record companies. Whether this is a conspiracy, or because the music sucks, I don't know, but yea, it does make me wonder what's going on there. I really doubt that there aren't any more masterpieces to be uncovered (ex. Reicha).
I know they pretty much ALL were FreeMasons and that there IS room to introduce "secrecy" into your arguement (no one seems to give the Masons, a group based on secrecy, any credit for keeping secrets), so I can understand why one will never find any "receipts," or "proofs."
But then who, who ,WHO wrote these singular SQs??? They are just too unique.
(am I banned yet? ;D)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 11:47:51 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 11:47:51 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 07, 2009, 11:20:46 AM
Oh no, am I going to have to start counting pages again?
So, Rob, here's the deal. When you first got here, I had just gotten the ABQ/Teldec set of Mozz SQs. Never really heard them before in my adult life. I was devouring them when this thread originally started.
And I was impressed by your challenge to people that did they really know any other composers from the era. So my conscience was pricked. In the last few months then, I have picked up as many different "classical" era composers' SQs as I can afford, and I noted that @1787 was a big year, so I tried to get as many SQs from around that time as I could.
Now I have Mozz, Haydn, Bocc, Pleyel, Ditters, and Kraus. The Vanhal/Stamic costs $100, so..., but my point is, NONE of these guys sounds ANYTHING like "The Artist Known as Mozart." No one else utilizes those dribbling, slithery chromatics the way "Artist" does. Even when Mozz's influence can be seen in Haydn (Op.54/1), in the way Haydn utilizes chromatics here, it still sounds like Haydn.
Whoever "Artist" is, it does not appear to me to be ANY of the top baker's dozen. Even if some sound close, none of them have this stereotypical "Mozartean" chromatics (check 2nd mvmt of K387 for a good example).
Frankly, I don't even care if Mozz is really Mozz or not. All I know is, is that these SQs by "Artist" are head and shoulders above anything I've heard so far, and my research indicates that I'm probably NOT going to find another composer of 30min. SQs until post-1800.
Hi there S
I haven't heard the Eybler Op.1 yet, or the Forster Quintets, or the Albrechtsberger Op.7, or the Richter Op.5, so maybe, who knows?
I just can't see it being an Italian. Rosetti? Viotti? nah, really???
All I can see is that the SQs "attributed" to "Artist" are the greatest SQs (in terms of depth and scope), and that they are definitely by a "singular" personality, one who is far beyond any of his peers.
The best I could give you in my ignorance would be that ComposerX gave Mozart "templates," which then Mozart "added to" or "rewrote." I just can't get beyond those drooly, slithery chromatics: NO ONE ELSE even seems to have the idea to use them.
Otherwise, it appears that the idiot savant DID write his own SQs.
ps- it IS plain that as far as SQs goes, all other composers who wrote numerous, numerous SQs have been virtually shut out by the record companies. Whether this is a conspiracy, or because the music sucks, I don't know, but yea, it does make me wonder what's going on there. I really doubt that there aren't any more masterpieces to be uncovered (ex. Reicha).
I know they pretty much ALL were FreeMasons and that there IS room to introduce "secrecy" into your arguement (no one seems to give the Masons, a group based on secrecy, any credit for keeping secrets), so I can understand why one will never find any "receipts," or "proofs."
But then who, who ,WHO wrote these singular SQs??? They are just too unique.
(am I banned yet? ;D)
Hi there Snyprr,
I am not sure that I can help a great deal although you deserve great credit for having expanded your listening.
You will agree (I trust) that the music of Josef Myslivececk is amazingly 'Mozartean', yes ? Have you heard any of the music of Righini ? And what of Fiala ? Again, in the case of Vanhal, his career (which you can find outlined in many books, such as the 'Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians' tells us that his great repute in Vienna (which had led to him having published around 75 works in the city before the time of Mozart's arrival) suddenly ends, coincidental with the arrival of Mozart himself in the city. But he remained there. And was a close associate of Mozart. Indeed, his church music in this period will amaze you for its 'Mozartean' qualities. Consider too 'Mozart's' symphonies BEFORE 1781. Does the 'Paris' Symphony strike you as being typically 'Mozart' ? (KV297) ?? Again, there are literally dozens and dozens of works of 'Mozart' which could have been composed by virtually anyone including Dittersdorf, etc.
Regarding Rosetti, well, have you heard his various horn concertos ? They ARE amazingly 'Mozartean' in their later examples. And so on.
The basic problems are that the vast majority of Mozart's works were published after his death. In fact, at the time of his death only around 145 works of 'Mozart' were in print. Most of them from his childhood and youth. And nearly 600 or so appear only a decade or so after his death. So that too is important to note. Then too there are major problems with misattribution, which, you may know, led to various works being called 'Mozart's' even in to the 20th century. Symphonies such as KV444, and, again, even early piano concertos and masses, all of which are today rejected. As for Viotti, well, various themes of his are used by Mozart himself. For example, the well known theme from the sonata KV545 is taken from a violin concerto by Viotti. And scattered in the music of Myslivecek are many themes blatantly taken by Mozart.
Yes, the liberal use of chromaticisms is the biggest feature of the 'mature Mozart'. But here too you would agree that until recently you had done no study of any other composer who had close association with Mozart. I assure you that many works of Vanhal will surprise you though they are still little known.
Anyway, add to this composers such as Cartellieri, and again the list continues to expand.
I hope to post soon some remarkable excerpts from Vanhal in Vienna. But soon I will be too busy to post at any length.
Finally, regarding the SQ's of 'Mozart' these are the subject of much study. You may not be aware of it but there were critics of them even during his lifetime who said they were re-arrangements of music already existing in other forms. And, as for the earlier string quartets these are poor stuff, as everyone knows. But I will expand on this in my work.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 11:56:07 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 11:56:07 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistAgain, there are literally dozens and dozens of works of [Mozart] which could have been composed by virtually anyone including Dittersdorf, etc.
And there you have the fallacy in a nutshell. The tacet admission that no contemporary of Mozart was capable of composing work on the order of the mature Mozart. The glazed-eyed wish to believe that, because the work of the mediocre contemporaries is "kind of like" juvenile Mozart, that "means" that Mozart didn't write his own music.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:04:37 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:04:37 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2009, 11:56:07 AM
And there you have the fallacy in a nutshell. The tacet admission that no contemporary of Mozart was capable of composing work on the order of the mature Mozart. The glazed-eyed wish to believe that, because the work of the mediocre contemporaries is "kind of like" juvenile Mozart, that "means" that Mozart didn't write his own music.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Well, let's start at the beginning. The FACT is that the music today attributed to Mozart's childhood and youth is RIDDLED with false attributions. A fact recognised by writer after writer. Why don't you know this ? And with each example comes a greater and greater mystery if you really believe in his musical 'genius'. The anomalies just continue to pile up. They follow him to Paris in 1778. They continue even in to Vienna. Why, the very first opera of 'Mozart' in Vienna was declared to be written by 'other composers' in the diaries of Count Zinzendorf. He should know. He attended the premiere. And it goes on, and on, and on.
Send me an email address and I will send you a recently published book on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' if documentary evidence is going to shape your opinion.
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on July 07, 2009, 12:04:53 PM
Post by: Cato on July 07, 2009, 12:04:53 PM
Quote
And, as far as the names of archivists and librarians are concerned these range from the head librarian of the Gesselschaft die Musikfreunde in Vienna, to various librarians of the Austrian National Library in Vienna, to the Librarian of the Goethe Insitutue in Frankfurt, to many German music libraries including those of Berlin and Bonn, to the librarian of the National Library of France (in Paris) to the librarians of the Portuguese national library, to the archivist of the Lobkowitz archives in the Czech Republic, to those of various libraries in Prague, to the librarians of the Estense Library in Modena, Italy and various other Italian cities including Bologna and Florence, to the Mozarteum in Salzburg, to the music archives of the British Library in London, to literally dozens of specialist music libraries, to the correspondence of dozens of musical individuals (many of them published authors on music), to ongoing correspondence with various musicologists including Prof. L. Bianchini and Prof. A. Trombetta of Italy, with Mozartean publishers/teachers such as Cliff Eisen, Professor of King's College London, with music writers such as Norman Lebrecht and various others.
Regarding my knowledge of German, it is not good and I have often had to consult others.
Please send me an email and I will happily post you a free copy of a publication on the opera, 'Le Nozze di Figaro' (2008) made last year in collaboration with Prof. Bianchini and Prof. Trombetta of Italy - showing much evidence that opera is really an arrangement of music already written by others earlier to a German text. This was hastily re-arranged by Mozart/da Ponte for its Vienna premiere in May of 1786 in Vienna.
And so on.
In answer to your questions on Myslivececek, Vanhal, Fiala, Luchesi, Wranitsky, Righini, etc. etc. I have recordings of many of these works and am familiar with the life and official career of W.A. Mozart. But I do not claim to be an expert in anything. The last 15 years or so has been a major lesson for me. Perhaps the next year or so will be one for you and I also. I hope so.
(My emphases above)
Mr. Newman, you avoid the questions again!
Have you handled the original manuscripts of Mozart and the sundry other composers to determine handwriting styles, types of music paper, etc. for evidence of this supposedly massive fraud?
You failed to answer this. Yes, or no?
When you make extraordinary claims, the necessity for absolute proof is mandatory: I note that you fail to provide one name of an archivist (living) with whose help you examined any original manuscript.
The name of a librarian, paleographer, epigrapher even, who collaborated with you on this quest, since you make this following assertion, which many would agree with:
QuoteBut I do not claim to be an expert in anything.
You also fail to explain how you support your research with all those travels over 15 years to libraries and archives.
Having a nice CD collection does not provide any evidence about your claims.
SO, again Mr. Newman, as is typical of hucksters and a good number of duplicitous politicians, by avoiding the direct questions, and thinking nobody will notice the lack because of the wash of verbiage you type, you show us you cannot be believed.
Except for this marvelous statement:
Mr. Newman wrote:
QuoteBut I do not claim to be an expert in anything.
We do thank you for admitting your lack of knowledge in German, which is very curious for someone trying to prove a Mozart Fraud, but...
The correct phrase is: "...for you and me." "The pie is for me," not "The pie is for I." $:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 12:06:13 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 12:06:13 PM
Fact: Mozart learned music from his father, a professional musician.
Fact: Newman consistently glosses over this fact.
Fact: Newman consistently lies, by asserting the opposite.
Fact: Mozart's string quartets do not just sound like the string quartets of his lesser comtemporaries.
Fact: Newman's only answer to this is boilerplate on the order of "the music of Josef Myslivececk is amazingly 'Mozartean', yes?"
Basta.
Fact: Newman consistently glosses over this fact.
Fact: Newman consistently lies, by asserting the opposite.
Fact: Mozart's string quartets do not just sound like the string quartets of his lesser comtemporaries.
Fact: Newman's only answer to this is boilerplate on the order of "the music of Josef Myslivececk is amazingly 'Mozartean', yes?"
Basta.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 12:12:21 PM
Post by: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 12:12:21 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:04:37 PM
Well, let's start at the beginning. The FACT is that the music today attributed to Mozart's childhood and youth is RIDDLED with false attributions. A fact recognised by writer after writer. Why don't you know this ? And with each example comes a greater and greater mystery if you really believe in his musical 'genius'. The anomalies just continue to pile up. They follow him to Paris in 1778. They continue even in to Vienna. Why, the very first opera of 'Mozart' in Vienna was declared to be written by 'other composers' in the diaries of Count Zinzendorf. He should know. He attended the premiere. And it goes on, and on, and on.
Send me an email address and I will send you a recently published book on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' if documentary evidence is going to shape your opinion.
I was tempted to reply to this nonsense, but now I see that it is pointless. The demented Newman will continue to spill his drivel in this forum no matter how many well reasoned replies are made to it. The only way to put an end to it is to ignore it.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:19:32 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:19:32 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2009, 12:06:13 PM
Fact: Mozart learned music from his father, a professional musician.
Fact: Newman consistently glosses over this fact.
Fact: Newman consistently lies, by asserting the opposite.
Fact: Mozart's string quartets do not just sound like the string quartets of his lesser comtemporaries.
Fact: Newman's only answer to this is boilerplate on the order of "the music of Josef Myslivececk is amazingly 'Mozartean', yes?"
Basta.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Professor Henning,
I have posted you twice offering to send you a recent publication on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' (written in association with Prof. Luca Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta of Italy - experts in 18th century operatic MSS). This published in 2008. Now, are you interested in DOCUMENTARY evidence, or not ? Please send me your email address and let's stop this silliness. And that's just one opera. Of 'Mozart'. Why, it's a free offer. And you don't even need to reply in Latin !
You say that Mozart's 'Haydn' quartets do not sound like those of his contemporaries. Well, I beg to differ with you. But the subject is a big one. May I suggest you focus a little more on the music of Mozart's own contemporaries ?
As for avoiding any question, no, I have no reason now to avoid any question. But email exchanges are not ideal. Now, will you send me your email address or not ?
Can't say I haven't offered, right ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:25:16 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:25:16 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 12:12:21 PM
I was tempted to reply to this nonsense, but now I see that it is pointless. The demented Newman will continue to spill his drivel in this forum no matter how many well reasoned replies are made to it. The only way to put an end to it is to ignore it.
Yes Scarpia,
Let's make a deal. You ignore this thread and I will ignore you. Since your contribution here is NIL.
OK ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 12:28:12 PM
Post by: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 12:28:12 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:25:16 PM
Yes Scarpia,
Let's make a deal. You ignore this thread and I will ignore you. Since your contribution here is NIL.
OK ?
Pointing out that you are demented is the only substantial contribution that can be made to this thread. Has anyone ever agreed with or been convinced by anything you have ever posted here, or on any other similar web site?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:32:15 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:32:15 PM
Cato writes -
Mr. Newman, you avoid the questions again!
Have you handled the original manuscripts of Mozart and the sundry other composers to determine handwriting styles, types of music paper, etc. for evidence of this supposedly massive fraud?
You failed to answer this. Yes, or no?
When you make extraordinary claims, the necessity for absolute proof is mandatory: I note that you fail to provide one name of an archivist (living) with whose help you examined any original manuscript.
The name of a librarian, paleographer, epigrapher even, who collaborated with you on this quest, since you make this following assertion, which many would agree with:
Cato,
How many libraries and archives have YOU visited and consulted if expertise is the issue ? Just tell us please. Since we want to judge this issue fairly. Just list us a few works you have read which call in to question Mozart's musical career and iconic reputation as a composer and performer.
I am perfectly happy to answer questions from anyone. But not if they start wasting my time with stupid statements that I am a 'huckster'. You have answered NO question of mine. Shall I ask you the questions again ?
You reading of English is not so good, is it Cato ? Nor is your knowledge of Mozart, his life, career and grotesquely exaggerated status.
So, having answered many questions from you already, do yourself a favour. Please answer mine. Tell us the names of what books you have read which call the career and reputation of the icon, W.A. Mozart, in to question.
Still waiting.
Ah but 'Mozart studies' never calls in to question its own dogmas, does it ?
;D ;D
Mr. Newman, you avoid the questions again!
Have you handled the original manuscripts of Mozart and the sundry other composers to determine handwriting styles, types of music paper, etc. for evidence of this supposedly massive fraud?
You failed to answer this. Yes, or no?
When you make extraordinary claims, the necessity for absolute proof is mandatory: I note that you fail to provide one name of an archivist (living) with whose help you examined any original manuscript.
The name of a librarian, paleographer, epigrapher even, who collaborated with you on this quest, since you make this following assertion, which many would agree with:
Cato,
How many libraries and archives have YOU visited and consulted if expertise is the issue ? Just tell us please. Since we want to judge this issue fairly. Just list us a few works you have read which call in to question Mozart's musical career and iconic reputation as a composer and performer.
I am perfectly happy to answer questions from anyone. But not if they start wasting my time with stupid statements that I am a 'huckster'. You have answered NO question of mine. Shall I ask you the questions again ?
You reading of English is not so good, is it Cato ? Nor is your knowledge of Mozart, his life, career and grotesquely exaggerated status.
So, having answered many questions from you already, do yourself a favour. Please answer mine. Tell us the names of what books you have read which call the career and reputation of the icon, W.A. Mozart, in to question.
Still waiting.
Ah but 'Mozart studies' never calls in to question its own dogmas, does it ?
;D ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 07, 2009, 12:34:20 PM
Post by: knight66 on July 07, 2009, 12:34:20 PM
Post 845 on this thread is new to it, as two topics have been merged. Having read this 'new' topic, it was decided it was really an underground strawberry runner for the Mozart Fraud topic.
Knight
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:35:57 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:35:57 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 12:28:12 PM
Pointing out that you are demented is the only substantial contribution that can be made to this thread. Has anyone ever agreed with or been convinced by anything you have ever posted here, or on any other similar web site?
You remind me of those couch potatoes who, after watching rubbish on television for a week, yawn, and say television is not worth watching (all the while holding in their hand the remote control, complete with OFF switch).
Please do us the academic favour of resigning from this thread and going to one that pleases you more and to which you contribute. Since your travels will please us just as much, and far more than your presence.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 12:38:18 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 12:38:18 PM
Quote from: knight on July 07, 2009, 12:34:20 PM
Post 845 on this thread is new to it, as two topics have been merged. Having read this 'new' topic, it was decided it was really an underground strawberry runner for the Mozart Fraud topic.
Knight
Let me see if I can detect the give-away . . . .
Quote from: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 09:25:56 AM
Note - ''Any musical resemblance in this movement to the overture to 'Le Nozze di Figaro' of Herr Mozart of 1786 is purely coincidental''
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:41:25 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:41:25 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 12:28:12 PM
Pointing out that you are demented is the only substantial contribution that can be made to this thread. Has anyone ever agreed with or been convinced by anything you have ever posted here, or on any other similar web site?
Yes, somebody has definitely been convinced in the time I have been posting here. Why, even today I have been convinced by you and your posts that you cannot remove yourself from this thread, whether you have something to say or not. Now, if you sit quietly I have no objection to you being here. Draw up a seat. Enjoy the conversation.
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:43:59 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:43:59 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2009, 12:38:18 PM
Let me see if I can detect the give-away . . . .Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Professor Henning represents one of the 'new school' of revisionists who, reluctantly, gradually, and without appearing to shift his position, has changed all he believes while changing nothing at all. For which he deserves a medal of some kind. And some sort of application form for canonisation.
Congratulations !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 07, 2009, 12:50:59 PM
Post by: knight66 on July 07, 2009, 12:50:59 PM
Ok guys...this thread is really about the artist known as Mozart. Back to that please. Also, I don't think it is 'on' to change the title of the thread to provide insult to another member; desist, stop, avoid, resist.....and....breathe.
Thank you and now back to the topic.
Knight
Thank you and now back to the topic.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 01:02:38 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 01:02:38 PM
The great unanswered question.
Will Professor Henning, music teacher and virtuoso, accept the offer, 3 times made here in the last hour, to receive by email a newly published book free of charge on the 1786 opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro', (2008), attributed to Mozart, written by Professors Bianchini and Trombetta (with the undersigned providing additional notes and assisting in its English version) so that he can see for himself from documentary evidence the argument against W.A. Mozart being the true composer of its music ?
Or will Professor Henning decline ?
- Back right after this commercial break -
(Cornflakes ad - camera returns to studio - nervous rustling of papers) -
'Welcome back, we still have with us the distinguished Professor Karl Henning who will now tell us whether he will dare to read this heretical publication - over to you Prof. Henning'' ................(pause)............(more nervous rustling of papers)..........another cornflakes ad.........etc etc.
///
R.E. Newman
;D
Will Professor Henning, music teacher and virtuoso, accept the offer, 3 times made here in the last hour, to receive by email a newly published book free of charge on the 1786 opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro', (2008), attributed to Mozart, written by Professors Bianchini and Trombetta (with the undersigned providing additional notes and assisting in its English version) so that he can see for himself from documentary evidence the argument against W.A. Mozart being the true composer of its music ?
Or will Professor Henning decline ?
- Back right after this commercial break -
(Cornflakes ad - camera returns to studio - nervous rustling of papers) -
'Welcome back, we still have with us the distinguished Professor Karl Henning who will now tell us whether he will dare to read this heretical publication - over to you Prof. Henning'' ................(pause)............(more nervous rustling of papers)..........another cornflakes ad.........etc etc.
///
R.E. Newman
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 01:32:00 PM
Post by: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 01:32:00 PM
You think the gibberish you post here would make more sense if it was called a "book"?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on July 07, 2009, 01:42:18 PM
Post by: Cato on July 07, 2009, 01:42:18 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 12:32:15 PM
Cato writes -
Mr. Newman, you avoid the questions again!
Have you handled the original manuscripts of Mozart and the sundry other composers to determine handwriting styles, types of music paper, etc. for evidence of this supposedly massive fraud?
You failed to answer this. Yes, or no?
When you make extraordinary claims, the necessity for absolute proof is mandatory: I note that you fail to provide one name of an archivist (living) with whose help you examined any original manuscript.
The name of a librarian, paleographer, epigrapher even, who collaborated with you on this quest, since you make this following assertion, which many would agree with:
Cato,
How many libraries and archives have YOU visited and consulted if expertise is the issue ? Just tell us please. Since we want to judge this issue fairly. Just list us a few works you have read which call in to question Mozart's musical career and iconic reputation as a composer and performer.
I am perfectly happy to answer questions from anyone. But not if they start wasting my time with stupid statements that I am a 'huckster'. You have answered NO question of mine. Shall I ask you the questions again ?
You reading of English is not so good, is it Cato ? Nor is your knowledge of Mozart, his life, career and grotesquely exaggerated status.
So, having answered many questions from you already, do yourself a favour. Please answer mine. Tell us the names of what books you have read which call the career and reputation of the icon, W.A. Mozart, in to question.
Still waiting.
Ah but 'Mozart studies' never calls in to question its own dogmas, does it ?
;D ;D
Mr. Newman:
Bold A: YOU are the one asserting Mozart is a fraud. Therefore, AGAIN you avoid answering, and AGAIN we ask for names, dates, and whether or not you have actually - paleographically - compared letters, manuscripts, other documents.
Bold B: "Stupid" = asking you for proof that you have done any research with the original documents.
Bold C: Speaks for itself, along with your previous use of the grammar monster "For I" .
Bold D: An obvious lie, since we await your simple Yes or No to this question: Have you conducted research with original documents by Mozart, Vanhal, etc.?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 01:45:36 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 01:45:36 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 01:32:00 PM
You think the gibberish you post here would make more sense if it was called a "book"?
I honestly think your posts have a greater entertainment value than mine, for sure ! But that's the difference between comedy and tragedy, I suppose.
Speaking of which, you WILL finally have something to say on the subject of this thread, won't you ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 01:52:22 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 01:52:22 PM
Cato writes -
Bold A: YOU are the one asserting Mozart is a fraud. Therefore, AGAIN you avoid answering, and AGAIN we ask for names, dates, and whether or not you have actually - paleographically - compared letters, manuscripts, other documents.
Bold B: "Stupid" = asking you for proof that you have done any research with the original documents.
Bold C: Speaks for itself, along with your previous use of the grammar monster "For I" .
Bold D: An obvious lie, since we await your simple Yes or No to this question: Have you conducted research with original documents by Mozart, Vanhal, etc.?
Yes, I am asserting that the entire career of W.A. Mozart was a fraud. And I've asked you already (although you have still not answered us) to name any books you have read which seriously call his career and iconic status as a composer and a performer in to question. This is now the fourth time I am asking you this same question. Has your 'Mozartean education' forced you to answer nothing ?
I am not under 'interrogation' and have already answered enough of your questions. Besides, you call me a liar. And this makes me reluctant to co-operate with you. Your rudeness is a sure sign you want to remain ignorant.
In reply to your question on original documents. Mozart merely copied the works of others and created 'autographs' with them. Why not study the subject ? Or do you not study anything ? He did so with 'Le Nozze di Figaro' whose supposed 'autograph' is a different document from the score rehearsed and used at the May 1786 premiere, for example. But you are not interested in such facts, are you ?
Prof. Karl Henning was 3 times asked to read a newly published book on 'Figaro' which has been freely offered to him. The same is true of Cato. So, once again, you see the state of ignorance of the 'Mozartean' ? And he wants to be believed by his students. It is really a matter of amazing misinformation times five hundred. If a man wishes to be ignorant let him stay ignorant. Seems fair enough, yes ?
Why not read subjects from different points of view ? You might actually learn something. :)
Bold A: YOU are the one asserting Mozart is a fraud. Therefore, AGAIN you avoid answering, and AGAIN we ask for names, dates, and whether or not you have actually - paleographically - compared letters, manuscripts, other documents.
Bold B: "Stupid" = asking you for proof that you have done any research with the original documents.
Bold C: Speaks for itself, along with your previous use of the grammar monster "For I" .
Bold D: An obvious lie, since we await your simple Yes or No to this question: Have you conducted research with original documents by Mozart, Vanhal, etc.?
Yes, I am asserting that the entire career of W.A. Mozart was a fraud. And I've asked you already (although you have still not answered us) to name any books you have read which seriously call his career and iconic status as a composer and a performer in to question. This is now the fourth time I am asking you this same question. Has your 'Mozartean education' forced you to answer nothing ?
I am not under 'interrogation' and have already answered enough of your questions. Besides, you call me a liar. And this makes me reluctant to co-operate with you. Your rudeness is a sure sign you want to remain ignorant.
In reply to your question on original documents. Mozart merely copied the works of others and created 'autographs' with them. Why not study the subject ? Or do you not study anything ? He did so with 'Le Nozze di Figaro' whose supposed 'autograph' is a different document from the score rehearsed and used at the May 1786 premiere, for example. But you are not interested in such facts, are you ?
Prof. Karl Henning was 3 times asked to read a newly published book on 'Figaro' which has been freely offered to him. The same is true of Cato. So, once again, you see the state of ignorance of the 'Mozartean' ? And he wants to be believed by his students. It is really a matter of amazing misinformation times five hundred. If a man wishes to be ignorant let him stay ignorant. Seems fair enough, yes ?
Why not read subjects from different points of view ? You might actually learn something. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 01:58:26 PM
Post by: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 01:58:26 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 01:45:36 PM
I honestly think your posts have a greater entertainment value than mine, for sure ! But that's the difference between comedy and tragedy, I suppose.
Speaking of which, you WILL finally have something to say on the subject of this thread, won't you ?
When you first appeared on this web site you claimed there were no contemporary accounts of Mozart's success in Vienna. I found several well documented contemporary articles extolling the "academies" that Mozart's organized in Vienna. Others found additional references. You invented some irrelevant objection to each one as a pretext for ignoring them, and repeated your absurd claims without any evidence whatsoever. At that point it became clear that you are one of the self-deluded types we often see on the internet, either claiming martians landed in Roswell New Mexico, the Lunar Landing was filmed on a sound stage in Hollywood, or that Elvis is still alive. I have learned the hard way that there is not point in trying to have any rational discussion on this topic. Your value here is only as a clown.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 02:00:29 PM
Post by: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 02:00:29 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 01:52:22 PM
I am not under 'interrogation' and have already answered enough of your questions. Besides, you call me a liar. And this makes me reluctant to co-operate with you. Your rudeness is a sure sign that you want to remain ignorant.
You are a liar.
Cato may be no fun sometimes, but he's one of the most intellectually rigorous people on this site, and we know it. There's a saying, it doesn't matter whether the stone hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the stone. It's going to be bad for the pitcher. You can criticize Cato this way, it only reflects worse on you.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 07, 2009, 02:07:47 PM
Post by: Brian on July 07, 2009, 02:07:47 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2009, 09:15:42 AM"And now, we present the Third Symphony of Ferdinand Ries for the twenty-ninth time in a row, on the Easy Listening Classical Hits Channel!"
I think it's worse pity when so much of the for-dentist-office-waiting-rooms classical programming gives so much airtime to the mediocre contemporaries of Bach, Mozart & Beethoven.
Sorry, I got your point, I just felt silly. :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 02:08:10 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 02:08:10 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 09:33:35 AM
Actually, I like the hell out of Vanhal, Ditters, Wrantizky, Stamitz (the Younger), Myslivecek and any number of other composers of the time. I just haven't confused them with each other or with anyone else... ::)
8)
Congratulations to Gurn Blanston for his remarkable achievement of never having confused Mozart with the music of any other composer. Since no less than 63 composers have had works falsely attributed to Mozart in Mozart industry approved publications over the past 200 years you are setting a good record. And the Mozart situation is totally unique for massive misattributions. The confusion is total. And, in each and every edition of the Koechel catalogue these 'experts' have been forced to keep removing items. The 8th edition of this farce will remove at least another 8 works. LOL !!
Perhaps you should be approached by publishers of the Koechel catalogue for editorship of the 9th edition to stop the bleeding before a complete blood transfusion is necessary !!!
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 07, 2009, 02:11:00 PM
Post by: Brian on July 07, 2009, 02:11:00 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 02:08:10 PMSpeaking as somebody who knows Gurn Blanston, this is probably not a bad idea.
Perhaps you should be approached by publishers of the Koechel catalogue for editorship of the 9th edition
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on July 07, 2009, 02:16:10 PM
Post by: Cato on July 07, 2009, 02:16:10 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 01:52:22 PM
Cato writes -
Bold A: YOU are the one asserting Mozart is a fraud. Therefore, AGAIN you avoid answering, and AGAIN we ask for names, dates, and whether or not you have actually - paleographically - compared letters, manuscripts, other documents.
Bold B: "Stupid" = asking you for proof that you have done any research with the original documents.
Bold C: Speaks for itself, along with your previous use of the grammar monster "For I" .
Bold D: An obvious lie, since we await your simple Yes or No to this question: Have you conducted research with original documents by Mozart, Vanhal, etc.?
Yes, I am asserting that the entire career of W.A. Mozart was a fraud. And I've asked you twice already (although you have still not answered us) to name any books you have read which seriously call his career and iconic status as a composer and a performer in to serious question. This is now the fourth time I am asking you. Has your 'Mozartean education' forced you to answer nothing ?
I am not under 'interrogation' and have already answered enough of your questions. Besides, you call me a liar. And this makes me reluctant to co-operate with you. Your rudeness is a sure sign that you want to remain ignorant.
In reply to your question on original documents. Mozart merely copied the works of others and created 'autographs' with them. Why not study the subject yourself ? Or do you not study anything ? He did so with 'Le Nozze di Figaro' whose 'autograph' is a different document from the actual score used at the premiere, for example. But you are not interested in facts, are you ?
Bold A: No! YOUR TURN to answer simply YES or NO: will you provide us a list of the paleographers, archivists, etc, from around Europe whom you met while researching the original documents?
Bold B: Because you claim to have answered questions which everyone reading this knows you did not answer!!!
Bold C: "Merely copied" still means you need to study the manuscripts of everyone involved paleographically for evidence of fraud.
Bold D: Yes, and I am still waiting for your facts.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 07, 2009, 02:37:56 PM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 07, 2009, 02:37:56 PM
What does Cato's record of read literature on the alleged inconsistencies in Mozart's career have anything to do with his requests of you? He's not making any extraordinary claim. You are. This has nothing to do with fairness.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on July 07, 2009, 02:43:27 PM
Post by: Cato on July 07, 2009, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 07, 2009, 02:37:56 PM
What does Cato's record of read literature on the alleged inconsistencies in Mozart's career have anything to do with his requests of you? He's not making any extraordinary claim. You are. This has nothing to do with fairness.
You see, Mr. Newman, people like Joe are paying attention to you! $:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 02:43:58 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 07, 2009, 02:43:58 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2009, 02:07:47 PM
Sorry, I got your point, I just felt silly. :D
No apology needed! :D
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 07, 2009, 02:37:56 PM
What does Cato's record of read literature on the alleged inconsistencies in Mozart's career have anything to do with his requests of you? He's not making any extraordinary claim. You are. This has nothing to do with fairness.
And has everything to do with Newman's charade.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 02:52:17 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 02:52:17 PM
Newman, I am curious if you enjoy listening to the compositions attributed to Mozart?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 05:44:32 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 05:44:32 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 07, 2009, 02:08:10 PM
Congratulations to Gurn Blanston for his remarkable achievement of never having confused Mozart with the music of any other composer. Since no less than 63 composers have had works falsely attributed to Mozart in Mozart industry approved publications over the past 200 years you are setting a good record. And the Mozart situation is totally unique for massive misattributions. The confusion is total. And, in each and every edition of the Koechel catalogue these 'experts' have been forced to keep removing items. The 8th edition of this farce will remove at least another 8 works. LOL !!
Perhaps you should be approached by publishers of the Koechel catalogue for editorship of the 9th edition to stop the bleeding before a complete blood transfusion is necessary !!!
::)
You're amusing, Robert. I don't want to fall into your bad habit of upbraiding other posters, but please note that I didn't mention music in that post, not even once. What I don't confuse about them is their biographies... ::)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 07, 2009, 09:54:33 AM
Of course, there is always the problem of people who speak the same musical language sounding confusingly alike. IMO, if you have real problems telling 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' apart, you will never be able to tell Vanhal from Ditters. I speak from experience here... :-\
8)
A couple of posts later you will find the spot where I brought music into the equation. In a post of yours a few years back on the Mozart Forum,
you self-admittedly can't tell Mozart's music from Haydn's. Well, nearly all the time I can. But all those other guys, whose music I quite enjoy, the fact is you could shake them up in a sack and pull one out, and in most cases they can't be differentiated. Which is one more brick in the wall of reasons why none of them wrote Mozart's music for him.
And I would like to add here one more thing before absenting myself from this discussion: what musicologists do ex post facto 50, 100, and 200+ years after Mozart's death has little or nothing to do with Mozart himself. Your "raging against the machine" of establishment can never, and will never affect Mozart himself in any way. I should have imagined that a bright fellow like you would have realized that by now. Yet, somehow, not... :-\
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Academy of St. Cecilia Chorus & Orchestra / Myung-Whun Chung - Bia 538 Op 117 Incidental music to "King Stephan" pt 08 - Ihr edlen Ungarn! Hort mein Stimme!: Maestoso con moto - Andante maestoso - Maestoso con moto
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:33:50 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:33:50 AM
Hi there Gurn,
The truth remains that 'Mozart' has always been a hotchpotch of musical misattributions. More so, in fact, than virtually any other famous composer. And that is a clear, indisputable fact. I think you might realise what the track record is trying to tell you.
But you've not seen the arguments that I will present. I've hardly touched on the little known aspects of his biography or of his associations. When you've seen the fuller picture I predict you will say, 'That man Newman was right, after all'.
Now, I cannot repair car engines and I have no abilities as a bricklayer or as a sailor. But on this particular subject forgive me thinking that I may yet produce something worthy of your appreciation.
Regards
The truth remains that 'Mozart' has always been a hotchpotch of musical misattributions. More so, in fact, than virtually any other famous composer. And that is a clear, indisputable fact. I think you might realise what the track record is trying to tell you.
But you've not seen the arguments that I will present. I've hardly touched on the little known aspects of his biography or of his associations. When you've seen the fuller picture I predict you will say, 'That man Newman was right, after all'.
Now, I cannot repair car engines and I have no abilities as a bricklayer or as a sailor. But on this particular subject forgive me thinking that I may yet produce something worthy of your appreciation.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:37:36 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:37:36 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 07, 2009, 02:52:17 PM
Newman, I am curious if you enjoy listening to the compositions attributed to Mozart?
DavidW,
Yes, some of the music attributed to Mozart is amongst the finest of the 18th or any other century. I've always believed this. But if you listen to all of it you will agree that some of it is hardly worthy of any composer and is of poor quality. So, yes, let's consider the whole picture, and not just those parts which we always hear.
Have you heard the early quartets of Mozart. They are rubbish. And there is, stylistically, nothing 'Mozartean' about them. They could have been written by almost anyone. Such is the reality. The same is true of many, many other works.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:43:34 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:43:34 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 02:00:29 PM
You are a liar.
Cato may be no fun sometimes, but he's one of the most intellectually rigorous people on this site, and we know it. There's a saying, it doesn't matter whether the stone hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the stone. It's going to be bad for the pitcher. You can criticize Cato this way, it only reflects worse on you.
Scarpia,
Since you have nothing to contribute to this thread and are being allowed to call me a 'liar' I have no more time to give to you on this thread. Cato can speak for himself.
Finally, you know perfectly well what I said of Mozart and his public reception in Vienna. I told you repeatedly and was online for a full day on the subject. Read it again.
Anyway, we hope you find another thread.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:49:43 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:49:43 AM
Cato writes -
Bold A: No! YOUR TURN to answer simply YES or NO: will you provide us a list of the paleographers, archivists, etc, from around Europe whom you met while researching the original documents?
Bold B: Because you claim to have answered questions which everyone reading this knows you did not answer!!!
Bold C: "Merely copied" still means you need to study the manuscripts of everyone involved paleographically for evidence of fraud.
Bold D: Yes, and I am still waiting for your facts.
In reply -
I am now going to ask you again to tell us which books you have ever read which call in to question Mozart's reputation as a composer and as a performer. And we are STILL waiting for your reply. You can't answer, can you Cato ? Because the truth is you have read none. Why not just admit it ?
Evidence of Mozart's career consists of many kinds. Not just the fact that manuscripts exist. Anyone can create a manuscript. Mozart created lots of manuscripts. But he was not the composer of this music. So, please try to think a little more deeply before you post on this subject.
As for the rest, I hope you mature to the point where you can examine issues from more than one side. Right ? Which is what you must be able to do if you want to be informed. Otherwise you will end up like those 'Mozarteans' who posture as though they know their subject but who have never once examined the arguments against their own dogmas.
Bold A: No! YOUR TURN to answer simply YES or NO: will you provide us a list of the paleographers, archivists, etc, from around Europe whom you met while researching the original documents?
Bold B: Because you claim to have answered questions which everyone reading this knows you did not answer!!!
Bold C: "Merely copied" still means you need to study the manuscripts of everyone involved paleographically for evidence of fraud.
Bold D: Yes, and I am still waiting for your facts.
In reply -
I am now going to ask you again to tell us which books you have ever read which call in to question Mozart's reputation as a composer and as a performer. And we are STILL waiting for your reply. You can't answer, can you Cato ? Because the truth is you have read none. Why not just admit it ?
Evidence of Mozart's career consists of many kinds. Not just the fact that manuscripts exist. Anyone can create a manuscript. Mozart created lots of manuscripts. But he was not the composer of this music. So, please try to think a little more deeply before you post on this subject.
As for the rest, I hope you mature to the point where you can examine issues from more than one side. Right ? Which is what you must be able to do if you want to be informed. Otherwise you will end up like those 'Mozarteans' who posture as though they know their subject but who have never once examined the arguments against their own dogmas.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 02:02:12 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 02:02:12 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 07, 2009, 02:43:58 PM
No apology needed! :D
And has everything to do with Newman's charade.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Professor Karl Henning,
At the fourth time of asking, will you please provide me with an email address so that I can send you free of charge the remarkable book of Bianchini/Trombetta/Newman (2008) which examines the documentary evidence for 'Le Nozze di Figaro' based on the actual theatre score used in Vienna in May of 1786 and others used in the years which followed ? From which you will see lots of evidence this music is NOT by Mozart, but is instead an arrangement of already existing music which was hastily translated into the Italian language from the German by Lorenzo da Ponte and re-arranged (badly) by W.A. Mozart. And will you provide us the name of some books, even one, which calls in to question the musical talents and achievements of W.A. Mozart ? Since you have so far failed to give an answer to these questions. And it shows. You have not read any such books, have you ? Nor can you name even one.
And it shows ! That is dogmatism, plain and simple.
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 02:12:20 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 02:12:20 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistYes, some of the music attributed to Mozart is amongst the finest of the 18th or any other century. I've always believed this. But if you listen to all of it you will agree that some of it is hardly worthy of any composer and is of poor quality. So, yes, let's consider the whole picture, and not just those parts which we always hear.
LOL
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistHave you heard the early quartets of Mozart. They are rubbish. And there is, stylistically, nothing 'Mozartean' about them. They could have been written by almost anyone. Such is the reality. The same is true of many, many other works.
As 'musicology', that is utter rubbish. It is dogmatism, plain and simple.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 02:19:12 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 02:19:12 AM
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2009, 02:11:00 PM
Speaking as somebody who knows Gurn Blanston, this is probably not a bad idea.
Yes Brian, he (Gurn Blanston) has always been open-minded over the several years I have seen his posts on Mozart. Seriously. I want to extend my offer to him to send a book on the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' free of charge by email. And the same to yourself.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 02:48:59 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 02:48:59 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 02:12:20 AM
LOL
As 'musicology', that is utter rubbish. It is dogmatism, plain and simple.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Good morning to Professor Karl,
May I send you a book recently published which indicates that 'Le Nozze di Figaro' is not music by Mozart ? Which I will happily send to you free if you provide an email address. We wouldn't want you to know things from only one perspective, would we ? People might start to realise they've been deceived. But let others judge if you avoid answering the question, right ?
As for dogmatism, this exists when the person refuses to appreciate the views of others. Which is really the 'pot calling the kettle black', isn't it, Prof. Karl ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 03:22:17 AM
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 03:22:17 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:49:43 AM
Cato writes -
Bold A: No! YOUR TURN to answer simply YES or NO: will you provide us a list of the paleographers, archivists, etc, from around Europe whom you met while researching the original documents?
Bold B: Because you claim to have answered questions which everyone reading this knows you did not answer!!!
Bold C: "Merely copied" still means you need to study the manuscripts of everyone involved paleographically for evidence of fraud.
Bold D: Yes, and I am still waiting for your facts.
In reply -
I am now going to ask you again to tell us which books you have ever read which call in to question Mozart's reputation as a composer and as a performer. And we are STILL waiting for your reply. You can't answer, can you Cato ? Because the truth is you have read none. Why not just admit it ?
Evidence of Mozart's career consists of many kinds. Not just the fact that manuscripts exist. Anyone can create a manuscript. Mozart created lots of manuscripts. But he was not the composer of this music. So, please try to think a little more deeply before you post on this subject.
As for the rest, I hope you mature to the point where you can examine issues from more than one side. Right ? Which is what you must be able to do if you want to be informed. Otherwise you will end up like those 'Mozarteans' who posture as though they know their subject but who have never once examined the arguments against their own dogmas.
Bold A: I have already answered "No" to this question. Why do you keep saying I have not answered it? Is it because - as everyone here knows - you STILL have not answered one of my questions? :o
Bold B: Which means that they leave behind EVIDENCE of their fraud to a paleographer: we await your EVIDENCE!
Bold C: Please say that while looking in a mirror!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 03:26:04 AM
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 03:26:04 AM
Quote from: Cato on July 07, 2009, 10:25:13 AM
Es gibt hier viele Märchen!
Herr Neumann: ich möchte Ihnen eine Frage stellen, nämlich ob Sie Deutsch können?
Dann habe ich eine zweite wichtigere Frage: haben Sie persönlich die originellen Manuskripte von Mozart, Vanhal, Myslivececk, Righini, Fiala, Luchesi, Paul Wranitsky, Anton Wranitsky etc. gelesen und verglichen?
Wenn ja, dann haben Sie zweifellos eine Liste der Namen der Bibliothekare, die Ihnen mit den MSS. geholfen haben, und auch eine Liste der Tage und Jahre, an denen Sie die verschiedenen Bibliotheken und Archiven besucht haben? Können Sie das uns zeigen?
So eine Unternehmung muss viel Geld kosten: wer hat Sie finanziell unterstützt, damit Sie Wien, Prag, u.s.w. besuchen können, um zu beweisen, Mozart sei ein grosser Betrüger?
Translation:
There are many fairy tales here! 0:)
Mr. Neumann: I would like to ask you a question, namely, can you read and speak German?
Then I have a second, more important question: have you personally read and compared the original manuscripts ofMozart, Vanhal, Myslivececk, Righini, Fiala, Luchesi, Paul Wranitsky, Anton Wranitsky etc.?
If so, then you indubitably have a list of all the librarians who helped you with the manuscripts, along with a list of the days and years when you visited the various libraries and archives? Can you show us that?
Such an undertaking costs much money: who has supported you financially, so that you can visit Vienna, Prague, and so on, in order to prove that Mozart was a grand fake?
Zeigen Sie uns, bitte, solchen Beweis! Dann können wir Ihnen eine Glaubensgelegenheit schenken!
Show us such evidence, please! Then we can grant you a chance to be believed!
Waiting, waiting, waiting for Godotdämmerung as well as for this evidence! 0:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 03:32:34 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 03:32:34 AM
Cato,
For 200 years buffoons like yourself have writing nonsense on Mozart with virtually no criticism. That's not musicology. It's propaganda. It's official hogwash. And now it's being exposed. 'Mozart studies' (so-called) exist within a bubble. And always have. You can't even read books being offered to you on the specifics of the subject. You want others to be as ignorant as yourself. All the time claiming no evidence has been presented.
I am offering repeatedly to send you evidence, in respect of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. Now, stop fooling around. If you want evidence tell us. Otherwise your scam is exposed.
The Mozart industry and its version of 'musicology' is designed for the musical underachiever. It's the FOX news of classical music. So where is your email address ?
Sounds to me like your bluff has been called Cato, right ?
For 200 years buffoons like yourself have writing nonsense on Mozart with virtually no criticism. That's not musicology. It's propaganda. It's official hogwash. And now it's being exposed. 'Mozart studies' (so-called) exist within a bubble. And always have. You can't even read books being offered to you on the specifics of the subject. You want others to be as ignorant as yourself. All the time claiming no evidence has been presented.
I am offering repeatedly to send you evidence, in respect of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. Now, stop fooling around. If you want evidence tell us. Otherwise your scam is exposed.
The Mozart industry and its version of 'musicology' is designed for the musical underachiever. It's the FOX news of classical music. So where is your email address ?
Sounds to me like your bluff has been called Cato, right ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:10:27 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:10:27 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandist
Cato,
For 200 years buffoons like yourself have writing nonsense on Mozart with virtually no criticism.
Thank you for yet again no response of substance, and a reversion to ad hominem which is an implicit acknowledgement of the entire insufficiency of your "claim."
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:12:16 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:12:16 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandist
Sounds to me like your bluff has been called Cato, right ?
How interesting that you speak of bluffs which have been called!
Fact: Mozart learned music from his father, a professional musician.
Fact: Newman consistently glosses over this fact.
Fact: Newman consistently lies, by asserting the opposite.
Fact: Mozart's string quartets do not just sound like the string quartets of his lesser contemporaries.
Fact: Newman's only answer to this is boilerplate on the order of "the music of Josef Myslivececk is amazingly 'Mozartean', yes?"
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: greg on July 08, 2009, 04:18:11 AM
Post by: greg on July 08, 2009, 04:18:11 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 04:12:16 AMEven if they did, how would it be explained that he "got better" by the time of writing his last symphonies?
Fact: Mozart's string quartets do not just sound like the string quartets of his lesser contemporaries.
(then again, not sure i want to know, cause i see more blahblahblah coming up)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:18:36 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:18:36 AM
Quote from: Cato on July 08, 2009, 03:22:17 AM
Bold A: I have already answered "No" to this question. Why do you keep saying I have not answered it? Is it because - as everyone here knows - you STILL have not answered one of my questions? :o
Bold B: Which means that they leave behind EVIDENCE of their fraud to a paleographer: we await your EVIDENCE!
Bold C: Please say that while looking in a mirror!
I think we understand why there is as yet no news of a publisher taking up Mr Newman's "smoking gun" exposé!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 04:33:10 AM
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 04:33:10 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 03:32:34 AM
Cato,
I am offering repeatedly to send you evidence, in respect of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. Now, stop fooling around. If you want evidence tell us. Otherwise your scam is exposed.
The Mozart industry and its version of 'musicology' is designed for the musical underachiever. It's the FOX news of classical music.
So where is your email address ?
Sounds to me like your bluff has been called Cato, right ?
Bold A: AGAIN, where are the answers to my questions posed above? :o
Bold B: Which scam is that? "The Mozart Code" ??? Which is free?
Bold C: Irrelevant and ignorant.
Bold D: Hesse3000@totalmail.com Is this the same available on line?
Bold E: Which bluff is that?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:36:25 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:36:25 AM
Quote from: Greg on July 08, 2009, 04:18:11 AM
Even if they did, how would it be explained that he "got better" by the time of writing his last symphonies?
(then again, not sure i want to know, cause i see more blahblahblah coming up)
Aye, in absence of any meat on the bones of his "claim," the propagandist is generous with blahblahblah ::)
BTW, did you know that Stravinsky did not actually compose any of the music commonly ascribed to him? Don't laugh! Consider this:
To criticise in some detail the 'official' career of I.F. Stravinsky (1882-1971), to call in to question his musical abilities, both as a composer and as a legendary performer, to ask if he was truly the composer of virtually all the great musical works that are published and widely performed in his name, to question the truthfulness and reliability of documents which date from his own time, many of them describing him as being a musical 'genius', to question the contents of well known Stravinsky biographies - to argue, instead, that the life and musical career of this St Petersburg 'genius', this colossus of western culture, was really a gigantic cultural fraud of the late Romanov Dynasty virtually from beginning to end (a fraud continued and further exaggerated for decades after his death by sympathetic publishers and propagandists) - these are views so controversial, so unusual and so rarely considered within 'polite and educated society' that a number of experts who specialise in these areas of study, having heard that such a work may appear soon and being alarmed at the prospect of it becoming reality are queuing up to rescue the iconic status of their musical hero from such a strange, seemingly unprovoked and lengthy attack. Saying that I must have studied my subject for too long, that mine is the work of a man whose fertile imagination has 'got the better of him', that I've succumbed to a rare academic illness, that publication of a work against the Stravinsky we all know and love may even corrupt the young, that it might lead to ugliness within their beautiful world if read by the innocent etc., and that the views expressed here and the evidence presented in its support are the musicological equivalent of 'tilting at windmills' or of 'whistling in to the wind'.
Stravinsky is, of course, big business. And yet you may be surprised to know how rarely his huge musical status and his alleged achievements have ever been criticised in any detail. 'Stravinsky studies' (so-called) is an elitist and highly conservative offshoot of musicology whose workers assume 'everything we have heard and read of Stravinsky is true' or, at least, so worthy of belief that the paradigm that underpins this virtual secular religion is hardly appreciated. The first American musician to propagate Stravinsky's music and to disseminate information on him, Robert Craft, is today seen internationally as a reliable confidant of the composer and is able to obtain funding, regularly, for vast promotional work that is read and believed as reliable worldwide. Stravinsky has been for almost a century one of the pillars of the musical establishment - a subject so complex and so highly regarded by teachers and schools in widely available literature that it may seem unthinkable that any complaint, however well researched, can be made against its ethos, and against the industry which promotes and has come to dominate the education of students in matters of musical history.
And yet criticise Stravinsky we must, since there is no science, nor any body of academic study, great or small, which should escape or avoid detailed criticism of the assumptions on which it is based and on which it has always been based.
Have you listened to Stravinsky's Symphony № 1? LOL It could have been written by any of a dozen of his suppressed contemporaries.
Stravinsky's iconic status within western musical culture is little more than a fantasy, a fairy story. But one that has a global fan base. Manufactured in the late 1920s and still, today, dominating the teaching of music history to a grotesque extent. But on issue after issue the facts surrounding Stravinsky's life, career and even his reputation as a performer and composer simply do not add up. Crucially important evidence was hidden, turned on its head, systematically, routinely, even traditionally, its sources often out of reach and massaged by an endless stream of biographers, each quoting the other, in a mockery of musicology. To subscribe to the Stravinsky myth you will be made ignorant, almost without realising it, of virtually all of Stravinsky's musical contemporaries in preWWI Petersburg, just for a start. You will be asked to believe things of him which dumb down your own critical faculties. And this is not new. It's been happening for decades in countless publications, and even in film, in a storyline which is rarely, if ever, subjected to cross-examination and criticism but which we can and must give to any area of valid research. Stravinsky studies' (so-called) exist and have always existed in a bubble. As to whether they are a valid branch of musicology is for readers to decide.
Do yourself a favour. Examine this issue from more than one side so you can form your own judgement. This great music today attributed to I.F. Stravinsky is not that of a provincial St Petersburg musician. Stravinsky, in fact, spent not a single day at music school in his entire life nor studied for any period of time under any recognised teacher of music. History deserves better. So does music. And so do you.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 08, 2009, 04:47:41 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 08, 2009, 04:47:41 AM
I don't believe that 'Stravinsky' as such even actually existed. I think our impressions of the 'Stravinsky' that we 'knew' is actually the result of years of forgery, fraud and fakery, where music from (non nomen) peers, cleverly juxtaposed with body doubles and the earliest experiments with sound synching (which came to full fruition only with the great Brittany Spears), have successfully duped the public, and more importantly, those few sincere members of the musicology profession who have then served to perpetuate the fraud ad infinitum.
Just sayin', :)
8)
Just sayin', :)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 04:51:06 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 04:51:06 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 08, 2009, 04:47:41 AM
I don't believe that 'Stravinsky' as such even actually existed. I think our impressions of the 'Stravinsky' that we 'knew' is actually the result of years of forgery, fraud and fakery, where music from (non nomen) peers, cleverly juxtaposed with body doubles and the earliest experiments with sound synching (which came to full fruition only with the great Brittany Spears), have successfully duped the public, and more importantly, those few sincere members of the musicology profession who have then served to perpetuate the fraud ad infinitum.
Just sayin', :)
8)
Gurn,
This is possible. Now, all you have to do is present some evidence. Have you got any ?
How about Mozart. Send me an email address and I will present evidence on the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' not being music by Mozart.
OK ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:52:54 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:52:54 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 08, 2009, 04:47:41 AM
I don't believe that 'Stravinsky' as such even actually existed.
He did not exist in St Petersburg. He was an obscure third-rate Parisian composer, one of Dyagilev's lovers, upon whom the impresario bestowed a fictitious Russian name so that he would have "new barbaric musical talent" to present to a hungry (and wealthy) French audience.
Consider: No outsider ever heard this 'Stravinsky' speak Russian, until decades later in the US, by which time the Frenchman would have had time to fake some Russian.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:54:48 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:54:48 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 04:51:06 AM
How about Mozart. Send me an email address and I will present evidence on the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' not being music by Mozart.
Balderdash. You have been asked for evidence repeatedly on this thread. And, somehow, it cannot be presented here, where many of us have asked for it, but instead needs to be shuttled around, Jesuitically, off-stage.
Crikey, but you are an utter riot! Dude, you've got no clothes on!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 04:55:14 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 04:55:14 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 04:36:25 AM
Aye, in absence of any meat on the bones of his "claim," the propagandist is generous with blahblahblah ::)
BTW, did you know that Stravinsky did not actually compose any of the music commonly ascribed to him? Don't laugh! Consider this:
To criticise in some detail the 'official' career of I.F. Stravinsky (1882-1971), to call in to question his musical abilities, both as a composer and as a legendary performer, to ask if he was truly the composer of virtually all the great musical works that are published and widely performed in his name, to question the truthfulness and reliability of documents which date from his own time, many of them describing him as being a musical 'genius', to question the contents of well known Stravinsky biographies - to argue, instead, that the life and musical career of this St Petersburg 'genius', this colossus of western culture, was really a gigantic cultural fraud of the late Romanov Dynasty virtually from beginning to end (a fraud continued and further exaggerated for decades after his death by sympathetic publishers and propagandists) - these are views so controversial, so unusual and so rarely considered within 'polite and educated society' that a number of experts who specialise in these areas of study, having heard that such a work may appear soon and being alarmed at the prospect of it becoming reality are queuing up to rescue the iconic status of their musical hero from such a strange, seemingly unprovoked and lengthy attack. Saying that I must have studied my subject for too long, that mine is the work of a man whose fertile imagination has 'got the better of him', that I've succumbed to a rare academic illness, that publication of a work against the Stravinsky we all know and love may even corrupt the young, that it might lead to ugliness within their beautiful world if read by the innocent etc., and that the views expressed here and the evidence presented in its support are the musicological equivalent of 'tilting at windmills' or of 'whistling in to the wind'.
Stravinsky is, of course, big business. And yet you may be surprised to know how rarely his huge musical status and his alleged achievements have ever been criticised in any detail. 'Stravinsky studies' (so-called) is an elitist and highly conservative offshoot of musicology whose workers assume 'everything we have heard and read of Stravinsky is true' or, at least, so worthy of belief that the paradigm that underpins this virtual secular religion is hardly appreciated. The first American musician to propagate Stravinsky's music and to disseminate information on him, Robert Craft, is today seen internationally as a reliable confidant of the composer and is able to obtain funding, regularly, for vast promotional work that is read and believed as reliable worldwide. Stravinsky has been for almost a century one of the pillars of the musical establishment - a subject so complex and so highly regarded by teachers and schools in widely available literature that it may seem unthinkable that any complaint, however well researched, can be made against its ethos, and against the industry which promotes and has come to dominate the education of students in matters of musical history.
And yet criticise Stravinsky we must, since there is no science, nor any body of academic study, great or small, which should escape or avoid detailed criticism of the assumptions on which it is based and on which it has always been based.
Have you listened to Stravinsky's Symphony № 1? LOL It could have been written by any of a dozen of his suppressed contemporaries.
Stravinsky's iconic status within western musical culture is little more than a fantasy, a fairy story. But one that has a global fan base. Manufactured in the late 1920s and still, today, dominating the teaching of music history to a grotesque extent. But on issue after issue the facts surrounding Stravinsky's life, career and even his reputation as a performer and composer simply do not add up. Crucially important evidence was hidden, turned on its head, systematically, routinely, even traditionally, its sources often out of reach and massaged by an endless stream of biographers, each quoting the other, in a mockery of musicology. To subscribe to the Stravinsky myth you will be made ignorant, almost without realising it, of virtually all of Stravinsky's musical contemporaries in preWWI Petersburg, just for a start. You will be asked to believe things of him which dumb down your own critical faculties. And this is not new. It's been happening for decades in countless publications, and even in film, in a storyline which is rarely, if ever, subjected to cross-examination and criticism but which we can and must give to any area of valid research. Stravinsky studies' (so-called) exist and have always existed in a bubble. As to whether they are a valid branch of musicology is for readers to decide.
Do yourself a favour. Examine this issue from more than one side so you can form your own judgement. This great music today attributed to I.F. Stravinsky is not that of a provincial St Petersburg musician. Stravinsky, in fact, spent not a single day at music school in his entire life nor studied for any period of time under any recognised teacher of music. History deserves better. So does music. And so do you.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Yes, and Karl Henning is asking for evidence on Mozart but when he is freely offered it he cannot accept to read it. Is this crazy, or what ? Such is the circular world of Professor Henning.
No such claims are made of Stravinsky and there is, with Stravinsky, no long history of musical misattribution.
Now, will you stop avoiding the issue and examine this subject fairly, from both sides ? Because you say you are interested in evidence. Right, Professor Henning ?
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:57:16 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 04:57:16 AM
And why, when 'Stravinsky' went "back" to Russia in the 60s, were the Soviets careful to keep a KGB handler seated between Shostakovich and 'Stravinsky'? That moment was touch-&-go!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 04:57:54 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 04:57:54 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 04:10:27 AM
Thank you for yet again no response of substance, and a reversion to ad hominem which is an implicit acknowledgement of the entire insufficiency of your "claim."Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Then, once again, please list some books which you have read that call in to question the well known official career of Mozart and that of his musical achievements. Can you name some ? We are still waiting, Professor Henning. And we think you have read none.
On the other hand, you refuse to read books which do exactly that.
Now, who is crazy ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 05:01:52 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 05:01:52 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 04:54:48 AM
Balderdash. You have been asked for evidence repeatedly on this thread. And, somehow, it cannot be presented here, where many of us have asked for it, but instead needs to be shuttled around, Jesuitically, off-stage.
Crikey, but you are an utter riot! Dude, you've got no clothes on!Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Professor Karl Henning insists he wants to read evidence for himself but when evidence is offered in detail he refuses to read it. If that isn't jesuitry I don't know what IS ! His bluff has been called. And here, for the seventh time in a row is the same offer. Let's see if, finally, Professor Karl Henning will read an entire book on 'Mozart's' opera, 'Le Nozze di Figaro'.
Such is the true state of 'Mozart scholarship' these days ! What sort of 'education' does he give his pupils if he can't even read the evidence he himself is asking for ?
It's hilarious ! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:17:44 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:17:44 AM
And what a give-away, when 'Stravinsky' regained consciousness after a stroke, and wrote a brief note to his émigrée Russian wife Vera, what language did he write in? French!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:20:39 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:20:39 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandist
. . . when evidence is offered in detail he refuses to read it.
Thank you for another non-answer. You offer no evidence. Where is it? The check is in the mail! LOL
Hilarious! Dude, you are Jimmy Durante's love-child!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:21:12 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:21:12 AM
Balanchine? Just another of the conspirators.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 08, 2009, 05:22:00 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 08, 2009, 05:22:00 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 04:51:06 AM
Gurn,
This is possible. Now, all you have to do is present some evidence. Have you got any ?
How about Mozart. Send me an email address and I will present evidence on the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' not being music by Mozart.
OK ?
Robert,
Of course; anything is possible. This, however is the reason why I posted earlier that it really doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong. The music, which is all that is left of 'Mozart' will live on far beyond us no matter. As for dealing a crippling blow to the 'Mozart' Industry, in reality you will just be giving them something new to research. So no matter what you are really up to, or what your motives really are, you can't win. I'm enjoying your "Mensch und Übermensch" struggle with the forces of goodness and light. Ain't the world great!?! :)
8)
BTW, my email address can be easily accessed in the icon under my avatar...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:24:39 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:24:39 AM
Quote from: Todd on May 28, 2009, 06:58:55 AM
Just precisely when will you provide any evidence to support your claims? Evidence would have to be verifiable sources. I'll give you an easy one, provide documented, verifiable evidence that "By 1789 his alleged 'patrons' had dwindled to only ONE name, Baron Swieten." Source name, date, location, etc.
I predict you cannot.
Hey, Todd! The evidence is in the mail!
He's got a million of 'em!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:27:06 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:27:06 AM
Gurn! How rich this thread is, wot?
How sweet his scam is! Make a preposterous, unsupported claim — and place the burden of evidence on you!
Oh, he's got his evidence! It's in the mail!
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistNow, all you have to do is present some evidence. Have you got any?
How sweet his scam is! Make a preposterous, unsupported claim — and place the burden of evidence on you!
Oh, he's got his evidence! It's in the mail!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 05:27:39 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 05:27:39 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:37:36 AM
DavidW,
Yes, some of the music attributed to Mozart is amongst the finest of the 18th or any other century. I've always believed this. But if you listen to all of it you will agree that some of it is hardly worthy of any composer and is of poor quality. So, yes, let's consider the whole picture, and not just those parts which we always hear.
Have you heard the early quartets of Mozart. They are rubbish. And there is, stylistically, nothing 'Mozartean' about them. They could have been written by almost anyone. Such is the reality. The same is true of many, many other works.
Do you believe that those fine compositions that you enjoy were written by Mozart? Or do you think that they were written by someone else?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:31:58 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:31:58 AM
Quote from: edward on May 28, 2009, 07:13:07 AMQuote from: the eccentric propagandistWell, yes I DO have evidence that the 1784 concerts are fraudulent.
No, you don't.Quote from: the eccentric propagandistLet's first see if you and your colleagues will finally produce some newspaper reports of Mozart being a well known and celebrated composer/performer of his own music in Vienna during the decade he lived there (1781-1791). And as soon as they can do this I will present the 1784 evidence.
They did present evidence of the newspaper reports. You ignored it because it made a mockery of your conspiracy theory.
See Mickey Mouse dodge! You give me your evidence, then I will produce mine! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
QuoteHow sweet his scam is! Make a preposterous, unsupported claim — and place the burden of evidence on you!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 05:33:45 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 05:33:45 AM
A COMIC OPERA IN ONE ACT
'THE PROFESSOR AND HIS EXPERTISE'
Featuring that well known virtuoso and expert on the life, career and musical achievements of Herr W.A. Mozart. 'Everything you've heard is true'.
Scene 1
Enter Prof. Karl Henning (agitated) -
KH - 'And I say again this nonsense must be stopped, since he, that Newman, has presented no evidence'
(Pupils applaud wildly)
'And what did he reply ? - He even offered to send me, free of charge, a book on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' - a book which, if I was to read its contents, might corrupt me and then you, dear students. And I... (tears now flowing freely) have only the education of you, my dear pupils, as my first priority'
Pupil 1 - We love you Professor Henning !! (further applause)
KH - And I love you too, dear pupils. So much so that at the next book burning festival I will grant you all a seat near the fire.
(More wild applause)
KH - Now, as I was saying, when Mozart wrote, from memory, an entire opera before breakfast, and when he composed a string of symphonies before lunch... and when....... when he was gripped by the creative urge to write six concertos and three masses... and when......
Pupils - (starry eyed) - How we love you Professor Henning !!
(Musical interlude with sustained violins, oboes and clarinets leading to Cornflakes ad )
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 05:40:26 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 05:40:26 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 08, 2009, 05:22:00 AM
Robert,
Of course; anything is possible. This, however is the reason why I posted earlier that it really doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong. The music, which is all that is left of 'Mozart' will live on far beyond us no matter. As for dealing a crippling blow to the 'Mozart' Industry, in reality you will just be giving them something new to research. So no matter what you are really up to, or what your motives really are, you can't win. I'm enjoying your "Mensch und Übermensch" struggle with the forces of goodness and light. Ain't the world great!?! :)
8)
BTW, my email address can be easily accessed in the icon under my avatar...
Gurn,
If it doesn't really matter whether these things are right or wrong why the hostility from others, why their refusal to read works which present documentary evidence, and why the astounding ignorance of Mozarteans of music from Mozart's own contemporaries ?? We are choosing to live in a bubble at the expense of students, where blatant falsehoods are being taught as though they are facts. And, at this time, how many works exist to set the record straight ? How many works do you know which have called the Mozart myth in to serious question ? The answers never come because the truth is, as you must surely know, such works simply do not exist. This is mythology on a corporate level, it runs contrary to all the fair and reasoanble standards of research and it is massively undermining musicology and even the appreciation of historical fact.
The struggle is not my own. It's the struggle between dogmatists and those who are prepared to examine these issues fairly, openly, from more than one perspective.
Thanks for your email. I will post you a copy of the Figaro book. With regards
Robert Newman
Copy Posted (15.00 hrs GMT)
rn
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:59:10 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 05:59:10 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistSuch is the true state of 'Mozart scholarship' these days ! What sort of 'education' does he give his pupils if he can't even read the evidence he himself is asking for?
The non-answer chasing its tail in a circle! It's hilarious ! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 06:03:41 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 06:03:41 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistThanks for your email. I will post you a copy of the Figaro book.
Cannot be much in the way of "evidence" to support the "claim" if it cannot be summarized here where it has been repeatedly asked for.
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistNo such claims are made of Stravinsky and there is, with Stravinsky, no long history of musical misattribution.
Once again, please list some books which you have read that call in to question the well known official career of Stravinsky and that of his musical achievements. Can you name some? We are still waiting. And we think you have read none.
Cor! What an easy game to play!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:04:44 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:04:44 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 05:59:10 AM
The non-answer chasing its tail in a circle! It's hilarious ! ;D
To the extent that 'Mozart studies' claims to operate under rules which apply to science you cannot continue to argue that you are open to criticism, to review of what you believe and teach others if, at the same time, you refuse to examine the findings of those who have made detailed and modern research and who freely offer their findings to you on your own request.
It's that simple.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:08:58 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:08:58 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 06:03:41 AM
Cannot be much in the way of "evidence" to support the "claim" if it cannot be summarized here where it has been repeatedly asked for.
Once again, please list some books which you have read that call in to question the well known official career of Stravinsky and that of his musical achievements. Can you name some? We are still waiting. And we think you have read none.
Cor! What an easy game to play!Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Fact 1 - The musical works of Stravinsky have not involved dozens, even hundreds of works being falsely attributed to him.
Fact 2 - Nobody has presented evidence to the contrary
Fact 3 - The records of the Koechel Catalogue since its 1st edition until today have demonstrated the misattribution of literally hundreds of musical works which have falsely been attributed to W.A. Mozart. A fact admitted by everyone who has studied the subject.
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 06:13:16 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 06:13:16 AM
Paul Dukas (1856-1935)
Paul Dukas was born in Paris to a Jewish father and Catholic mother. He studied under Théodore Dubois and Ernest Guiraud at the Conservatoire de Paris, where he became friends with the composer Claude Debussy. After completing his studies Dukas found work as a music critic and orchestrator; he was unusually gifted in orchestration and was one of the most sensitive and insightful critics of the era. Although Dukas wrote a fair amount of music, he was a perfectionist and destroyed many of his pieces out of dissatisfaction with them. Only a few of his compositions remain. His first surviving work of note is the energetic Symphony in C (1896), which belongs to the tradition of Beethoven and César Franck. Like Franck's only symphony, Dukas' is in three movements rather than the conventional four: Allegro non troppo, ma con fuoco; Andante espressive e fuoco; Allegro spiritoso.
The symphony was followed by another orchestral work, L'apprenti sorcier (English: The Sorcerer's Apprentice) (1897), which is based on Goethe's poem "Der Zauberlehrling". The Sorcerer's Apprentice was used (in a slightly redacted version) in the Walt Disney film Fantasia - a total of perhaps one minute of the ten-and-a-half minute piece was omitted. Dukas's rhythmic mastery and vivid orchestration are evident in both the Symphony in C and the The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
For the piano, Dukas wrote two complex and technically demanding large-scale works, a Sonata in E-flat minor (1901) and Variations, interlude and finale on a theme of Rameau (1902), again reminiscent of Beethoven and Franck. (There are also two smaller works for piano solo.) The Sonata did not enter the mainstream repertoire, but it has been more recently championed by such pianists as Marc-André Hamelin. The opera Ariane et Barbe-Bleue ("Ariadne and Bluebeard"), on which he worked from 1899 to 1907, has often been compared to Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande, partly because of musical similarities and partly because both operas are based on libretti by Maurice Maeterlinck. Dukas's last major work was the sumptuous oriental ballet La Péri (1912) about a man who reached the Ends of the Earth in a quest to find immortality, coming across a mythical Peri, holding The Flower of Immortality.
In the last decades of his life, Dukas became well known as a teacher of composition, with many famous students including Joaquín Rodrigo, Manuel Ponce, Maurice Duruflé, Olivier Messiaen, Jehan Alain, Carlos Chávez, and David Van Vactor. After Dukas died, he joined the scores of other famous people buried in the Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris.
The symphonic scherzo L'apprenti sorcier has a series of remarkable similarities to a piece of Stravinsky's, Feu d'artifices.
Easy game! No mental effort required!
Paul Dukas was born in Paris to a Jewish father and Catholic mother. He studied under Théodore Dubois and Ernest Guiraud at the Conservatoire de Paris, where he became friends with the composer Claude Debussy. After completing his studies Dukas found work as a music critic and orchestrator; he was unusually gifted in orchestration and was one of the most sensitive and insightful critics of the era. Although Dukas wrote a fair amount of music, he was a perfectionist and destroyed many of his pieces out of dissatisfaction with them. Only a few of his compositions remain. His first surviving work of note is the energetic Symphony in C (1896), which belongs to the tradition of Beethoven and César Franck. Like Franck's only symphony, Dukas' is in three movements rather than the conventional four: Allegro non troppo, ma con fuoco; Andante espressive e fuoco; Allegro spiritoso.
The symphony was followed by another orchestral work, L'apprenti sorcier (English: The Sorcerer's Apprentice) (1897), which is based on Goethe's poem "Der Zauberlehrling". The Sorcerer's Apprentice was used (in a slightly redacted version) in the Walt Disney film Fantasia - a total of perhaps one minute of the ten-and-a-half minute piece was omitted. Dukas's rhythmic mastery and vivid orchestration are evident in both the Symphony in C and the The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
For the piano, Dukas wrote two complex and technically demanding large-scale works, a Sonata in E-flat minor (1901) and Variations, interlude and finale on a theme of Rameau (1902), again reminiscent of Beethoven and Franck. (There are also two smaller works for piano solo.) The Sonata did not enter the mainstream repertoire, but it has been more recently championed by such pianists as Marc-André Hamelin. The opera Ariane et Barbe-Bleue ("Ariadne and Bluebeard"), on which he worked from 1899 to 1907, has often been compared to Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande, partly because of musical similarities and partly because both operas are based on libretti by Maurice Maeterlinck. Dukas's last major work was the sumptuous oriental ballet La Péri (1912) about a man who reached the Ends of the Earth in a quest to find immortality, coming across a mythical Peri, holding The Flower of Immortality.
In the last decades of his life, Dukas became well known as a teacher of composition, with many famous students including Joaquín Rodrigo, Manuel Ponce, Maurice Duruflé, Olivier Messiaen, Jehan Alain, Carlos Chávez, and David Van Vactor. After Dukas died, he joined the scores of other famous people buried in the Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris.
The symphonic scherzo L'apprenti sorcier has a series of remarkable similarities to a piece of Stravinsky's, Feu d'artifices.
Easy game! No mental effort required!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:17:23 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:17:23 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 06:13:16 AM
Paul Dukas (1856-1935)
Paul Dukas was born in Paris to a Jewish father and Catholic mother. He studied under Théodore Dubois and Ernest Guiraud at the Conservatoire de Paris, where he became friends with the composer Claude Debussy. After completing his studies Dukas found work as a music critic and orchestrator; he was unusually gifted in orchestration and was one of the most sensitive and insightful critics of the era. Although Dukas wrote a fair amount of music, he was a perfectionist and destroyed many of his pieces out of dissatisfaction with them. Only a few of his compositions remain. His first surviving work of note is the energetic Symphony in C (1896), which belongs to the tradition of Beethoven and César Franck. Like Franck's only symphony, Dukas' is in three movements rather than the conventional four: Allegro non troppo, ma con fuoco; Andante espressive e fuoco; Allegro spiritoso.
The symphony was followed by another orchestral work, L'apprenti sorcier (English: The Sorcerer's Apprentice) (1897), which is based on Goethe's poem "Der Zauberlehrling". The Sorcerer's Apprentice was used (in a slightly redacted version) in the Walt Disney film Fantasia - a total of perhaps one minute of the ten-and-a-half minute piece was omitted. Dukas's rhythmic mastery and vivid orchestration are evident in both the Symphony in C and the The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
For the piano, Dukas wrote two complex and technically demanding large-scale works, a Sonata in E-flat minor (1901) and Variations, interlude and finale on a theme of Rameau (1902), again reminiscent of Beethoven and Franck. (There are also two smaller works for piano solo.) The Sonata did not enter the mainstream repertoire, but it has been more recently championed by such pianists as Marc-André Hamelin. The opera Ariane et Barbe-Bleue ("Ariadne and Bluebeard"), on which he worked from 1899 to 1907, has often been compared to Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande, partly because of musical similarities and partly because both operas are based on libretti by Maurice Maeterlinck. Dukas's last major work was the sumptuous oriental ballet La Péri (1912) about a man who reached the Ends of the Earth in a quest to find immortality, coming across a mythical Peri, holding The Flower of Immortality.
In the last decades of his life, Dukas became well known as a teacher of composition, with many famous students including Joaquín Rodrigo, Manuel Ponce, Maurice Duruflé, Olivier Messiaen, Jehan Alain, Carlos Chávez, and David Van Vactor. After Dukas died, he joined the scores of other famous people buried in the Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris.
The symphonic scherzo L'apprenti sorcier has a series of remarkable similarities to a piece of Stravinsky's, Feu d'artifices.
Easy game! No mental effort required!Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Professor Henning,
You don't play by any rules, do you ?
If you wish to write on the life and career of other composers you are free to make a special thread. But this thread is on W.A. Mozart.
That's lesson number 1.
Thank You
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 06:22:53 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 06:22:53 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistFact 1 - The musical works of Stravinsky have not involved dozens, even hundreds of works being falsely attributed to him.
Fact 2 - Nobody has presented evidence to the contrary
Fact 3 - The records of the Koechel Catalogue since its 1st edition until today have demonstrated the misattribution of literally hundreds of musical works which have falsely been attributed to W.A. Mozart. A fact admitted by everyone who has studied the subject.
Fact: "Literally hundreds" is obvious exaggeration.
Fact: Newman's whole game is exaggeration and empty assertion.
Fact: Newman has not presented any evidence on this thread, where he has been asked for it repeatedly.
Fact: One of Newman's fond smokescreens is this "but I'm waiting, I'm willing, I'm wanting to send it to you!" If it is going to be evidence in Gurn's hand or in Cato's, it will be evidence here. Newman's bluff has been called. Yet again.
Fact: Newman claims to have been aided by hundreds of librarians, yet he fails to name a single man jack of them.
Fact: Newman's German is inadequate to the task, but his premise is a faith-based initiative, so actual expertise on his part would be irrelevant.
Fact: Mozart learned music from his father, a professional musician.
Fact: Newman consistently glosses over this fact.
Fact: Newman consistently lies, by asserting the opposite.
Fact: Mozart's string quartets do not just sound like the string quartets of his lesser contemporaries.
Fact: Newman's only answer to this is boilerplate on the order of "the music of Josef Myslivececk is amazingly 'Mozartean', yes?"
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 06:27:41 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 06:27:41 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistIf you wish to write on the life and career of other composers you are free to make a special thread. But this thread is on W.A. Mozart.
That's lesson number 1.
Not quite. This is the thread on W.A Mozart.
This thread is the Rob Newman's Carnival Claiming that Mozart was a Fraud thread.
My posts are on-topic.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 06:32:55 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 06:32:55 AM
And, thank you for again underscoring your failure to address the call for facts and evidence by lesson number 1.
You are the funny one!
You are the funny one!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 08, 2009, 06:40:59 AM
Post by: Todd on July 08, 2009, 06:40:59 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:17:23 AMBut this thread is on W.A. Mozart.
No, it's about a silly charlatan who writes about Mozart being a fraud. Once again, Bob, you got your facts wrong.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:45:45 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:45:45 AM
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2009, 06:40:59 AM
No, it's about a silly charlatan who writes about Mozart being a fraud. Once again, Bob, you got your facts wrong.
Todd,
Provide me with your email address and I will happily send you a recent publication with my best wishes on 'Mozart's' opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro', (2008) just as a gentle start to the subject.
Otherwise let's stop this nonsense. The dogmatists clearly don't want to examine the published discoveries of modern research and it is crystal clear they are and have always been willingly ignorant guardians of cultural mythology. This imposed on the musical world as 'musicology' but highly resistant to detailed criticism. A fact which anyone can see for themselves, even on this thread.
Students should protest at this nonsense. If any reader of this thread would like a free copy of this book (published in 2008) please let me know by PM.
And so ends my contribution to this very revealing thread.
Thank You
Robert Newman
Author of, 'The Manufacture of Mozart' (2009)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 06:49:09 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 06:49:09 AM
We are all protesting your nonsense.
You are actually deaf, aren't you?
You are actually deaf, aren't you?
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 08, 2009, 06:52:47 AM
Post by: Todd on July 08, 2009, 06:52:47 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:45:45 AMProvide me with your email address and I will happily send you a recent publication with my best wishes on 'Mozart's' opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro', (2008) just as a gentle start to the subject.
Otherwise let's stop this nonsense.
First of all, I read only worthwhile works, not inherently worthless ones.
Second, yes, please, stop the nonsense. After 40+ pages, please stop.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 06:53:50 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 06:53:50 AM
Quote from: robnewman on May 30, 2009, 02:36:59 AM
J.B. Vanhal
Concerto for Viola and Orchestra
2nd Movement
(c.1777)
http://www.mediafire.com/?ojuelljeyew
-ditto-
3rd Movement
http://www.mediafire.com/?2mimzmuwjy2
//
Wow! That sounds just as good as anything Mosart wrote.
And if someone who lived aroun the time of Mosart cud write just as good as Msart, that is close to meaning that he really wrote the music himself!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:56:00 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:56:00 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 06:49:09 AM
We are all protesting your nonsense.
You are actually deaf, aren't you?Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Prof. Henning,
Believe as you please. So will others having examined these issues fairly, from different perspectives. In this way we learn and are qualified to form a considered judgement.
Thank You for your time.
R.E. Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 06:56:24 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 06:56:24 AM
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on July 08, 2009, 06:53:50 AM
Wow! That sounds just as good as anything Mosart wrote.
And if someone who lived aroun the time of Mosart cud write just as good as Msart, that is close to meaning that he really wrote the music himself!
Bob, cut it out would ya. This is really getting silly.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:59:08 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:59:08 AM
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2009, 06:52:47 AM
First of all, I read only worthwhile works, not inherently worthless ones.
Second, yes, please, stop the nonsense. After 40+ pages, please stop.
Todd, you started this thread and we note you've had almost nothing to say ever since. Perhaps you thought you would win easily ? But you lost. Big time. Welcome to the world of the musical underachievers who never read anything other than their own Mozartean dogmas fed to them on a drip system by the Mozart industry. And sanitised, edited, censored for you in advance. LOL ! :)
As everyone can see.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 07:00:50 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 07:00:50 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on July 07, 2009, 12:28:12 PM
Pointing out that you are demented is the only substantial contribution that can be made to this thread. Has anyone ever agreed with or been convinced by anything you have ever posted here, or on any other similar web site?
I think he may be right. We don't really know anthing about Mosart. It's all in books, and books can be lies.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:01:07 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:01:07 AM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 06:56:24 AM
Bob, cut it out would ya. This is really getting silly.
Yes, I've made my case. Mozart, patron saint of musical mythology. The FOX news of the musical underachiever.
Fin
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 07:01:50 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 07:01:50 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:01:07 AM
Yes, I've made my case. Mozart, patron saint of musical mythology. The FOX news of the musical underachiever.
Fin
Tell them!
(Iz your name really Fin?)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 08, 2009, 07:02:36 AM
Post by: Todd on July 08, 2009, 07:02:36 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:59:08 AMPerhaps you thought you would win easily ? But you lost. Big time.
Two questions: 1.) What is there to win and lose? Seriously. 2.) Only a few posts ago you said you were done posting on this thread, so why are you still posting? Silly charlatan.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 07:11:08 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 07:11:08 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 06:49:09 AM
We are all protesting your nonsense.
You are actually deaf, aren't you?Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
How can he be deaf?
He's written a book about music!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 07:12:04 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 07:12:04 AM
Fin, where can I read your Mosart book?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 07:13:58 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 07:13:58 AM
I'm sure an important work like that must have been published by a major publishing company available for purchase in most bookstores. Certainly it wouldn't just be a downloadable pdf! Imagine how preposterous that would be! :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on July 08, 2009, 07:16:07 AM
Post by: Franco on July 08, 2009, 07:16:07 AM
I am wondering if this thread will make it to 1,000 posts? I will help it limp along with one more.
Mr. Newman, if you would only devote as much energy to legitimate research in musicology or history as you do to alledging Mozart a fraud, it is entirely possible you could sustain a career in those fields.
My Composition teacher once complained that because of the plethora of Ph.D. candidates all the "good" topics had been taken long ago and people were reduced to doing their research on more and more marginal figures and/or issues - but it does seem that you have gone off the deep end.
But, who knows, in this era, even a book purporting something so patently absurd as your thesis could find a publisher and even sell a few copies.
Mr. Newman, if you would only devote as much energy to legitimate research in musicology or history as you do to alledging Mozart a fraud, it is entirely possible you could sustain a career in those fields.
My Composition teacher once complained that because of the plethora of Ph.D. candidates all the "good" topics had been taken long ago and people were reduced to doing their research on more and more marginal figures and/or issues - but it does seem that you have gone off the deep end.
But, who knows, in this era, even a book purporting something so patently absurd as your thesis could find a publisher and even sell a few copies.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on July 08, 2009, 07:19:10 AM
Post by: Scarpia on July 08, 2009, 07:19:10 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:59:08 AMNo one on this board has ever claimed to have "seen" what you say they have seen.
As everyone can see.
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:25:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:25:09 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on July 08, 2009, 07:19:10 AM
No one on this board has ever claimed to have "seen" what you say they have seen.
;D
You are right. I am assuming a man who reads more than one side of a story is better informed than he who has read only one, or none at all.
But in your case, well, who knows ? You may be the exception to the rule.
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:27:41 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:27:41 AM
Quote from: Franco on July 08, 2009, 07:16:07 AM
I am wondering if this thread will make it to 1,000 posts? I will help it limp along with one more.
Mr. Newman, if you would only devote as much energy to legitimate research in musicology or history as you do to alledging Mozart a fraud, it is entirely possible you could sustain a career in those fields.
My Composition teacher once complained that because of the plethora of Ph.D. candidates all the "good" topics had been taken long ago and people were reduced to doing their research on more and more marginal figures and/or issues - but it does seem that you have gone off the deep end.
But, who knows, in this era, even a book purporting something so patently absurd as your thesis could find a publisher and even sell a few copies.
'Patently absurd' ? What is more absurd than a myth that nobody ever questions in detail and whose teachers and students are determined to remain ignorant ? THAT is patently absurd. A generation of self-deluded fools, perhaps ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 07:33:24 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 07:33:24 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistYou are right. I am assuming a man who reads more than one side of a story is better informed than he who has read only one, or none at all.
This is not any matter of another side to the story (which would indeed repay investigation), but of inane contradiction which flies in the face of facts, and which fails to bolster its own claims.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 07:34:56 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 07:34:56 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistA generation of self-deluded fools, perhaps?
The self-deluded fool under advisement is the fellow who cannot belly up to these:
Fact: Mozart learned music from his father, a professional musician.
Fact: Newman consistently glosses over this fact.
Fact: Newman consistently lies, by asserting the opposite.
Fact: Mozart's string quartets do not just sound like the string quartets of his lesser contemporaries.
Fact: Newman's only answer to this is boilerplate on the order of "the music of Josef Myslivececk is amazingly 'Mozartean', yes?"
Basta.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:35:48 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:35:48 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 07:13:58 AM
I'm sure an important work like that must have been published by a major publishing company available for purchase in most bookstores. Certainly it wouldn't just be a downloadable pdf! Imagine how preposterous that would be! :D
Almost as preposterous as you actually reading it, right ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:42:30 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:42:30 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 07:34:56 AM
The self-deluded fool under advisement is the fellow who cannot belly up to these:
Fact: Mozart learned music from his father, a professional musician.
Fact: Newman consistently glosses over this fact.
Fact: Newman consistently lies, by asserting the opposite.
Fact: Mozart's string quartets do not just sound like the string quartets of his lesser contemporaries.
Fact: Newman's only answer to this is boilerplate on the order of "the music of Josef Myslivececk is amazingly 'Mozartean', yes?"
Basta.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Fact - I have asked Professor Karl Henning to show us evidence of Leopold Mozart being a teacher of composition/harmony to anyone. And we are still waiting. (He thinks we will believe him just for spreading this fiction. Let's tell him he is selling his snake oil again).
Fact - Mozart did NOT learn music from his father. In point of fact there exists a letter written by Leopold Mozart to Padre Martini in Bologna saying that his son (Wolfgang) according to his own employer (the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg) had NOT learned music or composition in Salzburg and that because of this FACT he, Wolfgang, was coming to Italy. But hey, why let such facts, documentary facts, get in the way of your fictions ? You are not interested in facts, are you, Prof. Henning ?
Fact - You don't want to read any works which call in to question your mythology. Although you want people to believe you are interested in evidence. That you are a fair and reasonable person. Right ? ;D
Fact - I have finished contributing to this thread.
RN
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 07:46:44 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 07:46:44 AM
Dont go! I wnt to read ur book!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:49:10 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:49:10 AM
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on July 08, 2009, 07:46:44 AM
Dont go! I wnt to read ur book!
Send me an email address and I will freely send you the 2008 book on 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. As I have already sent to several people here today.
As for the larger book this will be completed at the end of this year.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on July 08, 2009, 07:50:14 AM
Post by: Franco on July 08, 2009, 07:50:14 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:27:41 AM
'Patently absurd' ? What is more absurd than a myth that nobody ever questions in detail and whose teachers and students are determined to remain ignorant ? THAT is patently absurd. A generation of self-deluded fools, perhaps ?
Revisionist history is a legitimate field but just as often produces intellectually empty pursuits such as the Shakespeare-did-not-write-the-plays books and sometimes can actually descend into something not so benign as the Holocaust deniers such as David Irving.
I am not comparing you to Irving, but I guess it was only a matter of time that the field of music history spawned its own version of the Shakespeare silliness.
I understand that there is even an annual convention of the Bard-bashers.
Will I soon read of you and your fellow travelers gathering somewhere to titillate each other with the latest research concerning how the Mozart Industry has stolen the work product of Vanhal et al?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 07:50:41 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 07:50:41 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistFact - [...] You are not interested in facts, are you, Prof. Henning ?
Fact - You don't want to read any works which call in to question your mythology [...]
Fact - I have finished contributing to this thread.
Thank you for demonstrating again that you do not know what a fact is. Rather a severe handicap to your eccentric endeavor, of course. Ah, well, you still have time to take up some worthwhile employment.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 07:50:59 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 07:50:59 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:35:48 AM
Almost as preposterous as you actually reading it, right ?
If it's free I'll gladly read it.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 07:51:43 AM
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 07:51:43 AM
Some time ago I provided an e-mail address for the "Le Nozze Is A Fraud" file: hesse3000@totalmail.com
STILLLLLLLLL Waiting! You have not sent me any such book yet: I assume it is the one offered by a certain Anna Trombetta and Luca Bianchini?
And we are STILLLLLL waiting for the answers to the questions I posed yesterday!
We assume therefore that Mr. Newman will not answer the simple Yes/No question: e.g. "Have you compared original manuscripts with or without the help of a paleographer?" "Will you provide a list of archivists/librarians who dealt with you as you researched the original manuscripts, and a list of the dates you visited these libraries and archives?"
And he will not answer because the answer is NO...which demolishes the basis for any kind of legitimate examination of the hypothesis.
STILLLLLLLLL Waiting! You have not sent me any such book yet: I assume it is the one offered by a certain Anna Trombetta and Luca Bianchini?
And we are STILLLLLL waiting for the answers to the questions I posed yesterday!
We assume therefore that Mr. Newman will not answer the simple Yes/No question: e.g. "Have you compared original manuscripts with or without the help of a paleographer?" "Will you provide a list of archivists/librarians who dealt with you as you researched the original manuscripts, and a list of the dates you visited these libraries and archives?"
And he will not answer because the answer is NO...which demolishes the basis for any kind of legitimate examination of the hypothesis.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 08, 2009, 07:52:53 AM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 08, 2009, 07:52:53 AM
Who's this "we" Rob keeps referring to? ???
I propose this: that any post robnewman makes other than a direct answer to Cato's most recent (and reasonable) request for evidence be deleted with or without robnewman's consent.
Otherwise:
(http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/upload/2009/03/i_get_email_too_pz/cock%20in%20mouth.jpg)
And as all facts rob posted in this thread, his most recent:
I propose this: that any post robnewman makes other than a direct answer to Cato's most recent (and reasonable) request for evidence be deleted with or without robnewman's consent.
Otherwise:
(http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/upload/2009/03/i_get_email_too_pz/cock%20in%20mouth.jpg)
And as all facts rob posted in this thread, his most recent:
Quoteis just incorrect. :P
Fact - I have finished contributing to this thread.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 07:54:30 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 07:54:30 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 07:50:59 AM
If it's free I'll gladly read it.
If it's evidence, 'tis wondrous strange that Mr Newman does not provide a tab here where he has been repeatedly asked.
LOL
It's hilarious! ;D
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 08, 2009, 07:52:53 AM
And as all facts rob posted in this thread, his most recent:QuoteFact - I have finished contributing to this thread.
is just incorrect. :P
Oui.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:55:07 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:55:07 AM
Quote from: Cato on July 08, 2009, 07:51:43 AM
Some time ago I provided an e-mail address for the "Le Nozze Is A Fraud" file: hesse3000@totalmail.com
STILLLLLLLLL Waiting! You have not sent me any such book yet: I assume it is the one offered by a certain Anna Trombetta and Luca Bianchini?
And we are STILLLLLL waiting for the answers to the questions I posed yesterday!
We assume therefore that Mr. Newman will not answer the simple Yes/No question: e.g. "Have you compared original manuscripts with or without the help of a paleographer?" "Will you provide a list of archivists/librarians who dealt with you as you researched the original manuscripts, and a list of the dates you visited these libraries and archives?"
And he will not answer because the answer is NO...which demolishes the basis for any kind of legitimate examination of the hypothesis.
Cato,
I will send you this book on Figaro right now.
As for archives/libraries/researchers and sources contacted and used in the forthcoming book 'The Manufacture of Mozart', you will find these in the book itself.
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 07:56:19 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 07:56:19 AM
Quote from: Cato on July 08, 2009, 07:51:43 AM
And he will not answer because the answer is NO...which demolishes the basis for any kind of legitimate examination of the hypothesis.
It's in the mail, Cato!
LOLOLOL
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:57:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:57:09 AM
Quote from: Franco on July 08, 2009, 07:50:14 AM
Revisionist history is a legitimate field but just as often produces intellectually empty pursuits such as the Shakespeare-did-not-write-the-plays books and sometimes can actually descend into something not so benign as the Holocaust deniers such as David Irving.
I am not comparing you to Irving, but I guess it was only a matter of time that the field of music history spawned its own version of the Shakespeare silliness.
I understand that there is even an annual convention of the Bard-bashers.
Will I soon read of you and your fellow travelers gathering somewhere to titillate each other with the latest research concerning how the Mozart Industry has stolen the work product of Vanhal et al?
Franco,
Do yourself a favour. Sit down and read the scale of fakery, exaggeration, forgery and omission for yourself. And form your own considered judgement. That is all I can suggest.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:59:10 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:59:10 AM
Quote from: Cato on July 08, 2009, 07:51:43 AM
Some time ago I provided an e-mail address for the "Le Nozze Is A Fraud" file: hesse3000@totalmail.com
STILLLLLLLLL Waiting! You have not sent me any such book yet: I assume it is the one offered by a certain Anna Trombetta and Luca Bianchini?
And we are STILLLLLL waiting for the answers to the questions I posed yesterday!
We assume therefore that Mr. Newman will not answer the simple Yes/No question: e.g. "Have you compared original manuscripts with or without the help of a paleographer?" "Will you provide a list of archivists/librarians who dealt with you as you researched the original manuscripts, and a list of the dates you visited these libraries and archives?"
And he will not answer because the answer is NO...which demolishes the basis for any kind of legitimate examination of the hypothesis.
Sending the Figaro book now to the address you gave me
RN
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:00:45 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:00:45 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistDo yourself a favour.
The scale of your fakery, exaggeration, forgery and omission is quite something.
LOLOLOL
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 08:05:04 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 08:05:04 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:57:09 AM
Franco,
Do yourself a favour. Sit down and read the scale of fakery, exaggeration, forgery and omission for yourself. And form your own considered judgement. That is all I can suggest.
Histroy is all lies, anyway. I believe you!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 08:07:34 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 08:07:34 AM
No way cud anyone write all the music they say that Mosart wrote. They pull a fast one!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 08, 2009, 08:09:25 AM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 08, 2009, 08:09:25 AM
I think Neuman's account has been hacked by a moderator. "Mosart?" "cud?" :-X
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:09:39 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:09:39 AM
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on July 08, 2009, 08:05:04 AM
Histroy is all lies, anyway. I believe you!
History is not lies. History is the context within which truth reveals itself. A context which is often obscured, twisted, inverted, often ignored and falsified, even systematically and which deceives many. But not all.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:12:51 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:12:51 AM
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on July 08, 2009, 08:07:34 AM
No way cud anyone write all the music they say that Mosart wrote. They pull a fast one!
Although some pieces (like most of the "Mozart Symphony № 37") are genuine misattributions, it is simply an error to claim that no one could have written that volume of music. How should we 'prove' such an 'impossibility'?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 08, 2009, 08:13:08 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 08, 2009, 08:13:08 AM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 08, 2009, 08:09:25 AM
I think Neuman's account has been hacked by a moderator. "Mosart?" "cud?" :-X
Why a moderator? We know less about how to "hack" than, oh, YOU for instance... ;)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:15:40 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:15:40 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistHistory is not lies. History is the context within which truth reveals itself. A context which is often obscured, twisted, inverted, often ignored and falsified, even systematically and which deceives many. But not all.
Oh, the facts will never deceive you, neighbor.
LOLOL
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on July 08, 2009, 08:16:35 AM
Post by: Franco on July 08, 2009, 08:16:35 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:09:39 AM
History is not lies. History is the context within which truth reveals itself. A context which is often obscured, twisted, inverted, often ignored and falsified, even systematically and which deceives many.
In the case of the "Mozart as fraud" thesis, it is the perpetrators, such as yourself, that contribute a context which is twisted, inverted, falsified, even systematically but which deceives no one.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 08, 2009, 08:16:54 AM
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 08, 2009, 08:16:54 AM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zUlQ4_7Dge0/ScFiYlIFUGI/AAAAAAAAAPg/XHj_SwGW-0E/s400/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:17:50 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:17:50 AM
Quote from: Franco on July 08, 2009, 08:16:35 AM
In the case of the "Mozart as fraud" thesis, it is the perpetrators, such as yourself, that contribute a context which is twisted, inverted, falsified, even systematically but which deceives no one.
Ssshh! Rob thinks he has unique hold of The Truth!
LOLOL
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 08, 2009, 08:18:56 AM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 08, 2009, 08:18:56 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 08, 2009, 08:13:08 AMWell, maybe just "alterered" by a moderator? :D
Why a moderator? We know less about how to "hack" than, oh, YOU for instance... ;)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 08, 2009, 08:19:35 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 08, 2009, 08:19:35 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:09:39 AM
History is not lies. History is the context within which truth reveals itself. A context which is often obscured, twisted, inverted, often ignored and falsified, even systematically and which deceives many. But not all.
Although I have intentionally tried to avoid this thread for some time, I continue to see new entries when reviewing "recent posts." Seems to me--without actually counting--that this makes several posts by Mr. Newman after the most recent occasion--today--on which he promised to quit the thread. It also seems to me that having a bit of sport with someone whose capacity is so obviously compromised is a bit like teasing the developmentally disabled kids in school.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 08:24:08 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 08:24:08 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 07:42:30 AM
Fact - I have asked Professor Karl Henning to show us evidence of Leopold Mozart being a teacher of composition/harmony to anyone. And we are still waiting. (He thinks we will believe him just for spreading this fiction. Let's tell him he is selling his snake oil again).
Fact - Mozart did NOT learn music from his father. In point of fact there exists a letter written by Leopold Mozart to Padre Martini in Bologna saying that his son (Wolfgang) according to his own employer (the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg) had NOT learned music or composition in Salzburg and that because of this FACT he, Wolfgang, was coming to Italy. But hey, why let such facts, documentary facts, get in the way of your fictions ? You are not interested in facts, are you, Prof. Henning ?
Fact - You don't want to read any works which call in to question your mythology. Although you want people to believe you are interested in evidence. That you are a fair and reasonable person. Right ? ;D
Fact - I have finished contributing to this thread.
RN
Wow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Mozart
Wikiphedia says that Lepold taught violin, is that wrong, Fin?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 08:24:59 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 08:24:59 AM
It looks like you were wrong.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:26:06 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:26:06 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 08, 2009, 08:19:35 AM
Although I have intentionally tried to avoid this thread for some time, I continue to see new entries when reviewing "recent posts." Seems to me--without actually counting--that this makes several posts by Mr. Newman after the most recent occasion--today--on which he promised to quit the thread. It also seems to me that having a bit of sport with someone whose capacity is so obviously compromised is a bit like teasing the developmentally disabled kids in school.
David Ross,
With whatever energy I have, I am determined to answer, as well as I can, comments made towards me in respect of this issue. As I have for years already elsewhere. So that you will have a track record of who has been willing to share and discuss their findings. I wrote earlier that I had already made my contribution on this thread. But, shortly afterwards, came even more replies which merited an answer. So I answered them. As you see. If you wish to make no contribution here to this thread why not choose another thread ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:28:37 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:28:37 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 08:15:40 AM
Oh, the facts will never deceive you, neighbor.
LOLOLSomeone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Facts may confuse us. They may, if not handled correctly, if not presented in their true context, even mislead us. But no, facts do not deceive us. We, in the end, are not deceived. Since facts and contexts are resolved together once facts are presented in their real context. Speaking of which, I see you have no appetite to read facts about Mozart of which you are not aware. But that's your choice and I will not ask you again.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:31:58 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:31:58 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistSpeaking of which, I see you have no appetite to read facts of which you are not aware. But that's your choice and I will not ask you again.
I see you have no appetite for furnishing a salient fact or two right here. But that's your choice and I will not ask you again.
LOLOL
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:36:00 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:36:00 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 08:31:58 AM
I see you have no appetite for furnishing a salient fact or two right here. But that's your choice and I will not ask you again.
LOLOLSomeone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Let others be the judge of who is offering to provide facts. The record speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:37:18 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:37:18 AM
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on July 08, 2009, 08:24:08 AM
Wow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Mozart
Wikiphedia says that Lepold taught violin, is that wrong, Fin?
Of course, that is right. And he was Vice-Kapellmeister in Salzburg; and he composed many works. And he was qualified to teach harmony and composition (Newman is funny, for one minute he will point to musical misatributions to Wolfgang, as "proof" that all "so-called 'Mozart' studies" are suspect . . . and some of that music thus misatributed is by Leopold, but Newman will ignore the fact that being a composer is sufficient qualification to teach one's own child composition).
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:43:15 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 08:43:15 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:36:00 AM
Let others be the judge of who is offering to provide facts. The record speaks for itself.
Indeed it does! Shall I remind you? (Cor, what a short memory you have LOLOLOL.)
Quote from: Todd on May 28, 2009, 06:58:55 AM
This is an excellent series of sentences, Bob. Just precisely when will you provide any evidence to support your claims? Evidence would have to be verifiable sources. I'll give you an easy one, provide documented, verifiable evidence that "By 1789 his alleged 'patrons' had dwindled to only ONE name, Baron Swieten." Source name, date, location, etc.
I predict you cannot.
That was in May, Rob. And it's near mid-July now. You are hilarious!
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 08, 2009, 08:46:35 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 08, 2009, 08:46:35 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:36:00 AM
Let others be the judge of who is offering to provide facts. The record speaks for itself.
I sure does! Too bad you lack the capacity to recognize it. I hope you get some help, because the record here suggests something more deeply pathological than ordinary willfully narcissistic self-deception.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:48:12 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:48:12 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 08:37:18 AM
Of course, that is right. And he was Vice-Kapellmeister in Salzburg; and he composed many works. And he was qualified to teach harmony and composition (Newman is funny, for one minute he will point to musical misatributions to Wolfgang, as "proof" that all "so-called 'Mozart' studies" are suspect . . . and some of that music thus misatributed is by Leopold, but Newman will ignore the fact that being a composer is sufficient qualification to teach one's own child composition).Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
But that is nonsense. Leopold Mozart himself admitted in writing that Wolfgang had NOT learned composition from him. He said so in a still surviving letter to Padre Martini in Bolgona, Italy, as already said. That IS documentary evidence. And this same fact was stated by the employer of both Leopold and Wolfgang, the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg himself ! This is further confirmed by the surviving entrance exam paper taken by Wolfgang Mozart in Bologna itself which is filled with crude musical errors. As has been documented by musicologists in Italy.
You do not like these facts, do you, Professor Henning ? Not even when they are documented realities. Leopold Mozart was a plagiarist and a con-man. He became a 'Vice Kapellmeister' after a mediocre career that began as 4th violinist and ended as 2nd Violinist. Being awarded the token post of 'Vice Kapellmeister' only weeks before he left Salzburg.
Let's get our facts straight, right, Professor ? As for his plagiarisation, we need only examine his 'Violinschule' of 1756. This is a plagiarised version of an unpublished violin tutorial by the Italian maestro Giuseppe Tartini. As all of Italy knows. But not you, Professor Henning, right ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 08:52:40 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 08:52:40 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 08:37:18 AM
Of course, that is right. And he was Vice-Kapellmeister in Salzburg; and he composed many works. And he was qualified to teach harmony and composition (Newman is funny, for one minute he will point to musical misatributions to Wolfgang, as "proof" that all "so-called 'Mozart' studies" are suspect . . . and some of that music thus misatributed is by Leopold, but Newman will ignore the fact that being a composer is sufficient qualification to teach one's own child composition).Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
You don't have to go to school to learn how to teach composition?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:54:19 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:54:19 AM
Quote from: Alfred E. Neuman on July 08, 2009, 08:52:40 AM
You don't have to go to school to learn how to teach composition?
Yes, and you don't have to study to fly a Jumbo jet either. Kids do it all the time. Why, there are 5 year old pilots flying all the time between Boston and London, as everyone knows. Very cost-effective too ! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 09:01:06 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 09:01:06 AM
Rob, Rob! In your eagerness to rail against me, you have exposed a fundamental inability to concentrate on what is said. Alas! This does not inspire confidence in your capacity as a Sifter of Facts and Seeker After Truth!
Yes, let's get the facts right, including the post which you just quoted:
Now, let us set entirely aside for the moment any possibility that Leopold's letter might have been a matter of emphasizing the boy's native talent (a fact which is inconvenient to somebody on this thread, I think).
Your rant gets all lathered up over something I did not state. Read 'er again, Rob. My statement is that Leopold was qualified to teach composition. I did not claim that Leopold did in fact teach the boy.
Read much, Rob? Get much out of what you read? Or are you too busy inserting that which you wish it to mean? LOLOLOL
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:48:12 AM
But that is nonsense. Leopold Mozart himself admitted in writing that Wolfgang had NOT learned composition from him [...]
You do not like these facts, do you, Professor Henning? [...]
Let's get our facts straight, right, Professor? [...]
Yes, let's get the facts right, including the post which you just quoted:
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 08:37:18 AM
Of course, that is right. And he was Vice-Kapellmeister in Salzburg; and he composed many works. And he was qualified to teach harmony and composition (Newman is funny, for one minute he will point to musical misatributions to Wolfgang, as "proof" that all "so-called 'Mozart' studies" are suspect . . . and some of that music thus misatributed is by Leopold, but Newman will ignore the fact that being a composer is sufficient qualification to teach one's own child composition).Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Now, let us set entirely aside for the moment any possibility that Leopold's letter might have been a matter of emphasizing the boy's native talent (a fact which is inconvenient to somebody on this thread, I think).
Your rant gets all lathered up over something I did not state. Read 'er again, Rob. My statement is that Leopold was qualified to teach composition. I did not claim that Leopold did in fact teach the boy.
Read much, Rob? Get much out of what you read? Or are you too busy inserting that which you wish it to mean? LOLOLOL
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 09:02:28 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 09:02:28 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 08:54:19 AM
Yes, and you don't have to study to fly a Jumbo jet either. Kids do it all the time. Why, there are 5 year old pilots flying all the time between Boston and London, as everyone knows. Very cost-effective too ! ;D
Why u make fun of me?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:04:14 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:04:14 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 09:01:06 AM
Rob, Rob! In your eagerness to rail against me, you have exposed a fundamental inability to concentrate on what is said. Alas! This does not inspire confidence in your capacity as a Sifter of Facts and Seeker After Truth!
Yes, let's get the facts right, including the post which you just quoted:
Now, let us set entirely aside for the moment any possibility that Leopold's letter might have been a matter of emphasizing the boy's native talent (a fact which is inconvenient to somebody on this thread, I think).
Your rant gets all lathered up over something I did not state. Read 'er again, Rob. My statement is that Leopold was qualified to teach composition. I did not claim that Leopold did in fact teach the boy.
Read much, Rob? Get much out of what you read? Or are you too busy inserting that which you wish it to mean? LOLOLOLSomeone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Professor Karl Henning writes -
'I did not claim that Leopold did in fact teach the boy'.
Ohhhhhh ! Right !!
So Leopold did not teach the boy after all, right, Professor ? Which is what Leopold said and it's what the Prince Archbishop said. So, it seems to me, that the actual evidence says Leopold Mozart did NOT teach the boy. Isn't that right Professor ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 09:06:23 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 09:06:23 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:04:14 AM
Professor Karl Henning writes -
'I did not claim that Leopold did in fact teach the boy'.
Ohhhhhh ! Right !!
So Leopold did not teach the boy after all, right, Professor ?
Thank you for another non-answer! And for implicitly acknowledging that your reading is unreliable.
You're hilarious! LOLOLOL ;D
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:10:17 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:10:17 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 09:06:23 AM
Thank you for another non-answer! And for implicitly acknowledging that your reading is unreliable.
You're hilarious! LOLOLOL ;DSomeone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
''The Wisdom of Professor Karl Henning'' (Volume 20, page 499920)
'I did not say that Leopold taught the boy'
No, Professor, and since there are two sources which say he, Leopold, did NOT teach the boy (one being Leopold Mozart himself, and the other being the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg, the employer of them both) you are willing to accept that he, Leopold, did NOT teach the boy, right, Professor ? Or have I been confused again by the brilliance of your orations ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 09:15:25 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 09:15:25 AM
Quote from: the eccentric propagandistSo, it seems to me, that the actual evidence says Leopold Mozart did NOT teach the boy.
a) On the actual evidence of this thread, no one here has the least confidence in what you say about evidence. (And maybe some of us believe that it is in the mail, too.)
b) I am a composer, and I rather suspect that you are not. You have not written anything to inspire even the least confidence that you understand what is needed to learn composition, what is needed to compose, or what is needed to teach composition.
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe Barron on July 08, 2009, 09:16:17 AM
Post by: Joe Barron on July 08, 2009, 09:16:17 AM
I thought we weren't supposed to be feeding this particular troll.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:20:38 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:20:38 AM
Quote from: Joe Barron on July 08, 2009, 09:16:17 AM
I thought we weren't supposed to be feeding this particular troll.
You are right. But he is starving. And so we need to show compassion. In the form of documentary evidence - this showing that Mozart's father did NOT teach his son composition. Since the letter in question was written by Leopold himself to Padre Martini in Italy and it says even Leopold's employer, the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg denied that Wolfgang had learned music at the time when he left Salzburg.
Which, I guess, is clear proof Leopold Mozart taught the boy after all, right ? This is a farce, and you know it.
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 09:22:26 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 09:22:26 AM
Newman, do you enjoy the Jupiter symphony?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:28:16 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:28:16 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 09:22:26 AM
Newman, do you enjoy the Jupiter symphony?
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 ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 09:31:43 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 09:31:43 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:28:16 AM
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 ?
Yes I love it! Do you think that Mozart wrote it?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 09:36:17 AM
Post by: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 09:36:17 AM
My e-mail is right on my profile page... for a book.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:44:39 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:44:39 AM
Archives of Professor Karl Henning - Volume 21 Page 881 -(posted on this forum) - 22nd May 2009
1. 'Hmm...let's see... Mozart's father was a composer....MOZART WAS TAUGHT BY HIS FATHER.... ergo. Mozart studied composition with a composer ! Count on us to state the obvious when needed'.
2. 'Mozart went to school at home. His father, a composer, conductor, violinist and pedagogue taught him'
Source - Professor Karl Henning.
3. 'I did NOT say that Leopold taught him'.
(Source - Professor Karl Henning) - Date, Today
:o :o :o :o
1. 'Hmm...let's see... Mozart's father was a composer....MOZART WAS TAUGHT BY HIS FATHER.... ergo. Mozart studied composition with a composer ! Count on us to state the obvious when needed'.
2. 'Mozart went to school at home. His father, a composer, conductor, violinist and pedagogue taught him'
Source - Professor Karl Henning.
3. 'I did NOT say that Leopold taught him'.
(Source - Professor Karl Henning) - Date, Today
:o :o :o :o
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:46:53 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:46:53 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 09:36:17 AM
My e-mail is right on my profile page... for a book.
Great ! Do you want a copy ? Your email address is currently hidden from view.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on July 08, 2009, 09:56:13 AM
Post by: Franco on July 08, 2009, 09:56:13 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:44:39 AM
Archives of Professor Karl Henning - Volume 21 Page 881 -(posted on this forum) - 22nd May 2009
1. 'Hmm...let's see... Mozart's father was a composer....MOZART WAS TAUGHT BY HIS FATHER.... ergo. Mozart studied composition with a composer ! Count on us to state the obvious when needed'.
2. 'Mozart went to school at home. His father, a composer, conductor, violinist and pedagogue taught him'
Source - Professor Karl Henning.
3. 'I did NOT say that Leopold taught him'.
(Source - Professor Karl Henning) - Date, Today
:o :o :o :o
I think you have written that you claim that about half of the works attributed to Mozart were written by others.
Which means that Mozart wrote about half of his own works.
Care to name three mature works that you accept as written by Mozart?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:04:58 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:04:58 AM
Quote from: Franco on July 08, 2009, 09:56:13 AM
I think you have written that you claim that about half of the works attributed to Mozart were written by others.
Which means that Mozart wrote about half of his own works.
Care to name three mature works that you accept as written by Mozart?
No, the evidence indicates Wolfgang Mozart wrote, himself, around only half a dozen works in his entire life. Including the early string quartets attempted in the style of Haydn. They are of very poor quality.
I do not remember saying anywhere that he wrote around 'half' of his works. Perhaps you can show me ? I never said this, did I ?
Thanks
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:11:42 AM
Post by: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:11:42 AM
Isn't it easy enough for anyone to find this "Padre letter?"
Just a reminder that since this thread reignited, it's been @10 pages of playground bitch slapping.
You ALL make me feel that if I wanted to learn anything about this subject I would have to go and do all the research myself. Yeesh...
No GMGer has even, it seems, admitted that ANY work of Mozart's has EVER been misattributed (though no one seems to be arguing with Rob about this... it does appear to be part of the accepted canon of "facts").
I'm really disappointed in BOTH CAMPS.
Rob, if you really care about this, and really believe it, you are going about it the wrong way. In a fit of conspiratorial apoplexy I would assume that you are working for the Jesuits in an attempt to draw attention AWAY from the Mozart fraud by making people THINK you're a quack. That way, when a legitimate researcher, in the future, uncovers the truth about what you say, no one will believe them because they will say, He's just pulling a robnewman.
I'm surprised this isn't all because Mozart was really a JEW!!! His name was really Moyezart... oh, I'll stop there before I get myself in trouble...
Oy Vey!!!
Just a reminder that since this thread reignited, it's been @10 pages of playground bitch slapping.
You ALL make me feel that if I wanted to learn anything about this subject I would have to go and do all the research myself. Yeesh...
No GMGer has even, it seems, admitted that ANY work of Mozart's has EVER been misattributed (though no one seems to be arguing with Rob about this... it does appear to be part of the accepted canon of "facts").
I'm really disappointed in BOTH CAMPS.
Rob, if you really care about this, and really believe it, you are going about it the wrong way. In a fit of conspiratorial apoplexy I would assume that you are working for the Jesuits in an attempt to draw attention AWAY from the Mozart fraud by making people THINK you're a quack. That way, when a legitimate researcher, in the future, uncovers the truth about what you say, no one will believe them because they will say, He's just pulling a robnewman.
I'm surprised this isn't all because Mozart was really a JEW!!! His name was really Moyezart... oh, I'll stop there before I get myself in trouble...
Oy Vey!!!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 10:13:16 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 10:13:16 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:11:42 AM
I'm really disappointed in BOTH CAMPS.
Not really.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:15:03 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:15:03 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:11:42 AM
Isn't it easy enough for anyone to find this "Padre letter?"
Just a reminder that since this thread reignited, it's been @10 pages of playground bitch slapping.
You ALL make me feel that if I wanted to learn anything about this subject I would have to go and do all the research myself. Yeesh...
No GMGer has even, it seems, admitted that ANY work of Mozart's has EVER been misattributed (though no one seems to be arguing with Rob about this... it does appear to be part of the accepted canon of "facts").
I'm really disappointed in BOTH CAMPS.
Rob, if you really care about this, and really believe it, you are going about it the wrong way. In a fit of conspiratorial apoplexy I would assume that you are working for the Jesuits in an attempt to draw attention AWAY from the Mozart fraud by making people THINK you're a quack. That way, when a legitimate researcher, in the future, uncovers the truth about what you say, no one will believe them because they will say, He's just pulling a robnewman.
I'm surprised this isn't all because Mozart was really a JEW!!! His name was really Moyezart... oh, I'll stop there before I get myself in trouble...
Oy Vey!!!
You wrote asking for a book from me. You did not say 'please'. I wrote to you asking for your email address which is hidden. You have not answered me. And now you write this.
Can you please organise yourself better ?
Thank You so much.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 10:16:40 AM
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 10:16:40 AM
I have quickly skimmed through the book on an aria in Figaro by Anna Trombetta and Luca Bianchini as translated by Mr. Newman.
The book hangs heavily on the claims of a certain Giorgio Taboga that Mozart did not compose the opera, or that if he did, it is the parts that are "crude" "repetitive" and incompetent that he composed. (p. 52 of the book).
They concentrate on Act III Scene 17 Aria Dove sono.
They examine 3 manuscripts of the aria and make conclusions such as: "In fact this melodic line...contradicts the rules of good composition, rules which would not have been broken by a truly talented composer." (p. 52)
The melody in question is for the line "di cangiarl'ingrato"
From an Internet site:
http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/showthread.php?t=966 (http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/showthread.php?t=966)
"One of "those italians" is Mr. Giorgio Taboga. I believe you can find something on the Internet by using Google (perhaps there is something in english too). But I suggest you not to waste your time.
Mr. Taboga held a conference in my hometown (Bergamo) about four years ago where he tried to explain why symphonies K 297 and K 551 cannot have been written by Mozart (during the discussion he included the Piano Quartet K 478 and a lot of other music by Mozart and Haydn as well).
All the evidence he was able to bring us was related to a copy of the Jupiter Symphony kept in Verona (If I remember well...):
This copy is written on a type of music paper produced by a firm which closed about 10 years before 1789 (the year of the Jupiter symphony). According to Mr. Taboga, this is undoubtedly an evidence of the fact that the Jupiter symphony was written well before 1789.
In this copy, near the signature "Mozart" there is a drop of ink which, according to Mr. Taboga, hides the letters "Luc". Evidently (in his opinion) the copist was going to write "Luchesi", but then he remembered he was part of a misterious and sinister plan to deceive the humankind and therefore cancelled "Luc" and properly wrote "Mozart". Mr. Taboga showed no reproduction of this drop of ink, so it is to be questioned if one can actually read "Luc" under it..."
The book hangs heavily on the claims of a certain Giorgio Taboga that Mozart did not compose the opera, or that if he did, it is the parts that are "crude" "repetitive" and incompetent that he composed. (p. 52 of the book).
They concentrate on Act III Scene 17 Aria Dove sono.
They examine 3 manuscripts of the aria and make conclusions such as: "In fact this melodic line...contradicts the rules of good composition, rules which would not have been broken by a truly talented composer." (p. 52)
The melody in question is for the line "di cangiarl'ingrato"
From an Internet site:
http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/showthread.php?t=966 (http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/showthread.php?t=966)
"One of "those italians" is Mr. Giorgio Taboga. I believe you can find something on the Internet by using Google (perhaps there is something in english too). But I suggest you not to waste your time.
Mr. Taboga held a conference in my hometown (Bergamo) about four years ago where he tried to explain why symphonies K 297 and K 551 cannot have been written by Mozart (during the discussion he included the Piano Quartet K 478 and a lot of other music by Mozart and Haydn as well).
All the evidence he was able to bring us was related to a copy of the Jupiter Symphony kept in Verona (If I remember well...):
This copy is written on a type of music paper produced by a firm which closed about 10 years before 1789 (the year of the Jupiter symphony). According to Mr. Taboga, this is undoubtedly an evidence of the fact that the Jupiter symphony was written well before 1789.
In this copy, near the signature "Mozart" there is a drop of ink which, according to Mr. Taboga, hides the letters "Luc". Evidently (in his opinion) the copist was going to write "Luchesi", but then he remembered he was part of a misterious and sinister plan to deceive the humankind and therefore cancelled "Luc" and properly wrote "Mozart". Mr. Taboga showed no reproduction of this drop of ink, so it is to be questioned if one can actually read "Luc" under it..."
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:17:38 AM
Post by: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:17:38 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:46:53 AM
Great ! Do you want a copy ? Your email address is currently hidden from view.
Just checked my profile. Not hidden, but...
(email deleted)
Wow, that's my email...how embarassing! I didn't pick that, btw!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:18:52 AM
Post by: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:18:52 AM
Please! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 10:23:29 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 10:23:29 AM
Did failnewman ever mention the underlying reasoning behind the conspiracy?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:26:20 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:26:20 AM
Cato,
Thank you for acknowledging your receipt of the Figaro book which you have quickly 'skimmed over'. Your letter strangely quotes a post from somebody on a totally different subject.
For the benefit of readers the 'Figaro' book contains 223 pages including dozens of photographs, dozens of pages of detailed musical analysis, historical notes, footnotes, and images of playbills etc. together with an article in English on the background to the opera. I hope you take the time to read it thoroughly and then let us have your verdict. You will see lots of evidence this music staged in Mozart's name was set to Italian language from an earlier German language setting. Which arrangement was made by Mozart and da Ponte, though Mozart did not compose this music. He merely made an Italian language version of already existing music, by others.
Anyway, happy reading.
Thank you for acknowledging your receipt of the Figaro book which you have quickly 'skimmed over'. Your letter strangely quotes a post from somebody on a totally different subject.
For the benefit of readers the 'Figaro' book contains 223 pages including dozens of photographs, dozens of pages of detailed musical analysis, historical notes, footnotes, and images of playbills etc. together with an article in English on the background to the opera. I hope you take the time to read it thoroughly and then let us have your verdict. You will see lots of evidence this music staged in Mozart's name was set to Italian language from an earlier German language setting. Which arrangement was made by Mozart and da Ponte, though Mozart did not compose this music. He merely made an Italian language version of already existing music, by others.
Anyway, happy reading.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:27:37 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:27:37 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:18:52 AM
Please! ;D
That's better !!
OK, sending next few minutes. /
Sent GMT 19.33 HRS
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:30:44 AM
Post by: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:30:44 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:15:03 AMAnd now you write this.
Forgive me, I get a bit light headed after reading ten pages of this thread. It's a slog, trust me. Not what I wanted to be doing this morning. Now I just want to see "us" hit 1000 posts.
Remember Pavlov's experiment. The end result is catatonia... and the "I don't cares."
He did...he didn't...he did...he didn't...he did...boing! I don't care.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Lethevich on July 08, 2009, 10:32:45 AM
Post by: Lethevich on July 08, 2009, 10:32:45 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 09:36:17 AM
My e-mail is right on my profile page... for a book.
This is a confusing part of GMG's software. The email icon shows for the user whose account it is whether it is enabled or disabled. To enable it until you can recieve the email from Rob, go to Profile -> Account Related Settings -> Hide email address from public? [uncheck]
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:35:17 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:35:17 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:30:44 AM
Forgive me, I get a bit light headed after reading ten pages of this thread. It's a slog, trust me. Not what I wanted to be doing this morning. Now I just want to see "us" hit 1000 posts.
Remember Pavlov's experiment. The end result is catatonia... and the "I don't cares."
He did...he didn't...he did...he didn't...he did...boing! I don't care.
Great, if you don't care, try golf, or line dancing, or basketball ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:36:40 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:36:40 AM
Quote from: Lethe on July 08, 2009, 10:32:45 AM
This is a confusing part of GMG's software. The email icon shows for the user whose account it is whether it is enabled or disabled. To enable it until you can recieve the email from Rob, go to Profile -> Account Related Settings -> Hide email address from public? [uncheck]
Thank you Lethe.
Please let me know if you wish to have a copy also.
Regards
RN
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 10:45:27 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 10:45:27 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:11:42 AM
No GMGer has even, it seems, admitted that ANY work of Mozart's has EVER been misattributed (though no one seems to be arguing with Rob about this... it does appear to be part of the accepted canon of "facts").
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 08:12:51 AM
Although some pieces (like most of the "Mozart Symphony № 37") are genuine misattributions, it is simply an error to claim that no one could have written that volume of music. How should we 'prove' such an 'impossibility'?
Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:46:25 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:46:25 AM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 10:23:29 AM
Did failnewman ever mention the underlying reasoning behind the conspiracy?
Well, amongst other things the reasoning was the fooling of Josquin des Prez about the life, career and achievements of W.A. Mozart. These dominating the academic and performance realm of music to this day. To the exclusion of fair and reasonable criticism and causing the suppression of the life and careers of many, many other composers till this day. I think the word is 'control' and the Mozart myth virtually controls what is taught and believed in this important area of history and culture.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 10:49:38 AM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 10:49:38 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:46:25 AM
Well, amongst other things the reasoning was the fooling of Josquin des Prez about the life, career and achievements of W.A. Mozart. These dominating the academic and performance realm of music to this day. To the exclusion of fair and reasonable criticism and causing the suppression of the life and careers of many, many other composers till this day. I think the word is 'control' and the Mozart myth virtually controls what is taught and believed in this important area of history and culture.
Yes, but why?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:55:43 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:55:43 AM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 10:49:38 AM
Yes, but why?
Well, look around you. You see elitism in control of politics, of banking, of virtually every aspect of our modern lives. You see corruption in every sphere. And music and the arts is certainly no exception. The politics of culture and of extending influence. Mozart represents, musically, an early form of globalism, an iconic composer whose works simply tower over the musical landscape and which represents a huge industry, commercially and academically. I guess that is at least part of the answer. It explains too why no books are written in almost 200 years which challenge in any detail the standard story of this person and his life. Mozart is a paradigm. A dogma of musicology. Riddled with errors, exaggerations and downright falsehoods but taught and believed all the same. The net effect of which destroys, or tends to destroy, criticism, musicology itself, and our own appreciation of the achievements of others, whose lives and careers are airbrushed out of textbooks, so that control of culture itself is the end result. The unchallengable domination of iconic composers who cannot be challenged. A form of control, for sure. And exposed only over time. After detailed study of the phenomenon as a whole.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 08, 2009, 10:57:52 AM
Post by: Herman on July 08, 2009, 10:57:52 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 10:11:42 AM
You ALL make me feel that if I wanted to learn anything about this subject I would have to go and do all the research myself. Yeesh...
If you wish to learn something about Mozart and how composers worked in his era you should NOT expect anything good from this thread.
Mr Newman is no musicologist, but just a man with a resentment agenda who wants to knock Mozart down a few notches. He's just allowed that maybe Mozart wrote six works rather than six hundred, and they aren't very good either in his view. You can see how where his animosity towards Mozart comes from in his post before this one. Mozart somehow has to pay for things he doesn't like about today's banks, media and all other things from 200 years after Mozart.
Your dismay at the general tone is understandable. However this is 100% due to Newman's refusal to ever substantiate his claims here. The reason why this thread is so long as that he's ever been delaying delivery of the evidence or even the minutest facts. Instead he's been baiting people here, as he's done before on other boards, where he's been banned for this.
If you want to inform yourself about Mozart the first thing to do is just listen to his music. And yes, it is his music; the character is unmistakable (in total contrast to all those amiable third tier composers NEwmna likes so much - they are totally interexchangable). Misattributions there have been (such as symphony nr 37) and they have been weeded out long in the past. By musicologists offering proof, rather than saying "I don't like this."
Second thing is read a book or two. Gurn will be happy to name you a title or two. (I'm not near my music books right now). Please, don't waste any time on this thread.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 11:01:00 AM
Post by: Christie on July 08, 2009, 11:01:00 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:46:25 AM
Well, amongst other things the reasoning was the fooling of Josquin des Prez about the life, career and achievements of W.A. Mozart. These dominating the academic and performance realm of music to this day. To the exclusion of fair and reasonable criticism and causing the suppression of the life and careers of many, many other composers till this day. I think the word is 'control' and the Mozart myth virtually controls what is taught and believed in this important area of history and culture.
Thats terrible! Lives and careers surprised like that. Doesn;t matter how bad a composer you are, your work deserves to be heard, and to be preserved for potserity.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:01:33 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:01:33 AM
AMENSIA CURE
Archives of Professor Karl Henning - Volume 21 Page 881 -(posted on this forum) - 22nd May 2009
1. 'Hmm...let's see... Mozart's father was a composer....MOZART WAS TAUGHT BY HIS FATHER.... ergo. Mozart studied composition with a composer ! Count on us to state the obvious when needed'.
2. 'Mozart went to school at home. His father, a composer, conductor, violinist and pedagogue taught him'
Source - Professor Karl Henning.
3. 'I did NOT say that Leopold taught him'.
(Source - Professor Karl Henning) - Date, Today
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:05:46 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:05:46 AM
Anyone who can read (which does not include you, Rob) can see that you are selectively cutting phrases from sources to suit an agenda. That is not research.
But thank you for the easy demonstration of your inaccuracy, unreliability and dishonesty!
LOL
But thank you for the easy demonstration of your inaccuracy, unreliability and dishonesty!
LOL
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:09:33 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:09:33 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 08, 2009, 10:57:52 AM
If you wish to learn something about Mozart and how composers worked in his era you should NOT expect anything good from this thread.
Mr Newman is no musicologist, but just a man with a resentment agenda who wants to knock Mozart down a few notches. He's just allowed that maybe Mozart wrote six works rather than six hundred, and they aren't very good either in his view. You can see how where his animosity towards Mozart comes from in his post before this one. Mozart somehow has to pay for things he doesn't like about today's banks, media and all other things from 200 years after Mozart.
Your dismay at the general tone is understandable. However this is 100% due to Newman's refusal to ever substantiate his claims here. The reason why this thread is so long as that he's ever been delaying delivery of the evidence or even the minutest facts. Instead he's been baiting people here, as he's done before on other boards, where he's been banned for this.
If you want to inform yourself about Mozart the first thing to do is just listen to his music. And yes, it is his music; the character is unmistakable (in total contrast to all those amiable third tier composers NEwmna likes so much - they are totally interexchangable). Misattributions there have been (such as symphony nr 37) and they have been weeded out long in the past. By musicologists offering proof, rather than saying "I don't like this."
Second thing is read a book or two. Gurn will be happy to name you a title or two. (I'm not near my music books right now). Please, don't waste any time on this thread.
Herman,
Let's take up your suggestion of reading books. 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.
But let me suppose that your amnesia creeps up on you and this fact means nothing.
I have studied (and you have not) this subject for many years. I know what I am speaking about. At least as well as you do, and probably better. Since I have, many times, answered critics in detail and am still doing so.
Mozart studies (so-called) is a heap of contradictions. 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. Please, Sir, after 200 years of this one-way traffic, allow those who have studied this subject for many years to make their point. And have the humility and the integrity to encourage it. So that students will stop this nonsense and we can return to a world where facts matter, where theories and dogmas are challenged, and where actual evidence, instead of corporate mythology, is taught.
Thank You. And, if you don't like this subject, go to another thread. Or take up golf, cookery, or visit your local library to read something else. Fair enough ?
Yours sincerely
R. Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:11:28 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:11:28 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 11:05:46 AM
Anyone who can read (which does not include you, Rob) can see that you are selectively cutting phrases from sources to suit an agenda. That is not research.
But thank you for the easy demonstration of your inaccuracy, unreliability and dishonesty!
LOL
Total nonsense ! You have not got the integrity to admit what you wrote yourself. You said repeatedly that Leopold Mozart taught composition to his son. And this is NOT true. Why not delete what you wrote on 22nd May ? So that people here cannot read it for themselves. Goodness ! What sort of person cannot accept their own errors ?
End of Story Karl.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 11:12:02 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 11:12:02 AM
This is a public forum, I strongly urge those that are considering posting their email address to refrain. If you PM Newman with your address, he'll have it, but it's not open for the world to see. Those that have posted their email addresses, you might want to consider editing or deleting those posts. Any spambots that crawl through the site will have your address, and you don't want that!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:13:44 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: Cato on July 08, 2009, 10:16:40 AM
"One of "those italians" is Mr. Giorgio Taboga. I believe you can find something on the Internet by using Google (perhaps there is something in english too). But I suggest you not to waste your time.
Mr. Taboga held a conference in my hometown (Bergamo) about four years ago where he tried to explain why symphonies K 297 and K 551 cannot have been written by Mozart (during the discussion he included the Piano Quartet K 478 and a lot of other music by Mozart and Haydn as well).
All the evidence he was able to bring us was related to a copy of the Jupiter Symphony kept in Verona (If I remember well...):
This copy is written on a type of music paper produced by a firm which closed about 10 years before 1789 (the year of the Jupiter symphony). According to Mr. Taboga, this is undoubtedly an evidence of the fact that the Jupiter symphony was written well before 1789.
So far as I can deduce, that is proof that the paper was produced by 1779; not that any music written upon it was composed that early.
I have MS. paper in my apartment which I bought 20 years ago. Music which I write upon it today, was not therefore composed in 1989.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:17:34 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:17:34 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 11:13:44 AM
So far as I can deduce, that is proof that the paper was produced by 1779; not that any music written upon it was composed that early.
I have MS. paper in my apartment which I bought 20 years ago. Music which I write upon it today, was not therefore composed in 1989.
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 ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 11:18:04 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 11:18:04 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:09:33 AM
You cannot name a single book which questions in any detail the myth of his life and career because they do not exist.
I actually read a book that suggested in one passage that Mozart failed an important music exam, and it was decided by the judges to fudge the grade and pass him anyway because he was Mozart!!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on July 08, 2009, 11:20:28 AM
Post by: Franco on July 08, 2009, 11:20:28 AM
In fact, Leopold Mozart did teach his son music. In going back and looking at the letter previously referred to by Mr. Newman to Padre Martini, what Leopold Mozart says is that his primary music work is no longer as a teacher of his son, who by this time was 20 years old.
Leopold Mozart was a well known teacher of violin, his treatise (Mr. Newman claims is plagarized)
Leopold Mozart was a well known teacher of violin, his treatise (Mr. Newman claims is plagarized)
QuoteVersuch einer gründlichen Violinschule (English: A Treatise on the Fundamental Principles of Violin Playing) is a textbook for instruction in the violin, published by Leopold Mozart in 1756. The work was influential in its day, and continues to serve as a scholarly source concerning 18th century performance practice.See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versuch_einer_gr%C3%BCndlichen_Violinschule
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:21:23 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:21:23 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:11:28 AM
Total nonsense ! You have not got the integrity to admit what you wrote yourself. You said repeatedly that Leopold Mozart taught composition to his son. And this is NOT true.
This is not about my integrity (which is intact) but about your "methods" (which have no integrity).
Quick and convenient demo of how Newman selectively quotes, in order to "prove" something.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 08:37:18 AM
Of course, that is right. And he was Vice-Kapellmeister in Salzburg; and he composed many works. And he was qualified to teach harmony and composition (Newman is funny, for one minute he will point to musical misatributions to Wolfgang, as "proof" that all "so-called 'Mozart' studies" are suspect . . . and some of that music thus misatributed is by Leopold, but Newman will ignore the fact that being a composer is sufficient qualification to teach one's own child composition).
(Today)
What you have not got the integrity to admit, Rob, is that in this paragraph the subject is not whether Leopold taught his son (a subject we are shelving for the nonce), but whether he was capable of it.
As usual, you go off on your foaming-mouthed rants, and what is actually in the documents under advisement be damned.
Let us consider another post of mine, which you have been fond to misread and misrepresent:
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 09:01:06 AM
Rob, Rob! In your eagerness to rail against me, you have exposed a fundamental inability to concentrate on what is said. Alas! This does not inspire confidence in your capacity as a Sifter of Facts and Seeker After Truth!
Yes, let's get the facts right, including the post which you just quoted:
Now, let us set entirely aside for the moment any possibility that Leopold's letter might have been a matter of emphasizing the boy's native talent (a fact which is inconvenient to somebody on this thread, I think).
Your rant gets all lathered up over something I did not state. Read 'er again, Rob. My statement is that Leopold was qualified to teach composition. I did not claim that Leopold did in fact teach the boy.
Read much, Rob? Get much out of what you read? Or are you too busy inserting that which you wish it to mean? LOLOLOL
(Also today.)
End of story.
Except . . . I shall repeat:
a) On the actual evidence of this thread, no one here has the least confidence in what you say about evidence, or about what a document actually says.
b) I am a composer, and I rather suspect that you are not. You have not written anything to inspire even the least confidence that you understand what is needed to learn composition, what is needed to compose, or what is needed to teach composition.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:23:38 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:23:38 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:09:33 AM
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.
Most mentally balanced people would say simply that this is indicative of the life and career being historical fact, and not "myth."
End of story, Rob.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:24:32 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:24:32 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 11:18:04 AM
I actually read a book that suggested in one passage that Mozart failed an important music exam, and it was decided by the judges to fudge the grade and pass him anyway because he was Mozart!!
Yes, this is correct. It happened in Bologna, Italy. The records of the exam still exist. They were recently examined in detail by two Italian musicologists, together with the surviving record of the exam itself. The pass was given to Mozart only after the jury voted by a majority of one (Padre Martini) to allow him membership of the Institute. Such was the political importance of the visit. The details of which I will have in the forthcoming book. Since, as said, Mozart had NOT studied composition at this time with anybody. And it shows. His paper is riddled with mistakes. Which Padre Martini himself corrected. The second version being allowed as the 'exam' paper !! LOL !!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:25:41 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:25:41 AM
Quote from: Franco on July 08, 2009, 11:20:28 AM
In fact, Leopold Mozart did teach his son music.
It is bizarre to state that "the evidence is that Leopold never taught his son composition."
Possibly the person saying such a thing has never studied composition. Certainly, he did not study any artistic endeavor as a youth.
In all events, the person saying such a thing is entirely out of his depth opining on the question.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 08, 2009, 11:27:20 AM
Post by: Todd on July 08, 2009, 11:27:20 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:55:43 AMMozart represents, musically, an early form of globalism
This bit here is all one really needs to know about Mr Newman and his "ideas." To call him a charlatan is to insult charlatans everywhere.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:28:22 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:28:22 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 11:23:38 AM
Most mentally balanced people would say simply that this is indicative of the life and career being historical fact, and not "myth."
End of story, Rob.
If the life and career is historical fact why are we so heavily reliant on the blatant bias and exaggeration of the Mozart family themselves and their own version of it ? And on their career propagandists ? This is NOT history. It's clever manipulation on a wholesale scale. But closer study shows a very different story. At each and every stage.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:29:27 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:29:27 AM
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2009, 11:27:20 AM
This bit here is all one really needs to know about Mr Newman and his "ideas." To call him a charlatan is to insult charlatans everywhere.
Oh, how a paltry mind is here o'erthrown! From the Earl of Oxford's play Hamlet
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:30:58 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:30:58 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:28:22 AM
If the life and career is historical fact why are we so heavily reliant on the blatant bias and exaggeration of the Mozart family themselves and their own version of it ? And on their career propagandists ? This is NOT history.
Why is an eighteenth-century person's documentation dominated first of all by the reports of his family?
You do realize how ridiculous the question is, I trust?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 08, 2009, 11:33:20 AM
Post by: Herman on July 08, 2009, 11:33:20 AM
Quote from: robnewmanLet's take up your suggestion of reading books. 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.
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.)
Quote from: robnewmanMozart studies (so-called) is a heap of contradictions. 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. 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.
Quote from: robnewmanThank You. And, if you don't like this subject, go to another thread. Or take up golf, cookery, or visit your local library to read something else. Fair enough ?
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. It would also be nice if you stopped soliciting people's email adresses.
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 06:45:45 AM
If any reader of this thread would like a free copy of this book (published in 2008) please let me know by PM.
And so ends my contribution to this very revealing thread.
Thank You
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
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:34:00 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:34:00 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 11:25:41 AM
It is bizarre to state that "the evidence is that Leopold never taught his son composition."
Possibly the person saying such a thing has never studied composition. Certainly, he did not study any artistic endeavor as a youth.
In all events, the person saying such a thing is entirely out of his depth opining on the question.
Quote of the Week -
'In all events, the person saying such a thing is entirely out of his depth opining on the question'.
LOL ! The person in question was none other than the employer of Leopold Mozart, the Prince Archbishop of Salzburg. And his statement is contained in a letter written to Padre Martini in Italy by none other than Leopold Mozart himself.
Gee, it can't be more simple, can it, Karl ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:35:13 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:35:13 AM
Quote from: HermanQuote from: R NewmanRobert 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
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 11:35:23 AM
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 11:35:23 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:17:34 AM
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!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:36:39 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:36:39 AM
Quote from: Cato on July 08, 2009, 11:35:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:38:42 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:38:42 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 08, 2009, 11:33:20 AM
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
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:40:52 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:40:52 AM
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).
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:41:16 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:41:16 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:38:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:41:53 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:41:53 AM
Quote from: Franco on July 08, 2009, 09:56:13 AM
Care to name three mature works that you accept as written by Mozart?
Yet another direct question, which Rob cannot be troubled to answer.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:43:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:43:09 AM
Quote from: Cato on July 08, 2009, 11:35:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:43:55 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:43:55 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:28:16 AM
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?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:45:41 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:45:41 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:09:33 AM
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
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:46:02 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:46:02 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 11:43:55 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:46:58 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:46:58 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:46:02 AM
No, Mozart did not compose these 3 symphonies. (39, 40 and 41).
Your proof?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:48:51 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:48:51 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 11:46:58 AM
Your proof?
Symphonies falsely attributed to Mozart from his Vienna years -
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Read the book Karl.
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:51:39 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:51:39 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:48:51 AM
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?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 08, 2009, 11:55:32 AM
Post by: Herman on July 08, 2009, 11:55:32 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:38:42 AM
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.
QuoteHave 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.
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:38:42 AMWe 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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:57:55 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 11:57:55 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 08, 2009, 11:55:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 08, 2009, 12:00:26 PM
Post by: Herman on July 08, 2009, 12:00:26 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:43:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 12:01:26 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 12:01:26 PM
Quote from: Herman on July 08, 2009, 12:00:26 PM
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!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 12:07:41 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 12:07:41 PM
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
1. He's a failure as a musicologist
2. He's a failure as an economist
3. He needs a new career path
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 12:12:17 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 12:12:17 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:09:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Herman on July 08, 2009, 11:33:20 AM
Hildesheimer is one such book that deals and to a degree demolishes a couple of myths about Mozart, i.e. the ethereal prodigy.
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:38:42 AM
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. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 12:18:19 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 12:18:19 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 11:57:55 AM
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.
Then, Professor Karl Henning, THIS is your good fortune. Since the offer still stands to send you this 220 page book on 'Figaro' (together with its musical analysis, photographs, diagrams, and historical article). So that you can judge for yourself on this one opera.
Your doubts would then be ended.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 12:24:23 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 12:24:23 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 12:12:17 PM
. . . thus we see that either Newman is a liar or he has poor reading skills . . . .
I can testify as to the latter. Can only speculate as to the former 0:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 12:25:08 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 12:25:08 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 12:12:17 PM
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. :)
David W,
Hildesheimer does NOT focus on the question of Mozart's well known mythology. In fact, he does the opposite. He defends it, to the end. So you are wrong. With minor exceptions. He firmly believes Mozart wrote all this music. So, again, you cannot name a single work which questions the scale and achievements of 'Mozart' because they do not exist. Try again ?
I am not a liar. Nor do I waste my time conversing with those who say differently. Life is too short. I am honest in what I do.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 12:28:50 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 08, 2009, 12:28:50 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 05:33:45 AM
A COMIC OPERA IN ONE ACT
'THE PROFESSOR AND HIS EXPERTISE'
Featuring that well known virtuoso and expert on the life, career and musical achievements of Herr W.A. Mozart. 'Everything you've heard is true'.
Scene 1
Enter Prof. Karl Henning (agitated) -
KH - 'And I say again this nonsense must be stopped, since he, that Newman, has presented no evidence'
(Pupils applaud wildly)
'And what did he reply ? - He even offered to send me, free of charge, a book on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' - a book which, if I was to read its contents, might corrupt me and then you, dear students. And I... (tears now flowing freely) have only the education of you, my dear pupils, as my first priority'
Pupil 1 - We love you Professor Henning !! (further applause)
KH - And I love you too, dear pupils. So much so that at the next book burning festival I will grant you all a seat near the fire.
(More wild applause)
KH - Now, as I was saying, when Mozart wrote, from memory, an entire opera before breakfast, and when he composed a string of symphonies before lunch... and when....... when he was gripped by the creative urge to write six concertos and three masses... and when......
Pupils - (starry eyed) - How we love you Professor Henning !!
(Musical interlude with sustained violins, oboes and clarinets leading to Cornflakes ad )
::)
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 09:44:39 AM
Archives of Professor Karl Henning - Volume 21 Page 881 -(posted on this forum) - 22nd May 2009
1. 'Hmm...let's see... Mozart's father was a composer....MOZART WAS TAUGHT BY HIS FATHER.... ergo. Mozart studied composition with a composer ! Count on us to state the obvious when needed'.
2. 'Mozart went to school at home. His father, a composer, conductor, violinist and pedagogue taught him'
Source - Professor Karl Henning.
3. 'I did NOT say that Leopold taught him'.
(Source - Professor Karl Henning) - Date, Today
:o :o :o :o
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:01:33 AM
AMENSIA CURE
Archives of Professor Karl Henning - Volume 21 Page 881 -(posted on this forum) - 22nd May 2009
1. 'Hmm...let's see... Mozart's father was a composer....MOZART WAS TAUGHT BY HIS FATHER.... ergo. Mozart studied composition with a composer ! Count on us to state the obvious when needed'.
2. 'Mozart went to school at home. His father, a composer, conductor, violinist and pedagogue taught him'
Source - Professor Karl Henning.
3. 'I did NOT say that Leopold taught him'.
(Source - Professor Karl Henning) - Date, Today
These are scarcely the posts of a musicologist with any argument in whose merits he has confidence, is it?
The record speaks for itself.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 12:36:05 PM
Post by: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 12:36:05 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 10:55:43 AM
Well, look around you. You see elitism in control of politics, of banking, of virtually every aspect of our modern lives. You see corruption in every sphere. And music and the arts is certainly no exception. The politics of culture and of extending influence. Mozart represents, musically, an early form of globalism, an iconic composer whose works simply tower over the musical landscape and which represents a huge industry, commercially and academically. I guess that is at least part of the answer. It explains too why no books are written in almost 200 years which challenge in any detail the standard story of this person and his life. Mozart is a paradigm. A dogma of musicology. Riddled with errors, exaggerations and downright falsehoods but taught and believed all the same. The net effect of which destroys, or tends to destroy, criticism, musicology itself, and our own appreciation of the achievements of others, whose lives and careers are airbrushed out of textbooks, so that control of culture itself is the end result. The unchallengable domination of iconic composers who cannot be challenged. A form of control, for sure. And exposed only over time. After detailed study of the phenomenon as a whole.
It still doesn't make sense. Mozart is not the only musical genius in history, so there's nothing particularly peculiar about him. Even his precocity is not that unique, and some composers were actually more preconscious then he was (Mendelssohn for instance). It doesn't make sense to create a conspiracy around one composer while there's more then a dozen of others who's case is perfectly acceptable and documented. We even have a living example of a musical prodigy in Jay Greenberg. If there is nothing to be gained in the conspiracy then why bother? What difference does it make that it was Mozart, and not Lucchesi? Why bother creating a fictional character, when the real author of the music would have served just as well?
Your ideas are not only fraudulent, they are just plain stupid. Even if you could prove that Mozart did not wrote the music attributed to him, you would simply be replacing a name for another.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 12:38:34 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 12:38:34 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:09:33 AM
You cannot name a single book which questions in any detail the myth of his life and career because they do not exist.
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 12:25:08 PM
Hildesheimer does NOT focus on the question of Mozart's well known mythology. In fact, he does the opposite. He defends it, to the end. So you are wrong. With minor exceptions.
The former quote asserts that no book makes any attempt whatsoever to debunk any myths surrounding Mozart's life or career. The latter quote asserts that Hildesheimer makes an attempt to do so at some detail, simply not to your level of satisfaction.
Therefore, the two quotes contradict each other. One of them must be false. You must be a liar. The logic is irrefutable. Herman has indisputably caught you in a lie.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:11:11 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:11:11 PM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 12:36:05 PM
It still doesn't make sense. Mozart is not the only musical genius in history, so there's nothing particularly peculiar about him. Even his precocity is not that unique, and some composers were actually more preconscious then he was (Mendelssohn for instance). It doesn't make sense to create a conspiracy around one composer while there's more then a dozen of others who's case is perfectly acceptable and documented. We even have a living example of a musical prodigy in Jay Greenberg. If there is nothing to be gained in the conspiracy then why bother? What difference does it make that it was Mozart, and not Lucchesi? Why bother creating a fictional character, when the real author of the music would have served just as well?
Your ideas are not only fraudulent, they are just plain stupid. Even if you could prove that Mozart did not wrote the music attributed to him, you would simply be replacing a name for another.
No. Not correct. We would be replacing one attitude for another. And THAT is the difference. Since attitude is everything and integrity is everything. And corporate mythology has had its day. In musicology as in everything else.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:13:03 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:13:03 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 08, 2009, 12:38:34 PM
The former quote asserts that no book makes any attempt whatsoever to debunk any myths surrounding Mozart's life or career. The latter quote asserts that Hildesheimer makes an attempt to do so at some detail, simply not to your level of satisfaction.
Therefore, the two quotes contradict each other. One of them must be false. You must be a liar. The logic is irrefutable. Herman has indisputably caught you in a lie.
Goodness ! Such is the logic of your emails. Say it again, will you ? Nobody understands what on earth you are talking about. Why not read some books yourself and stop acting as if you can peel onions by posting drivel. Hildesheimer believed Mozart wrote all the music today attributed to him. Get it yet ?
Now, give us an example of a book author who says differently. Right ? You don't have any such example, do you ? Because you are grossly misinformed. And you've read nothing except the fairy story. Have you ? You have never once in your life considered that what you are being taught is nonsense. And it shows.
End of conversation.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:21:54 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:21:54 PM
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on July 08, 2009, 12:36:05 PM
It still doesn't make sense. Mozart is not the only musical genius in history, so there's nothing particularly peculiar about him. Even his precocity is not that unique, and some composers were actually more preconscious then he was (Mendelssohn for instance). It doesn't make sense to create a conspiracy around one composer while there's more then a dozen of others who's case is perfectly acceptable and documented. We even have a living example of a musical prodigy in Jay Greenberg. If there is nothing to be gained in the conspiracy then why bother? What difference does it make that it was Mozart, and not Lucchesi? Why bother creating a fictional character, when the real author of the music would have served just as well?
Your ideas are not only fraudulent, they are just plain stupid. Even if you could prove that Mozart did not wrote the music attributed to him, you would simply be replacing a name for another.
My ideas are fraudulent ? But you are the stupid man. You've never read anything that questions your silly education, have you ? Can you name a single book you've ever read which calls in to question this myth of W.A. Mozart in terms of his career and his musical achievements ? Just one ? No, you cannot. And therefore the person who tells you the truth must be 'stupid'.
You are a fool, a complete fool. Since every single area of academic study must be open to criticism and 'Mozart studies' suits you and your mentality because you never had an original idea in your entire life. Nor have you ever questioned the dogmatic nonsense which you believe. Full Stop. How did people like you get so darned stupid as to never question in any detail what they are being dogmatically taught and to condemn those who do ? It's hilarious. The underachiever in line for promotion at the corporate headquarters of his mythology. What a farce !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 08, 2009, 01:27:50 PM
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 08, 2009, 01:27:50 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:21:54 PM
Can you name a single book you've ever read which calls in to question this myth of W.A. Mozart in terms of his career and his musical achievements ?
didn't you just say that none exist?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:29:12 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:29:12 PM
Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 08, 2009, 01:27:50 PM
didn't you just say that none exist?
If you can show us differently, please do. And please tell us the name of the author and when you read it.
Thanks
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: greg on July 08, 2009, 03:07:18 PM
Post by: greg on July 08, 2009, 03:07:18 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 08, 2009, 04:36:25 AMThat's so hilarious, Karl. ;D
Aye, in absence of any meat on the bones of his "claim," the propagandist is generous with blahblahblah ::)
BTW, did you know that Stravinsky did not actually compose any of the music commonly ascribed to him? Don't laugh! Consider this:
To criticise in some detail the 'official' career of I.F. Stravinsky (1882-1971), to call in to question his musical abilities, both as a composer and as a legendary performer, to ask if he was truly the composer of virtually all the great musical works that are published and widely performed in his name, to question the truthfulness and reliability of documents which date from his own time, many of them describing him as being a musical 'genius', to question the contents of well known Stravinsky biographies - to argue, instead, that the life and musical career of this St Petersburg 'genius', this colossus of western culture, was really a gigantic cultural fraud of the late Romanov Dynasty virtually from beginning to end (a fraud continued and further exaggerated for decades after his death by sympathetic publishers and propagandists) - these are views so controversial, so unusual and so rarely considered within 'polite and educated society' that a number of experts who specialise in these areas of study, having heard that such a work may appear soon and being alarmed at the prospect of it becoming reality are queuing up to rescue the iconic status of their musical hero from such a strange, seemingly unprovoked and lengthy attack. Saying that I must have studied my subject for too long, that mine is the work of a man whose fertile imagination has 'got the better of him', that I've succumbed to a rare academic illness, that publication of a work against the Stravinsky we all know and love may even corrupt the young, that it might lead to ugliness within their beautiful world if read by the innocent etc., and that the views expressed here and the evidence presented in its support are the musicological equivalent of 'tilting at windmills' or of 'whistling in to the wind'.
Stravinsky is, of course, big business. And yet you may be surprised to know how rarely his huge musical status and his alleged achievements have ever been criticised in any detail. 'Stravinsky studies' (so-called) is an elitist and highly conservative offshoot of musicology whose workers assume 'everything we have heard and read of Stravinsky is true' or, at least, so worthy of belief that the paradigm that underpins this virtual secular religion is hardly appreciated. The first American musician to propagate Stravinsky's music and to disseminate information on him, Robert Craft, is today seen internationally as a reliable confidant of the composer and is able to obtain funding, regularly, for vast promotional work that is read and believed as reliable worldwide. Stravinsky has been for almost a century one of the pillars of the musical establishment - a subject so complex and so highly regarded by teachers and schools in widely available literature that it may seem unthinkable that any complaint, however well researched, can be made against its ethos, and against the industry which promotes and has come to dominate the education of students in matters of musical history.
And yet criticise Stravinsky we must, since there is no science, nor any body of academic study, great or small, which should escape or avoid detailed criticism of the assumptions on which it is based and on which it has always been based.
Have you listened to Stravinsky's Symphony № 1? LOL It could have been written by any of a dozen of his suppressed contemporaries.
Stravinsky's iconic status within western musical culture is little more than a fantasy, a fairy story. But one that has a global fan base. Manufactured in the late 1920s and still, today, dominating the teaching of music history to a grotesque extent. But on issue after issue the facts surrounding Stravinsky's life, career and even his reputation as a performer and composer simply do not add up. Crucially important evidence was hidden, turned on its head, systematically, routinely, even traditionally, its sources often out of reach and massaged by an endless stream of biographers, each quoting the other, in a mockery of musicology. To subscribe to the Stravinsky myth you will be made ignorant, almost without realising it, of virtually all of Stravinsky's musical contemporaries in preWWI Petersburg, just for a start. You will be asked to believe things of him which dumb down your own critical faculties. And this is not new. It's been happening for decades in countless publications, and even in film, in a storyline which is rarely, if ever, subjected to cross-examination and criticism but which we can and must give to any area of valid research. Stravinsky studies' (so-called) exist and have always existed in a bubble. As to whether they are a valid branch of musicology is for readers to decide.
Do yourself a favour. Examine this issue from more than one side so you can form your own judgement. This great music today attributed to I.F. Stravinsky is not that of a provincial St Petersburg musician. Stravinsky, in fact, spent not a single day at music school in his entire life nor studied for any period of time under any recognised teacher of music. History deserves better. So does music. And so do you.Someone, please: send Rob Newman to school!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on July 08, 2009, 03:26:10 PM
Post by: not edward on July 08, 2009, 03:26:10 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 01:21:54 PMTruly the epitome of a conspiracy theorist.
Can you name a single book you've ever read which calls in to question this myth of W.A. Mozart in terms of his career and his musical achievements ?
The absence of any evidence for his theory merely makes it more true! Hats off, gentlemen....a genius!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 06:58:43 PM
Post by: Cato on July 08, 2009, 06:58:43 PM
0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) Waiting.... 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:) 0:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 08:38:24 PM
Post by: snyprrr on July 08, 2009, 08:38:24 PM
Just a marker to keep track of the pages.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 08, 2009, 09:35:24 PM
Post by: Herman on July 08, 2009, 09:35:24 PM
Snyprr, I recommended you shouldn't go to this thread if you wanted to learn about Mozart, but instead consult a book or two.
Here are some:
Robert W. Gutman: Mozart, A Cultural Biography
Maynard Solomon: Mozart
HC Robbins Landon, the great Haydn scholar, wrote a couple of Mozart books, too.
Here are some:
Robert W. Gutman: Mozart, A Cultural Biography
Maynard Solomon: Mozart
HC Robbins Landon, the great Haydn scholar, wrote a couple of Mozart books, too.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on July 09, 2009, 12:19:18 AM
Post by: Florestan on July 09, 2009, 12:19:18 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 11:09:33 AM
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.
There are only two possibilities:
1. The Trombetta & Bianchini book you've been parading does not exist. Then, you are a fraud for you refer us to something that does not exist.
2. The Trombetta & Bianchini book you've been parading does exist. Then, you are a liar for you claim something that it isn't true.
Quousque tandem abutere, Robertus Homonovus, patientia nostra?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 09, 2009, 12:53:22 AM
Post by: Herman on July 09, 2009, 12:53:22 AM
Or it's not a book, but just a PDF no publisher wants to touch.
However, I suggest we stop feeding the troll. It's no use trying to 'prove' his facts are not facts.
However, I suggest we stop feeding the troll. It's no use trying to 'prove' his facts are not facts.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 01:23:06 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 01:23:06 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 09, 2009, 12:53:22 AM
Or it's not a book, but just a PDF no publisher wants to touch.
However, I suggest we stop feeding the troll. It's no use trying to 'prove' his facts are not facts.
Yes, no more feeding the troll. Let's just ignore Herman, who has nothing to contribute on this thread about the fraud that is Mozart.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 01:29:12 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 01:29:12 AM
Quote from: edward on July 08, 2009, 03:26:10 PM
Truly the epitome of a conspiracy theorist.
The absence of any evidence for his theory merely makes it more true! Hats off, gentlemen....a genius!
Edward, please grow up.
Here is a free lesson.
1. In science, in the academic world, no viewpoint, no theory, goes unchallenged generation after generation. But in the case of the Mozart industry his life, career and achievments are dogmatically repeated like a Buddhist mantra, until a vast literature all repeats the same. Not a single work has challenged the massive mythology, fraud and exaggeration that is such a feature of the Mozart industry. Welcome to Hollywood !
2. In fact, literally HUNDREDS of symphonies, concertos, masses, sonatas and other works have been falsely attributed to Mozart even by the conservatives. Check it out ! This is confirmed even by the most conservative Mozarteans.
This means you are living in fantasy land. And it means you have never read a single book that tells you the facts. Your view of Mozart is dogmatic moonshine.
Get it yet ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Ten thumbs on July 09, 2009, 01:32:04 AM
Post by: Ten thumbs on July 09, 2009, 01:32:04 AM
Perhaps he should move on to Beethoven. I haven't read a single book that questions Beethoven's life and career. This seems to suggest that it must all be a myth.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 01:32:49 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 01:32:49 AM
Quote from: Florestan on July 09, 2009, 12:19:18 AM
There are only two possibilities:
1. The Trombetta & Bianchini book you've been parading does not exist. Then, you are a fraud for you refer us to something that does not exist.
2. The Trombetta & Bianchini book you've been parading does exist. Then, you are a liar for you claim something that it isn't true.
Quousque tandem abutere, Robertus Homonovus, patientia nostra?
You are on the wrong thread. What you need is the Jesuitical Propaganda Department. Right next door to the 'Keep em confused and dumbed down' Department.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 01:35:21 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 01:35:21 AM
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 09, 2009, 01:32:04 AM
Perhaps he should move on to Beethoven. I haven't read a single book that questions Beethoven's life and career. This seems to suggest that it must all be a myth.
Every icon ever made by man is the sure product of myth. Especially those which rob you of the entire context. That's why we must not live on an Easter Island with our candyfloss 'Amadeus' and rows of statues like a pantheon of secular musical gods. We must grow up and learn to examine/appreciate things from more than one 'official' storyline. Simple, right ? Then you can form your own considered judgement. It's called academic study. Fight your own ignorance and that of the mass media. Use your talents. Escape from the rat pack. And celebrate the fact some people don't want to be suckered generation after generation with mythology and by the mentality which aims to dumb you down. Appreciate difference. Serve others. Form your own view. Because one thing is sure. We live in an age where 'education', so-called, is fast becoming hogwash and where common sense forms little part of anything. Where teachers will speak nonsense in the name of education because they subscribe to the party line. That's as true of music history as it is of politics, banking, commerce, or anything else.
http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2009/04/robert-newman-mozart-myth.html
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 03:55:22 AM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 03:55:22 AM
First off, have you ever considered that there is a general consensus about Mozart's life over the last two years because you are wrong? Secondly, as this thread has indicated, even the most 'conservative Mozarteans' do not agree with you.
Pack up your bags, yourresearch toilet paper, and move on to a dumber forum, since you long ago wrote this one off.
Pack up your bags, your
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 03:57:34 AM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 03:57:34 AM
Quote from: TruthSeeker74Pro-9/11 Truth MovementAre you sure you want to be associated with this site? :P
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 04:17:00 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 04:17:00 AM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 03:55:22 AM
First off, have you ever considered that there is a general consensus about Mozart's life over the last two years because you are wrong? Secondly, as this thread has indicated, even the most 'conservative Mozarteans' do not agree with you.
Pack up your bags, yourresearchtoilet paper, and move on to a dumber forum, since you long ago wrote this one off.
Joe Campbell has made a typically hostile post. He has proved that hostility is the main feature of his education. Shall we promote him ? I mean, does his world applaud and encourage his nonsense ? Joe, I can hardly pack my bags or find a dumber forum if you are still resident here, can I ? Nor can I leave if you ask me questions. The most recent being -
'Have you ever considered that there is a general consensus about Mozart's life' ?
In reply -
Yes, a general consensus about Mozart's life exists. And there is (or was) general consensus that the world is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth (rather than vice-versa).
You are guided by consensus ? In that case, Mr Consensus, humans are Chinese. And insects are the democratic governors of the word. Being far more numerous than humans. But I am not Chinese and am not an insect. So much for consensus !
What you really mean is you are dumbed down, and that you would much prefer others to be as dumbed down as you are yourself. If they are not, they should move on. Isn't that your view ? You cannot name a single book which calls in to question the corporate image of your hero as a musical 'genius'. No, you are Mr Consensus. And this, to you, is enough. What a deadpan post !
So your contribution to this thread is exactly what ?
Don't feel bad about it. It's your destiny to be hostile and to make no contribution.
Why not take a seat ? This thread is on the question of 'Mozart a Fraud' ? and if you want to examine this issue you've come to the right place. If not, go back to the main forum and select something else. Shall I help you pack your suitcase ? But if you post again without making a contribution I will suggest that the Moderators do this for you.
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 09, 2009, 04:28:36 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 09, 2009, 04:28:36 AM
I think rather than consensus, what we would like to see is some rationalization. Particularly concerning your cries for some book questioning the provenance of 'Mozart's' music. The fact that no one knows of one (I doubt there is one) doesn't buttress what you are doing, Robert. In fact it does just the opposite. There isn't one because there is no need for one. Oh, I know, you believe there IS a need for one, and that's all well and good. But if there had been a need for one, it would have been filled long ago. Your frequently stated concept that all musicologists are sheep, part of the flock making up the "Mozart Industry" simply flies in the face of human behavior. When you see guns drawn over such silliness as whether Mozart actually did play the viola, or whether his eyes were blue or brown, do you really thin that people of that level of argumentativeness would hesitate to take sides over whether he actually wrote the music, if there were any room for doubt at all? Pull the other one... :)
One aside at this point in the proceedings, aimed at all posters on this thread; let's cool down a bit and keep this discussion within civil boundaries. I'm having so much fun here that it would be a pity to have to lock it down, but if it degenerates any further into the Great Pit of Namecalling, that will be its sorry fate.
8)
One aside at this point in the proceedings, aimed at all posters on this thread; let's cool down a bit and keep this discussion within civil boundaries. I'm having so much fun here that it would be a pity to have to lock it down, but if it degenerates any further into the Great Pit of Namecalling, that will be its sorry fate.
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 09, 2009, 04:30:07 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 09, 2009, 04:30:07 AM
(* munches popcorn *)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 09, 2009, 04:32:29 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 09, 2009, 04:32:29 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 09, 2009, 04:30:07 AM
(* munches popcorn *)
Hey, don't Bogart that popcorn, my friend,
Pass it over here, again....
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 05:45:24 AM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 05:45:24 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 04:17:00 AMshitFascinating. You know nothing about me yet deem me stupid. So, robnewman, are all those who don't believe what you've "proposed" in this thread stupid?
Is anyone who thinks that Mozart actually wrote his own music stupid as well?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 09, 2009, 05:52:58 AM
Post by: Herman on July 09, 2009, 05:52:58 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 09, 2009, 04:28:36 AM
One aside at this point in the proceedings, aimed at all posters on this thread; let's cool down a bit and keep this discussion within civil boundaries. I'm having so much fun here that it would be a pity to have to lock it down, but if it degenerates any further into the Great Pit of Namecalling, that will be its sorry fate.
You're having fun? Really? I think this is a truly lamentable topic and no good at all. The informational value is nil.
Unlikely as it may seem, there are people (see Snypprr contribution) who actually think they can 'learn' something from this thread, and thus ingest an unhealthy dose of negativity about Mozart's music. And then there are tons of lurkers we don't even know about. You don't realize how seductive conspiracy theories are for the undereducated. I don't think GMG is for deliberately spreading false information.
And indeed, the tone is very unpleasant. Mr Newman prefers to treat everybody who doesn't agree, or who gets impatient after 55 pages and not a shred of the evidence requested, like a stupid boor, and the behaviour vice versa is not too pretty at times either.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 09, 2009, 05:59:03 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 09, 2009, 05:59:03 AM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 05:45:24 AM
Fascinating. You know nothing about me yet deem me stupid.
Consider this bizarre pièce, a mélange of all his customary cheap gambits (sidetracking the point, misrepresenting quotes, ad hominem, &c.):
Quote from: robnewman on July 08, 2009, 05:33:45 AM
A COMIC OPERA IN ONE ACT
'THE PROFESSOR AND HIS EXPERTISE'
Featuring that well known virtuoso and expert on the life, career and musical achievements of Herr W.A. Mozart. 'Everything you've heard is true'.
Scene 1
Enter Prof. Karl Henning (agitated) -
KH - 'And I say again this nonsense must be stopped, since he, that Newman, has presented no evidence'
(Pupils applaud wildly)
'And what did he reply ? - He even offered to send me, free of charge, a book on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' - a book which, if I was to read its contents, might corrupt me and then you, dear students. And I... (tears now flowing freely) have only the education of you, my dear pupils, as my first priority'
Pupil 1 - We love you Professor Henning !! (further applause)
KH - And I love you too, dear pupils. So much so that at the next book burning festival I will grant you all a seat near the fire.
(More wild applause)
KH - Now, as I was saying, when Mozart wrote, from memory, an entire opera before breakfast, and when he composed a string of symphonies before lunch... and when....... when he was gripped by the creative urge to write six concertos and three masses... and when......
Pupils - (starry eyed) - How we love you Professor Henning !!
(Musical interlude with sustained violins, oboes and clarinets leading to Cornflakes ad )
::)
This "need" that he has to fantasize whole contexts for those with whom he argues, just an extension of his ridiculous speculations on "the Real 'Mozart'." Sad, sad, sad.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 06:01:21 AM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 06:01:21 AM
I didn't know you were such a celebrity, Karl! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 06:02:40 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 06:02:40 AM
Thanks Gurn,
You write -
I think rather than consensus, what we would like to see is some rationalization. Particularly concerning your cries for some book questioning the provenance of 'Mozart's' music. The fact that no one knows of one (I doubt there is one) doesn't buttress what you are doing, Robert. In fact it does just the opposite. There isn't one because there is no need for one. Oh, I know, you believe there IS a need for one, and that's all well and good. But if there had been a need for one, it would have been filled long ago. Your frequently stated concept that all musicologists are sheep, part of the flock making up the "Mozart Industry" simply flies in the face of human behavior. When you see guns drawn over such silliness as whether Mozart actually did play the viola, or whether his eyes were blue or brown, do you really thin that people of that level of argumentativeness would hesitate to take sides over whether he actually wrote the music, if there were any room for doubt at all? Pull the other one. ''
OK, let's rationalise this as you suggest. The facts are as follows -
1. In the entire history of Mozart studies (that is, from, let us say, from the time of the first Mozart biography by F. Niemetscheck in 1797/8 until the present day) we have seen Mozart's musical achievements being massively and fraudulently exaggerated. A simple and plain fact. This confirmed by even the most conservative sources such as, for example, editors of the various versions of Koechel. A fact recognised by the Mozarteum in Salzburg itself. So that literally hundreds of musical works once published and performed in the name of 'Mozart' are today recognised NOT to be by Mozart. True, yes ? That's fact number 1.
2. Can you, Gurn, show an example of similar scale from the life/career of any other famous composer in the entire history of western music ?
3. Now, if this huge musical misattribution is now being recognised, even by 'conservatives' within Mozart studies, we are indisputably right to say misattribution and falsehood is, by definition, a major factor in Mozart's musical reputation. Though we may disagree whether it is huge, gigantic or whatever. We cannot deny, however, there are good grounds to call his reputation as a composer in to question.
4. We have documented examples of 'Mozart's' name being given to works he never composed. Two examples from Constanze Mozart blatantly trying to publish works in 'Mozart's' name just for starters. We have too the published refutation of Mozart's authorship of the 'Requiem' (KV626) by music editors such as Gottfried Weber, as still another example. We have, in fact, literally hundreds of anomalies and contradictions, even amongst works still accepted as being 'Mozart's'. This too is an indisputable fact.
We are able to say, therefore, that in the case of Mozart, misattribution AND falsehood/fakery/error are already recognised to be major factors in Mozart's musical reputation. This extending even in to the present time. A recent speech given in London by the current Koechel editor admits the same. So there is nothing controversial in this. It's plain fact.
As far as name-calling is concerned, yes. Note that it always starts with those who have never studied this subject beyond the standard mythology. And this occurring within a context which (you agree) consists of no book yet being published which examines the fakery, falsehood, and exaggeration of Mozart's career and the rise of his reputation to iconic status. 200 years of whitewash, in fact.
On these grounds alone a modern study of Mozart, free from dogmatic repetition of the standard story is long, long overdue. Textbooks repeat other textbooks. It's one of the plainest and most dogmatic areas of academic study in the entire history of musicology. But that's not even under dispute in Mozart's case. People just keep quoting one another as if it gives legitimacy to what they are saying. Until a bubble is created of ever expanding size and of many colours, which others, in turn, quote, and so it goes on. This is not fair. It's not accurate. In fact, it's corporate mythology.
To examine, once again, the much suppressed facts surrounding Mozart's life and career has provoked such hostility we can and must wonder if dogmatists believe their own dogmas. A sure sign that 'Mozart studies' so-called, are oblivious to fair and reasonable criticism. And so it proves to be as we examine this issue deeper.
You write -
I think rather than consensus, what we would like to see is some rationalization. Particularly concerning your cries for some book questioning the provenance of 'Mozart's' music. The fact that no one knows of one (I doubt there is one) doesn't buttress what you are doing, Robert. In fact it does just the opposite. There isn't one because there is no need for one. Oh, I know, you believe there IS a need for one, and that's all well and good. But if there had been a need for one, it would have been filled long ago. Your frequently stated concept that all musicologists are sheep, part of the flock making up the "Mozart Industry" simply flies in the face of human behavior. When you see guns drawn over such silliness as whether Mozart actually did play the viola, or whether his eyes were blue or brown, do you really thin that people of that level of argumentativeness would hesitate to take sides over whether he actually wrote the music, if there were any room for doubt at all? Pull the other one. ''
OK, let's rationalise this as you suggest. The facts are as follows -
1. In the entire history of Mozart studies (that is, from, let us say, from the time of the first Mozart biography by F. Niemetscheck in 1797/8 until the present day) we have seen Mozart's musical achievements being massively and fraudulently exaggerated. A simple and plain fact. This confirmed by even the most conservative sources such as, for example, editors of the various versions of Koechel. A fact recognised by the Mozarteum in Salzburg itself. So that literally hundreds of musical works once published and performed in the name of 'Mozart' are today recognised NOT to be by Mozart. True, yes ? That's fact number 1.
2. Can you, Gurn, show an example of similar scale from the life/career of any other famous composer in the entire history of western music ?
3. Now, if this huge musical misattribution is now being recognised, even by 'conservatives' within Mozart studies, we are indisputably right to say misattribution and falsehood is, by definition, a major factor in Mozart's musical reputation. Though we may disagree whether it is huge, gigantic or whatever. We cannot deny, however, there are good grounds to call his reputation as a composer in to question.
4. We have documented examples of 'Mozart's' name being given to works he never composed. Two examples from Constanze Mozart blatantly trying to publish works in 'Mozart's' name just for starters. We have too the published refutation of Mozart's authorship of the 'Requiem' (KV626) by music editors such as Gottfried Weber, as still another example. We have, in fact, literally hundreds of anomalies and contradictions, even amongst works still accepted as being 'Mozart's'. This too is an indisputable fact.
We are able to say, therefore, that in the case of Mozart, misattribution AND falsehood/fakery/error are already recognised to be major factors in Mozart's musical reputation. This extending even in to the present time. A recent speech given in London by the current Koechel editor admits the same. So there is nothing controversial in this. It's plain fact.
As far as name-calling is concerned, yes. Note that it always starts with those who have never studied this subject beyond the standard mythology. And this occurring within a context which (you agree) consists of no book yet being published which examines the fakery, falsehood, and exaggeration of Mozart's career and the rise of his reputation to iconic status. 200 years of whitewash, in fact.
On these grounds alone a modern study of Mozart, free from dogmatic repetition of the standard story is long, long overdue. Textbooks repeat other textbooks. It's one of the plainest and most dogmatic areas of academic study in the entire history of musicology. But that's not even under dispute in Mozart's case. People just keep quoting one another as if it gives legitimacy to what they are saying. Until a bubble is created of ever expanding size and of many colours, which others, in turn, quote, and so it goes on. This is not fair. It's not accurate. In fact, it's corporate mythology.
To examine, once again, the much suppressed facts surrounding Mozart's life and career has provoked such hostility we can and must wonder if dogmatists believe their own dogmas. A sure sign that 'Mozart studies' so-called, are oblivious to fair and reasonable criticism. And so it proves to be as we examine this issue deeper.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 06:06:59 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 06:06:59 AM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 05:45:24 AM
Fascinating. You know nothing about me yet deem me stupid. So, robnewman, are all those who don't believe what you've "proposed" in this thread stupid?
Is anyone who thinks that Mozart actually wrote his own music stupid as well?
Joe Campbell,
I know that you are hostile. I know you have provided no input on this thread. And I know that you don't like this thread. I know you are insulting. And I know you've not read very much about Mozart. Is that enough ?
The stupidity comes at the point where 'Mozart studies' contain no criticisms of the stories on which it is based. Where you cannot name a single work which does so in any detail. And where you don't even know the massive misattributions that are today a plain fact of musical history. All of these things should have taught you a lesson. But it seems you have learned nothing.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 06:11:47 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 06:11:47 AM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 06:01:21 AM
I didn't know you were such a celebrity, Karl! ;D
Professor Karl Henning IS a Mozart celebrity. He is the first man in over 200 years to argue that Wolfgang Mozart learned composition from his father Leopold and, simultaneously, in the same breath, to deny that he ever said such a thing ! This verbal artistry, this depth of learning, this ability to call 'black white' and 'white black' comes only from those few professors who are steeped in the most profound study of music and its history. :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 06:15:40 AM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 06:15:40 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 06:06:59 AMI'm not being hostile. Just answer the question, and while you're at it, answer all the others that somehow flew past you in your attempts to respond to every_single_post in this thread. I don't have to be an expert on fruit to spot a bad apple.
shit
Quote from: robnewmancakesKarl never said such a thing. I read the exchange and the context of his comment, and you are in error in your intepretation, but why let that stop you this time?
Karl IS a celebrity. He is the first man in over 200 years to argue that Wolfgang Mozart learned composition from his father Leopold and, simultaneously, to deny he that ever said such a thing ! This artistry, this depth of learning, this ability to call black white and white black comes only from those few professors who are steeped in the most profound study of music and its history.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 06:21:53 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 06:21:53 AM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 09, 2009, 06:15:40 AM
I'm not being hostile. Just answer the question, and while you're at it, answer all the others that somehow flew past you in your attempts to respond to every_single_post in this thread. I don't have to be an expert on fruit to spot a bad apple.Karl never said such a thing. I read the exchange and the context of his comment, and you are in error in your intepretation, but why let that stop you this time?
Who are you kidding ? Yourself ? Prof. Karl Henning said Leopold Mozart taught his son Wolfgang composition. He said so several times. Right here on this thread. And everyone can see he did so. Except you, of course !
Joe Campbell, here is your moment to shine - (drum roll)...........cresc.
Q. Did Leopold Mozart teach music composition to his son Wolfgang ?
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 09, 2009, 06:25:51 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 09, 2009, 06:25:51 AM
Newman, I shouldn't have fun at your expense. I apologize for calling you a liar.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 06:28:45 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 06:28:45 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 09, 2009, 06:25:51 AM
Newman, I shouldn't have fun at your expense. I apologize for calling you a liar.
DavidW,
Thank you for this. It says a lot about your integrity and your character. Thank you and best wishes.
With complete respect and regards
R Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on July 09, 2009, 06:47:40 AM
Post by: not edward on July 09, 2009, 06:47:40 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 01:29:12 AMThis is a completely bogus claim and argument.
1. In science, in the academic world, no viewpoint, no theory, goes unchallenged generation after generation.
Theories are only questioned when someone provides evidence against them. Then they are indeed questioned. However, academics don't tend to spend their time questioning a theory when nobody has provided credible evidence against it (like in this case, where nobody has provided credible evidence of Mozart being a fraud)
However you have repeatedly refused to provide any evidence for your bizarre claims, and when you're called on this you resort to ad hominem attacks, assertions that people on a message board should redocument the entire history of Mozart in great detail at their own expense and within a matter of hours, and random highly controversial assertions that are presented as fact without the slightest iota of evidence.
So far, your entire argument appears to be based around a rather slim book by someone with no musical training that was apparently so lacking in intellectually credible content that it couldn't find a publisher. Forgive us for taking you no more seriously than the weirdo at the street corner explaining why the US government arranged 9/11; your claims are as eccentric and as lacking in evidence.
And by the way, why are you arguing this on an internet message board instead of in the academic world? A bunch of people who are for the most part nothing more than interested listeners--well, they're hardly going to provide the sounding board for your theories that a group of experienced, open-minded musicologists would.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 07:12:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 07:12:09 AM
Quote from: edward on July 09, 2009, 06:47:40 AM
This is a completely bogus claim and argument.
Theories are only questioned when someone provides evidence against them. Then they are indeed questioned. However, academics don't tend to spend their time questioning a theory when nobody has provided credible evidence against it (like in this case, where nobody has provided credible evidence of Mozart being a fraud)
However you have repeatedly refused to provide any evidence for your bizarre claims, and when you're called on this you resort to ad hominem attacks, assertions that people on a message board should redocument the entire history of Mozart in great detail at their own expense and within a matter of hours, and random highly controversial assertions that are presented as fact without the slightest iota of evidence.
So far, your entire argument appears to be based around a rather slim book by someone with no musical training that was apparently so lacking in intellectually credible content that it couldn't find a publisher. Forgive us for taking you no more seriously than the weirdo at the street corner explaining why the US government arranged 9/11; your claims are as eccentric and as lacking in evidence.
And by the way, why are you arguing this on an internet message board instead of in the academic world? A bunch of people who are for the most part nothing more than interested listeners--well, they're hardly going to provide the sounding board for your theories that a group of experienced, open-minded musicologists would.
'Bogus claim and argument' ? So you don't believe hundreds of musical works have been falsely published and performed in Mozart's name ? This fact justifies (and has already justified) the investigation. You don't believe it's a fact, right ? You don't believe this is evidence, right ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on July 09, 2009, 07:28:42 AM
Post by: not edward on July 09, 2009, 07:28:42 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 07:12:09 AMThe fact that a number of works were falsely attributed to Mozart doesn't mean anything in this context. It is true of all composers of stature in that era. Unless you're going to claim that all composers of significance pre-about 1850 are fakes.
'Bogus claim and argument' ? So you don't believe hundreds of musical works have been falsely published and performed in Mozart's name ? This fact justifies (and has already justified) the investigation. You don't believe it's a fact, right ? You don't believe this is evidence, right ?
And what investigation? All I see is you spewing unsuppported assertions left, right and centre. You clearly haven't travelled to look at primary sources, visited the appropriate libraries, and so on. All you have done is have an attack of logorrhea at your computer.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 07:38:37 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 09, 2009, 07:38:37 AM
Quote from: edward on July 09, 2009, 07:28:42 AM
The fact that a number of works were falsely attributed to Mozart doesn't mean anything in this context. It is true of all composers of stature in that era. Unless you're going to claim that all composers of significance pre-about 1850 are fakes.
And what investigation? All I see is you spewing unsuppported assertions left, right and centre. You clearly haven't travelled to look at primary sources, visited the appropriate libraries, and so on. All you have done is have an attack of logorrhea at your computer.
'A number of works were falsely attributed to Mozart doesn't mean anything in this context' ? LOL. !!! The 'number' runs in to hundreds. It includes literally dozens of symphonies, concertos, masses and chamber works. Does that matter ? What sort of education do you have to talk such nonsense ? The facts are indisputable.
You next say I've not looked at primary sources. This is just plain silly. Only yesterday I was giving away free copies of a book on primary sources related to the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' - right here on this thread ! - which has dozens of photographs of the very music score used at the Figaro premiere of 1786. Images hardly seen in 200 years of Mozart study !!! That's a primary source, isn't it ?. What on earth are you talking about ? Can anyone take you seriously ? What sort of 'fruitcake' are you ?
Please do some homework before you post and if you have nothing to contribute just read and learn. OK ? Don't you feel a little bit ashamed of making such basic, silly and public mistakes ?
Thank You
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on July 10, 2009, 06:50:04 AM
Post by: Franco on July 10, 2009, 06:50:04 AM
Quote1. In the entire history of Mozart studies (that is, from, let us say, from the time of the first Mozart biography by F. Niemetscheck in 1797/8 until the present day) we have seen Mozart's musical achievements being massively and fraudulently exaggerated. A simple and plain fact.
No, that is not a "simple and plain fact". It is a conclusion you have reached, a conclusion that is not shared by the entire community of Mozart scholarship. But for you this is proof of a grand conspiracy, despite the lack of any motive for such an outlandish enterprise - other than some globalism theory you have put forth.
Pardon me if I remain unconvinced that after two centuries of Mozart scholarship such a conspiracy could survive the incredible amount of independent scholarship and competing career motives of all interested music historicans and musicologists. If there were ever an inkling of such a conspiracy it would have been laid out in book after book long ago since this kind of thing would lterally establish the proponents as heros in their field.
You have spent you entire presence on this thread demanding others to prove that Mozart did write the works published under his name, whereas normally, when someone presents a controversial thesis that runs against the accepted consensus of the facts, it is their job to present evidence to challenge and overturn the current consensus of opinion.
You keep saying that your book will lay out the evidence.
But this statement is disingenious since anyone who had amassed enough evidence for such a book could easily summarize the major points and provide independent sources for your claims on this thread to sufficiently answer all of our demands.
I am therefore convinced that you have no real evidence but hope to stir up a controversy over the authorship of Mozart's music in order to create the expectation in the mind of an unethical publisher that because of the controversy some number of your book might sell. The book publishing world is full of such things, books on UFOs, books on a conspiracy surrounding 9/11, books denying the Warren Report concerning the assassination of JFK, books denying Shakespeare's authorship, books denying the Holocaust, etc.
There are better ways to make money, and easier ways in fact.
I guess you have some psychological need to dethrone Mozart.
Sad, really.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 10, 2009, 07:04:30 AM
Post by: bhodges on July 10, 2009, 07:04:30 AM
Gentlemen, Franco can have the last word for the moment. This topic is being locked, and we'll confer when, or if, to unlock it later. $:)
--Bruce
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 10:36:22 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 10:36:22 AM
Franco,
There are few things shared by the 'entire community of Mozart scholarship' other than the fact they have never read a single book which criticises in any detail the official life, career and musical status of W.A. Mozart. If you can name some books of this kind, do it and we will allow 'Mozart scholarship' to become a bona fide member of the academic world and not an exercise in pseudo-science. This is the third time I've asked somebody to do so. I know you cannot. Because the 'entire community of Mozart scholarship' subscribes to a one-sided view of Mozart derived from claims made by his own family, his own self, and from those who actively supported and exaggerated his achievements.
Real academic studies do NOT work in this way. They encourage criticism. They consider both sides of everything. They are full of rival ideas and opinions. This is true in EVERY area of academic research. Except for 'Mozart scholarship'. The excuses are wearing very thin for this 200 year old industry which is called 'Mozart scholarship' since it systematically corrupts, edits out, suppresses and falsifies virtually every aspect of his life, career and achievements.
You say the contents of a book could easily be summarised. Yes, let me summarise them once again. For the seventeenth time. Mozart was a fake. Is that clear enough ? His career was manufactured at every stage and that is why no books are encouraged which show evidence of it. And this nonsense has virtually dominated musicology (so-called) for 200 years. It's ridiculous. Mozart was NOT a musical genius. Nor was he a great piano virtuoso. This too is bogus. There is almost nothing about the Mozart you believe in which is true. And even the 'official' record of his works is riddled with false musical attributions - before we begin. As is shown by the published record of the Koechel catalogue itself. Why don't you know this ?
So, please do not lecture me on things which are already plain, even to those who agree with you. The Jesuitical control of musicology is really too obvious to be allowed much longer without detailed criticism. :)
Thank You
There are few things shared by the 'entire community of Mozart scholarship' other than the fact they have never read a single book which criticises in any detail the official life, career and musical status of W.A. Mozart. If you can name some books of this kind, do it and we will allow 'Mozart scholarship' to become a bona fide member of the academic world and not an exercise in pseudo-science. This is the third time I've asked somebody to do so. I know you cannot. Because the 'entire community of Mozart scholarship' subscribes to a one-sided view of Mozart derived from claims made by his own family, his own self, and from those who actively supported and exaggerated his achievements.
Real academic studies do NOT work in this way. They encourage criticism. They consider both sides of everything. They are full of rival ideas and opinions. This is true in EVERY area of academic research. Except for 'Mozart scholarship'. The excuses are wearing very thin for this 200 year old industry which is called 'Mozart scholarship' since it systematically corrupts, edits out, suppresses and falsifies virtually every aspect of his life, career and achievements.
You say the contents of a book could easily be summarised. Yes, let me summarise them once again. For the seventeenth time. Mozart was a fake. Is that clear enough ? His career was manufactured at every stage and that is why no books are encouraged which show evidence of it. And this nonsense has virtually dominated musicology (so-called) for 200 years. It's ridiculous. Mozart was NOT a musical genius. Nor was he a great piano virtuoso. This too is bogus. There is almost nothing about the Mozart you believe in which is true. And even the 'official' record of his works is riddled with false musical attributions - before we begin. As is shown by the published record of the Koechel catalogue itself. Why don't you know this ?
So, please do not lecture me on things which are already plain, even to those who agree with you. The Jesuitical control of musicology is really too obvious to be allowed much longer without detailed criticism. :)
Thank You
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2009, 10:39:40 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2009, 10:39:40 AM
Quote from: Soapy MolloyWhere is this "Royal School of Music" exactly?
Not the Royal College of Music in Prince Consort Road, with which I personally am familiar.
Or the Royal Academy of Music in Marylebone Road.
Or even the Royal Schools of Music, the body which awards the grades in instrumental proficiency (but offers no degree studies.)
Sounds to me suspiciously like the "London University Academy" which Flann O'Brien invented for his novel The Hard Life, which consisted entirely of the narrator's brother and offered to teach, amongst other things, wire-walking by correspondence course.
Is there anything about this man which isn't fraudulent?
Mr Newman: where exactly did you study music, when exactly did you attend, what are the names of your principal teachers while you were there, and was any music degree conferred upon you?
Now, since you seem to prefer other people to answer such questions first:
I was graduated from the College of Wooster (Wooster, Ohio) in 1985; I was awarded a B.Mus. with a double-major in clarinet performance and composition. I studied composition with Jack Gallagher and Paul Schwartz; and clarinet with Nancy Garlick.
I attended the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia) from 1986 to 1988; I was awarded a M.A. in composition. I studied composition with Judith Shatin.
I attended the University at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo, New York) from 1989 to 1992; I was awarded a Ph.D. in composition. I studied composition with Louis Andriessen and Charles Wuorinen.
Direct answers to the questions will be appreciated by all, I am sure.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 11:00:43 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 11:00:43 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2009, 10:39:40 AM
Mr Newman: where exactly did you study music, when exactly did you attend, what are the names of your principal teachers while you were there, and was any music degree conferred upon you?
Now, since you seem to prefer other people to answer such questions first:
I was graduated from the College of Wooster (Wooster, Ohio) in 1985; I was awarded a B.Mus. with a double-major in clarinet performance and composition. I studied composition with Jack Gallagher and Paul Schwartz; and clarinet with Nancy Garlick.
I attended the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia) from 1986 to 1988; I was awarded a M.A. in composition. I studied composition with Judith Shatin.
I attended the University at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo, New York) from 1989 to 1992; I was awarded a Ph.D. in composition. I studied composition with Louis Andriessen and Charles Wuorinen.
Direct answers to the questions will be appreciated by all, I am sure.
Karl Henning,
If you have anything to contribute to this thread, 'Mozart a Fraud ?' I am sure everyone would appreciate knowing about it. I have already answered these questions earlier today and, as interesting as your own CV is, perhaps it belongs in another section of the forum ?
A person who knows (and understands) his subject speaks to readers of all abilities. So, I am sorry to disappoint you but the issue here is Mozart. A subject on which, so far, you have shown less than a satisfactory understanding of his life and career. Despite your claims. Talk on this and I will happily discuss the subject with you. Since it's one of few subjects where I feel able to inform you and even, dare I say it (?) educate you.
Thank You
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 14, 2009, 11:10:59 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 14, 2009, 11:10:59 AM
(http://www.2000ad.org/thrillpower/straitjacket.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 11:13:05 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 11:13:05 AM
David Ross,
I already knew you had little to offer on this thread. But now you will offer us less. Don't post here. I will not answer you.
OK ?
Thanks
I already knew you had little to offer on this thread. But now you will offer us less. Don't post here. I will not answer you.
OK ?
Thanks
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 14, 2009, 12:20:36 PM
Post by: Herman on July 14, 2009, 12:20:36 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 11:00:43 AM
Karl Henning,
If you have anything to contribute to this thread, 'Mozart a Fraud ?' I am sure everyone would appreciate knowing about it. I have already answered these questions earlier today and, as interesting as your own CV is, perhaps it belongs in another section of the forum ?
You were indeed so kind as to respond, after many requests about your academic credtials, thank you.
However, some people were a little puzzled by the vagueness of your response and the apparent non-existence of the music school you mentioned. There were also a couple of people who were rather intrigued that someone with (perhaps) a degree from a music school should enter the construction business in various capacities (depending on the time of the day).
So some enlightenment would be welcomed.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 12:22:44 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 12:22:44 PM
Quote from: Herman on July 14, 2009, 12:20:36 PM
You were indeed so kind as to respond, after many requests about your academic credtials, thank you.
However, some people were a little puzzled by the vagueness of your response and the apparent non-existence of the music school you mentioned. There were also a couple of people who were rather intrigued that someone with (perhaps) a degree from a music school should enter the construction business in various capacities (depending on the time of the day).
So some enlightenment would be welcomed.
The truth is that you are not interested in discussing any thread that I make Herman. That's the record. Post on Mozart and I will reply. If you don't I will not reply. OK ?
Thanks
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2009, 12:23:39 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2009, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 11:00:43 AM
I have already answered these questions earlier today
If you have posted answers to my question posed above:
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2009, 10:39:40 AM
Mr Newman: where exactly did you study music, when exactly did you attend, what are the names of your principal teachers while you were there, and was any music degree conferred upon you?
. . . I should appreciate a link to that post.
Thank you.
(It is a little strange that you are shy of repeating that information. Half of what you post on this forum, is verbatim repetition of some post or other of yours.)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 12:26:31 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 12:26:31 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2009, 12:23:39 PM
If you have posted answers to my question posed above:
. . . I should appreciate a link to that post.
Thank you.
(It is a little strange that you are shy of repeating that information. Half of what you post on this forum, is verbatim repetition of some post or other of yours.)
Karl Henning,
If you post on Mozart here I will reply to you. If you do not post on Mozart here I will not. Simple, right ? I won't repeat myself again. Some people are NOT 'dumbed down'.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2009, 12:28:31 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2009, 12:28:31 PM
Thanks for the continued non-answer.
The appearance, Mr Newman, is that you fraudulently claim a background in music. Fraud is the topic, you see; only it is not Mozart who is the fraud.
Your bluff has been called.
The appearance, Mr Newman, is that you fraudulently claim a background in music. Fraud is the topic, you see; only it is not Mozart who is the fraud.
Your bluff has been called.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 12:30:24 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 12:30:24 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2009, 12:28:31 PM
Thanks for the continued non-answer.
The appearance, Mr Newman, is that you fraudulently claim a background in music. Fraud is the topic, you see; only it is not Mozart who is the fraud.
Your bluff has been called.
Karl Henning,
I gave you a chance to post here on Mozart. It's a Mozart thread. This is the place to discuss Mozart. And you blew it. So don't post to me again. I will not answer you. Simple, right ? You will learn, won't you Professor ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2009, 12:36:07 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2009, 12:36:07 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 12:30:24 PM
Karl Henning,
I gave you a chance to post here on Mozart. It's a Mozart thread. This is the place to discuss Mozart. And you blew it. So don't post to me again. I will not answer you. Simple, right ? You will learn, won't you Professor ?
Why, how funny you are!
You "gave me a chance," did you? Very funny!
If you will not answer, then you will not post to this thread again, I suppose. For the topic is not simply Mozart, but Mozart and fraudulence; and no one is asking you anything about Mozart, because your continued non-answers underline the fact of who is the actual fraud in this thread.
Everyone whose name is not Newman sees the relevance of my question, and the relevance of a pertinent answer. Simple. You won't ever learn, will you, Newman?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2009, 10:39:40 AM
Mr Newman: where exactly did you study music, when exactly did you attend, what are the names of your principal teachers while you were there, and was any music degree conferred upon you?
Direct answers to the questions will be appreciated by all, I am sure.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 14, 2009, 01:01:52 PM
Post by: knight66 on July 14, 2009, 01:01:52 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 14, 2009, 12:30:24 PM
Karl Henning,
I gave you a chance to post here on Mozart. It's a Mozart thread. This is the place to discuss Mozart. And you blew it. So don't post to me again. I will not answer you. Simple, right ? You will learn, won't you Professor ?
OK then Robert, discuss Mozart, or has the bottom of the trug been scraped? If there is more to say, say it, if not let the topic slip beneath the waves. This playground stuff is looking like a welcome distraction for you.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on July 14, 2009, 01:09:54 PM
Post by: Scarpia on July 14, 2009, 01:09:54 PM
Quote from: knight on July 14, 2009, 01:01:52 PM
OK then Robert, discuss Mozart, or has the bottom of the trug been scraped? If there is more to say, say it, if not let the topic slip beneath the waves.
I suspect the trug (whatever that is) has been scraped long ago. This thread and others like them follow a periodic pattern. Our resident iconoclast makes a statement which he claims is obviously true, which every other poster on this board believes is nonsense. When any counter-argument is made, the iconoclast merely repeats the original claim, perhaps embellished with some remark to the effect he has clearly proved his claim, the rest of us are cretins, the world can't handle the truth, often trumping us by typing the work "FACT" next to his claim (which how could any of us dispute?).
Is there a reason that this cesspool of a thread was unlocked?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 14, 2009, 01:16:35 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 14, 2009, 01:16:35 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on July 14, 2009, 01:09:54 PMIs there a reason that this cesspool of a thread was unlocked?Perhaps to give the dimwitted, inept, dishonest, and delusional "Mr. Newman" a place to go where he's less likely to infect other threads with his pathetically nonsensical ravings?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 14, 2009, 01:18:43 PM
Post by: knight66 on July 14, 2009, 01:18:43 PM
Truth.
Mike
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 14, 2009, 01:19:30 PM
Post by: bhodges on July 14, 2009, 01:19:30 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 14, 2009, 01:16:35 PM
Perhaps to give the dimwitted, inept, dishonest, and delusional "Mr. Newman" a place to go where he's less likely to infect other threads with his pathetically nonsensical ravings?
Mike got there before I did, but basically, bingo.
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 14, 2009, 02:06:10 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 14, 2009, 02:06:10 PM
It is a peculiar case. Not that I've put much effort into it, but I cannot see how pursuing this foolishness profits Mr. Newman in any way. He seems bright enough to be capable of understanding the preposterousness of his claims and the laughable inadequacy of his "support" for them, yet he has persisted in this lunacy for several years, pursuing it on any site that will have him--and for all I know, pursuing it in "Letters to the Editor" of the Manchester Guardian and other rags. Perhaps it's some kind of psychosis, like that suffered by the stereotypical wackos who think they're Napoleon. It would be nice if there were some way of breaking through his denial so that he could get the help he needs. On the other hand, he may just be reasonably functional in other respects and this derangement no more debilitating than more garden-variety lunacies like infatuation with movie stars or pop idols.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 14, 2009, 02:17:36 PM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 14, 2009, 02:17:36 PM
So this thread it becoming GMG's solitary confinement cell. Fine by me!
Great news everyone! If you keep talking about Newman and not Mozart, he'll never respond again! He said so! He won't even give anyone the information (credentials) that qualifies him to properly study the history of Mozart! ONLY Mozart.
So here we go.
What is everyone's favourite symphony written by the composer formerly known as Mozart??
Great news everyone! If you keep talking about Newman and not Mozart, he'll never respond again! He said so! He won't even give anyone the information (credentials) that qualifies him to properly study the history of Mozart! ONLY Mozart.
So here we go.
What is everyone's favourite symphony written by the composer formerly known as Mozart??
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 02:36:10 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 02:36:10 PM
I remember when I watched Amadeus (this was before I was a classical music listener) I thought this particular music was awesome, just like the heavy metal of classical, and it was the first movement of the 25th symphony. The Prague is my favorite symphony but I still want to mention how awesome some of his early symphonies are. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2009, 02:39:22 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2009, 02:39:22 PM
Lately I'm a pushover for 39.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 14, 2009, 02:42:51 PM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 14, 2009, 02:42:51 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 02:36:10 PMAmadeus (and mainly the character Salieri) were my main reasons for first venturing in to classical music. I thought to myself, "How could someone be that passionate about music?" I was curious! I wanted to know if I could feel that way about music. Turns out I can! :)
I remember when I watched Amadeus (this was before I was a classical music listener) I thought this particular music was awesome, just like the heavy metal of classical, and it was the first movement of the 25th symphony. The Prague is my favorite symphony but I still want to mention how awesome some of his early symphonies are. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on July 14, 2009, 02:44:06 PM
Post by: Scarpia on July 14, 2009, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 14, 2009, 02:06:10 PM
It is a peculiar case. Not that I've put much effort into it, but I cannot see how pursuing this foolishness profits Mr. Newman in any way. He seems bright enough to be capable of understanding the preposterousness of his claims and the laughable inadequacy of his "support" for them, yet he has persisted in this lunacy for several years, pursuing it on any site that will have him--and for all I know, pursuing it in "Letters to the Editor" of the Manchester Guardian and other rags. Perhaps it's some kind of psychosis, like that suffered by the stereotypical wackos who think they're Napoleon. It would be nice if there were some way of breaking through his denial so that he could get the help he needs. On the other hand, he may just be reasonably functional in other respects and this derangement no more debilitating than more garden-variety lunacies like infatuation with movie stars or pop idols.
"Conspiracy theorist" seems to be a very specific affliction, as evidenced by the fact that the sufferers often fall victim to multiple conspiracies (i.e., the Mozart myth and 9/11). Sufferers seem to have a cluster of remarkably universal symptoms. 1) Belief that the tiniest inconsistency in the accepted view of the subject is proof that it is entirely fabricated. 2) Inability to perceive glaring flaws and inconsistencies in your own theory. 3) Belief that the tiniest inconsistency in the established theory is proof that your theory is right. 4) Inability to recognize the expertise of others, and belief that your own failure to understand a statement is proof that the statement is false. The affliction seems to combine paranoia and narcissism. The fact that it seems to be such a well defined affliction suggests that it is some basic element of the human character that somehow gets out of control.
It is very amusing to get two conspiracy theorists in the same room, as we did here in the same thread, and have them start to politely explain to each other, well, actually the planes weren't military drones, there were no planes, you see.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 02:49:13 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 02:49:13 PM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 14, 2009, 02:42:51 PM
Amadeus (and mainly the character Salieri) were my main reasons for first venturing in to classical music. I thought to myself, "How could someone be that passionate about music?" I was curious! I wanted to know if I could feel that way about music. Turns out I can! :)
Yeah it made it seem exciting and not just some academic subject. For me, I felt an enormous divide between the music that I listened to and classical. And school had already stopped putting alot of effort into appreciation for classical music or art. That movie helped, and what continued helping was a series on pbs where they would discuss a work and then perform it. That was really nifty. I actually taped them when they were on and I still have them around.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: JoshLilly on July 14, 2009, 03:33:20 PM
Post by: JoshLilly on July 14, 2009, 03:33:20 PM
I don't know... I've found it's possible to have tons of musical credentials and know very little about obscure composers of the late 18th century. I'm speaking as someone with zero credentials, of course.
In any case, having read Dittersdorf's autobiography recently... Dittersdorf was there, he doesn't seem to think there was anything fraudelent about W.A. Mozart. And he had an in-person and in-letter relationship with F.J. Haydn, and they discussed and went over music together many times, including each other's works. If F.J. Haydn had been a fraud, wouldn't he have been found out instantly? Oh wait, that damn Dittersdorf! He must be the original co-conspirator to cover for those infamous cheats!! Well, now we have an origin to the conspiracy, that's a nice springboard for serious research I'd say.
In any case, having read Dittersdorf's autobiography recently... Dittersdorf was there, he doesn't seem to think there was anything fraudelent about W.A. Mozart. And he had an in-person and in-letter relationship with F.J. Haydn, and they discussed and went over music together many times, including each other's works. If F.J. Haydn had been a fraud, wouldn't he have been found out instantly? Oh wait, that damn Dittersdorf! He must be the original co-conspirator to cover for those infamous cheats!! Well, now we have an origin to the conspiracy, that's a nice springboard for serious research I'd say.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 14, 2009, 04:01:02 PM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 14, 2009, 04:01:02 PM
Quote from: Scarpia on July 14, 2009, 02:44:06 PMHah. The cutting of the steel beams: was it a) thermate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wVLeKwSkXA), or b) Star Wars beam from space (http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html)?
It is very amusing to get two conspiracy theorists in the same room, as we did here in the same thread, and have them start to politely explain to each other, well, actually the planes weren't military drones, there were no planes, you see.
Choose your side! The loser has their head in the sand!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on July 14, 2009, 04:17:10 PM
Post by: ChamberNut on July 14, 2009, 04:17:10 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 02:36:10 PM
I remember when I watched Amadeus (this was before I was a classical music listener) I thought this particular music was awesome, just like the heavy metal of classical, and it was the first movement of the 25th symphony. The Prague is my favorite symphony but I still want to mention how awesome some of his early symphonies are. :)
David, the Amadeus movie definitely made me a fan of Mozart! This was when I just first starting "getting into classical music". The opening of the movie with the Don Giovanni Overture, and then the first movement of the 25th Symphony had an immediate impact on me, and glued me to the screen!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 14, 2009, 04:24:42 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 14, 2009, 04:24:42 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2009, 02:39:22 PM40 has always been my fave but Minkowski's 41 has captured my heart of late. I hope we soon hear more recordings of Mozart's great late symphonies from him.
Lately I'm a pushover for 39.
Quote from: JoshLilly on July 14, 2009, 03:33:20 PMIn any case, having read Dittersdorf's autobiography recently... Dittersdorf was there, he doesn't seem to think there was anything fraudelent about W.A. Mozart. And he had an in-person and in-letter relationship with F.J. Haydn, and they discussed and went over music together many times, including each other's works. If F.J. Haydn had been a fraud, wouldn't he have been found out instantly?And Haydn, of course, was one of Mozart's greatest admirers. And so on, and so on.
As Carl Sagan said regarding claims of extraterrestrial UFOs, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." In the case of Newman's dingbat claims, no evidence whatsoever has been presented, here or anywhere. Newman's antics are like those of some other moronic crackpot who claims that the moon is made of green cheese and then demands proof that it isn't. Only another equally moronic crackpot would take his claims seriously.
Here's hoping that poor Newman finds the help he so obviously needs.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:26:45 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:26:45 PM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 14, 2009, 04:01:02 PM
Hah. The cutting of the steel beams: was it a) thermate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wVLeKwSkXA), or b) Star Wars beam from space (http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html)?
Choose your side! The loser has their head in the sand!
Sorry, Joe, you can't post about THAT conspiracy in THIS conspiracy thread. Don't create, needless confusion... :D
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 77 Quartet in C for Strings Op 76 #3 4th mvmt - Finale: Presto
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2009, 04:27:56 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 14, 2009, 04:27:56 PM
Quote from: JoshLilly on July 14, 2009, 03:33:20 PM
I don't know... I've found it's possible to have tons of musical credentials and know very little about obscure composers of the late 18th century. I'm speaking of someone with zero credentials, of course.
Well, I've a good deal less than tons . . . and, no: obscure late-18th-century composers aro so not my thing.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:29:12 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:29:12 PM
Quote from: JoshLilly on July 14, 2009, 03:33:20 PM
I don't know... I've found it's possible to have tons of musical credentials and know very little about obscure composers of the late 18th century. I'm speaking of someone with zero credentials, of course.
In any case, having read Dittersdorf's autobiography recently... Dittersdorf was there, he doesn't seem to think there was anything fraudelent about W.A. Mozart. And he had an in-person and in-letter relationship with F.J. Haydn, and they discussed and went over music together many times, including each other's works. If F.J. Haydn had been a fraud, wouldn't he have been found out instantly? Oh wait, that damn Dittersdorf! He must be the original co-conspirator to cover for those infamous cheats!! Well, now we have an origin to the conspiracy, that's a nice springboard for serious research I'd say.
Josh, I would say that you've cut to the quick. Ditters was Joseph II's piss-boy, well known. So when the Emperor called, he answered. It had to be the Emperor, you know, no one else carried the weight to get the ball rolling. Right down to banning the Jesuits so they could go undercover and pull off the unthinkable.
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 77 Quartet in C for Strings Op 76 #3 4th mvmt - Finale: Presto
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:30:38 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:30:38 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2009, 04:27:56 PM
Well, I've a good deal less than tons . . . and, no: obscure late-18th-century composers aro so not my thing.
Your loss, Professor. I guess you prefer obscure 21st Century composers... ::)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 78 Quartet in Bb for Strings Op 76 #4 1st mvmt - Allegro con spirito
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 04:30:48 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 04:30:48 PM
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 14, 2009, 04:17:10 PM
David, the Amadeus movie definitely made me a fan of Mozart! This was when I just first starting "getting into classical music". The opening of the movie with the Don Giovanni Overture, and then the first movement of the 25th Symphony had an immediate impact on me, and glued me to the screen!
Awesome! :)
You know it's such a cute movie, like that part where Salieri plays Mozart, and that guy is like "oh you wrote that? That's quite charming!"(http://www.glittergirl.co.uk/banana/36.gif)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 14, 2009, 04:35:38 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 14, 2009, 04:35:38 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 04:30:48 PMYou know it's such a cute movie, like that part where Salieri plays Mozart, and that guy is like "oh you wrote that? That's quite charming!"(http://www.glittergirl.co.uk/banana/36.gif)Together with the look on Abraham/Salieri's face as if he'd just eaten a very bitter insect!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 04:37:22 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 04:37:22 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:30:38 PM
Your loss, Professor. I guess you prefer obscure 21st Century composers... ::)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 78 Quartet in Bb for Strings Op 76 #4 1st mvmt - Allegro con spirito
Hey Wuorinen and Carter naxos albums are less than $4 on amazon mp3, you don't see that for Ditters do ya? 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:38:30 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:38:30 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 04:37:22 PM
Hey Wuorinen and Carter naxos albums are less than $4 on amazon mp3, you don't see that for Ditters do ya? 8)
No need... :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 78 Quartet in Bb for Strings Op 76 #4 2nd mvmt - Adagio
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 04:42:46 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 04:42:46 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:38:30 PM
No need... :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 78 Quartet in Bb for Strings Op 76 #4 2nd mvmt - Adagio
Yeah it wouldn't too much what they price it since no one listens to esoteric classico-romantic. >:D
----------------
Now playing: Andreas Staier - Op 35 #1 Sonata in Bb for Fortepiano 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato e maestoso
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:45:45 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:45:45 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 04:42:46 PM
Yeah it wouldn't too much what they price it since no one listens to esoteric classico-romantic. >:D
----------------
Now playing: Andreas Staier - Op 35 #1 Sonata in Bb for Fortepiano 1st mvmt - Allegro moderato e maestoso
All this fraudulent 'Mozart' hubbub has poisoned the well for classical era music, I'm afraid. Vanhal lovers by the score are turning to Ives and such now. :'( Damn Newman's eyes anyway. Why couldn't he just leave well enough alone? I was happy with the status quo. Now I can hardly sleep nights. :(
8)
PS - Who even knows who wrote that Dussek you're listening to? :-\
----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 78 Quartet in Bb for Strings Op 76 #4 3rd mvmt - Menuet: Allegro - Trio
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 04:54:27 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 14, 2009, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:45:45 PM
All this fraudulent 'Mozart' hubbub has poisoned the well for classical era music, I'm afraid. Vanhal lovers by the score are turning to Ives and such now. :'( Damn Newman's eyes anyway. Why couldn't he just leave well enough alone? I was happy with the status quo. Now I can hardly sleep nights. :(
8)
PS - Who even knows who wrote that Dussek you're listening to? :-\
----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 78 Quartet in Bb for Strings Op 76 #4 3rd mvmt - Menuet: Allegro - Trio
The Dussek scores all have a convenient ink blot over the true author, it's obviously an Italian. ;)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 14, 2009, 06:52:46 PM
Post by: Brian on July 14, 2009, 06:52:46 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2009, 10:39:40 AMThat's funny, I once designed the cover of a Wuorinen CD.
I attended the University at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo, New York) from 1989 to 1992; I was awarded a Ph.D. in composition. I studied composition with Louis Andriessen and Charles Wuorinen.
... ;)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 14, 2009, 07:49:29 PM
Post by: snyprrr on July 14, 2009, 07:49:29 PM
The 'Dorf did it!!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 14, 2009, 07:56:09 PM
Post by: Brian on July 14, 2009, 07:56:09 PM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 14, 2009, 07:49:29 PMThere needs to be a hairstyle named after him.
The 'Dorf did it!!
Or maybe we can get faux Baywatch shirts printed that say "Don't Ditters the Dorf!"
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on July 14, 2009, 11:31:01 PM
Post by: Florestan on July 14, 2009, 11:31:01 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2009, 02:39:22 PM
Lately I'm a pushover for 39.
And I know the reason why: the charming clarinets in the Trio, right? :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 12:24:37 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 12:24:37 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2009, 02:39:22 PMI thought academics were more about pullovers?
Lately I'm a pushover for 39.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 02:21:54 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 02:21:54 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:30:38 PM
Your loss, Professor. I guess you prefer obscure 21st Century composers... ::)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 78 Quartet in Bb for Strings Op 76 #4 1st mvmt - Allegro con spirito
Well, one prefers the obscurity nearer one's own skin, I suppose, Gurn 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 02:23:36 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 02:23:36 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:38:30 PMQuote from: DavidWHey Wuorinen and Carter naxos albums are less than $4 on amazon mp3, you don't see that for Ditters do ya?
No need... :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Quatuor Mosaiques - Hob 03 78 Quartet in Bb for Strings Op 76 #4 2nd mvmt - Adagio
David, you addressed that to Naxos' supplier of Ditters ;D 0:) 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 02:25:07 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 02:25:07 AM
Quote from: Brian on July 14, 2009, 06:52:46 PM
That's funny, I once designed the cover of a Wuorinen CD.
... ;)
Well done! Nice visual allusion to the penutimate number of the Josquiniana, too! 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 15, 2009, 02:40:19 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 15, 2009, 02:40:19 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 14, 2009, 04:45:45 PM
All this fraudulent 'Mozart' hubbub has poisoned the well for classical era music, I'm afraid. Vanhal lovers by the score are turning to Ives and such now. :'( Damn Newman's eyes anyway. Why couldn't he just leave well enough alone? I was happy with the status quo. Now I can hardly sleep nights. :(
8)
PS - Who even knows who wrote that Dussek you're listening to? :-\
"we like our little Robbie and he has a home here at GMG..." >:D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 04:59:07 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 04:59:07 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 15, 2009, 02:40:19 AMWe make exactly the same allowances for you, little Roddie. Two peas in a pod.
"we like our little Robbie and he has a home here at GMG..." >:D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Que on July 15, 2009, 05:22:00 AM
Post by: Que on July 15, 2009, 05:22:00 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 04:59:07 AM
We make exactly the same allowances for you, little Roddie. Two peas in a pod.
Truth. 8)
Q
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 15, 2009, 05:55:21 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 15, 2009, 05:55:21 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 04:59:07 AM
We make exactly the same allowances for you, little Roddie. Two peas in a pod.
"Robby", "Roddy", well near as dammit.
A person has to have a very subtle ear for ironic sarcasm to survive long here... hey, just sayin'... :)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 06:03:55 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 06:03:55 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 15, 2009, 05:55:21 AM
"Robby", "Roddy", well near as dammit.
After the typographical example of a certain Swedish quartet, why don't we just call them "Rodby"?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 06:27:59 AM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 06:27:59 AM
59 pages ....
So was Mozart a fraud then?
Or not?
0:)
So was Mozart a fraud then?
Or not?
0:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 06:36:53 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 06:36:53 AM
Oh, not. Not even close.
0:)
0:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 15, 2009, 07:30:37 AM
Post by: Herman on July 15, 2009, 07:30:37 AM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 06:27:59 AM
59 pages ....
So was Mozart a fraud then?
Or not?
0:)
It turned out the propagator of the fraud was the fraud.
Not an unusual scenario.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: max on July 15, 2009, 11:45:20 AM
Post by: max on July 15, 2009, 11:45:20 AM
It's become absolutely clear that whatever great stuff was written was actually written by someone else and and the so-called Greats have merely become beneficiaries of those who didn't want to be great.
I wonder why no one ever claimed credit for Wagner's works! Being such an evil fellow he couldn't possibly have written them. The fellow was all ego! He would have taken credit for anything!
I wonder why no one ever claimed credit for Wagner's works! Being such an evil fellow he couldn't possibly have written them. The fellow was all ego! He would have taken credit for anything!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 11:47:44 AM
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 11:47:44 AM
Quote from: max on July 15, 2009, 11:45:20 AMWell actually ... Wagner's operas were written by Mozart.
It's become absolutely clear that whatever great stuff was written was actually written by someone else and and the so-called Greats have merely become beneficiaries of those who didn't want to be great.
I wonder why no one ever claimed credit for Wagner's works! Being such an evil fellow he couldn't possibly have written them. The fellow was all ego! He would have taken credit for anything!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 11:49:44 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 11:49:44 AM
Karl Mozart.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 11:50:24 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 11:50:24 AM
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2009, 11:47:44 AMNow that is the lowest thing anyone has yet said about poor Wolfie! Even Newman didn't stoop that low!
Well actually ... Wagner's operas were written by Mozart.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 11:50:41 AM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 11:50:41 AM
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2009, 11:47:44 AM
Well actually ... Wagner's operas were written by Mozart.
That's what Sibelius wanted you to think.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 11:52:12 AM
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 11:52:12 AM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 11:50:41 AM;D ;D ;D ;D
That's what Sibelius wanted you to think.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 11:52:36 AM
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 11:52:36 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 11:50:24 AMI also think Rob Newman's posts were all written by Sir Francis Bacon, or possibly Christopher Marlowe.
Now that is the lowest thing anyone has yet said about poor Wolfie! Even Newman didn't stoop that low!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 11:52:57 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 11:52:57 AM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 11:50:41 AM
That's what Sibelius wanted you to think.
That crank? Aino wrote all his music.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 11:56:11 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 11:56:11 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2009, 11:52:57 AMWhich is a reference, of course, to "Ain't no sunshine when she's gone," which itself is code for Leonard Cohen's poem, For Annie, suggesting that Mr. Cohen--a Jew, mind you--is the real author of The Ring of the Lederhosen.
That crank? Aino wrote all his music.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 11:59:28 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 11:59:28 AM
The Mozart industry has published no book which calls in to question the iconic status of W.A. Mozart. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, do they ? Nor does NASA publish books which question the Apollo moon landings. We see no official report which questions the 9/11 'Official Report'. And so on. But this is not unusual.
What happens within mainstream Mozart music research is that they argue (correctly) that a consensus exists on Mozart within 'Mozart research'. They next tell us the documentary and other evidence is overwhelming, etc. etc. They say nobody would question him and his career etc. That thousands of people have studied the subject and nobody has ever suggested wholesale fakery. Etc etc. There it 'must' be wrong.
But none of this is really surprising. Most of the evidence being presented comes from Mozart himself, his family, and his supporters, as everyone knows. Which is normal and yet it's hardly definitive evidence. What we need is this evidence to be cross-examined as we would cross-examine any evidence. Sounds fair enough, right ?Who could possibly object to this ? But when we start to do so the story starts to fall to pieces. At least, that is my view. And I will argue this in detail in the forthcoming book.
It's not just that hundreds of works have been falsely attributed to Mozart. That fact is indisputable. It's recognised even by the most conservative researcher. But this fact in itself is reason/justification to look closely. And this is what I did.
So the 'consensus' is really nothing more than a highly selective agreement about certain facts about Mozart. Some not even facts. And it's not the whole picture. It's simply the image that has been manufactured for us to believe in. Repeated over and over for 200 years. The actual truth is very different.
What happens within mainstream Mozart music research is that they argue (correctly) that a consensus exists on Mozart within 'Mozart research'. They next tell us the documentary and other evidence is overwhelming, etc. etc. They say nobody would question him and his career etc. That thousands of people have studied the subject and nobody has ever suggested wholesale fakery. Etc etc. There it 'must' be wrong.
But none of this is really surprising. Most of the evidence being presented comes from Mozart himself, his family, and his supporters, as everyone knows. Which is normal and yet it's hardly definitive evidence. What we need is this evidence to be cross-examined as we would cross-examine any evidence. Sounds fair enough, right ?Who could possibly object to this ? But when we start to do so the story starts to fall to pieces. At least, that is my view. And I will argue this in detail in the forthcoming book.
It's not just that hundreds of works have been falsely attributed to Mozart. That fact is indisputable. It's recognised even by the most conservative researcher. But this fact in itself is reason/justification to look closely. And this is what I did.
So the 'consensus' is really nothing more than a highly selective agreement about certain facts about Mozart. Some not even facts. And it's not the whole picture. It's simply the image that has been manufactured for us to believe in. Repeated over and over for 200 years. The actual truth is very different.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:00:30 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:00:30 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2009, 11:52:57 AM
That crank? Aino wrote all his music.
Of course she did. Sibelius paid her to do it because he was already too busy faking Mozart's operas so that they looked (to the not-quite-well-enough-educated eye) as if Wagner had written them. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:01:46 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:01:46 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2009, 11:52:36 AM
I also think Rob Newman's posts were all written by Sir Francis Bacon, or possibly Christopher Marlowe.
I'll never believe Bacon or Marlowe wrote so poorly!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 15, 2009, 12:02:19 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 15, 2009, 12:02:19 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2009, 10:39:40 AM
Mr Newman: where exactly did you study music, when exactly did you attend, what are the names of your principal teachers while you were there, and was any music degree conferred upon you?
Now, since you seem to prefer other people to answer such questions first:
I was graduated from the College of Wooster (Wooster, Ohio) in 1985; I was awarded a B.Mus. with a double-major in clarinet performance and composition. I studied composition with Jack Gallagher and Paul Schwartz; and clarinet with Nancy Garlick.
I attended the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia) from 1986 to 1988; I was awarded a M.A. in composition. I studied composition with Judith Shatin.
I attended the University at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo, New York) from 1989 to 1992; I was awarded a Ph.D. in composition. I studied composition with Louis Andriessen and Charles Wuorinen.
Direct answers to the questions will be appreciated by all, I am sure.
Still waiting. 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:02:55 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:02:55 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:00:30 PM
Of course he did. Sibelius paid him to do it because he was already too busy faking Mozart's operas so that they looked (to the not-quite-well-enough-educated eye) as if Wagner had written them. ::)
Wait a minute! Sibelius's wife Aino was a transvestite?!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 15, 2009, 12:03:50 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 15, 2009, 12:03:50 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2009, 12:02:55 PM
Wait a minute! Sibelius's wife Aino was a transvestite?!
No wonder he took to the bottle! :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:04:14 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:04:14 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2009, 12:02:55 PM
Wait a minute! Sibelius's wife Aino was a transvestite?!
I just changed my post but wasn't fast enough for you, Karl!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 12:04:18 PM
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 12:04:18 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 11:59:28 AMA telltale sign indeed that there must be fakery involved. Oh dear me.
That thousands of people have studied the subject and nobody has ever suggested wholesale fakery. Etc etc.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:05:02 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:05:02 PM
But this could be the beginning of a VERY BIG rumour.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:05:27 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:05:27 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:04:14 PM
I just changed my post but wasn't fast enough for you, Karl!
;D
Quote from: DavidW on July 15, 2009, 12:03:50 PM
No wonder he took to the bottle! :D
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:07:13 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:07:13 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 15, 2009, 12:03:50 PM;D
No wonder he took to the bottle! :D
Proof that White Russians taste like chicken!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:07:32 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:07:32 PM
So, er, how long has it been known that Sibelius's wife was a transvestite, then?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 12:09:01 PM
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 12:09:01 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:07:32 PMTens of thousands of people never suspected it, so a sure sign that fakery was involved.
So, er, how long has it been known that Sibelius's wife was a transvestite, then?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:09:58 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:09:58 PM
Quote from: erato on July 15, 2009, 12:09:01 PM
Tens of thousands of people never suspected it, so a sure sign that fakery was involved.
I thought as much!
No smoke without fire, I say.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:10:19 PM
Post by: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:10:19 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:07:32 PM
So, er, how long has it been known that Sibelius's wife was a transvestite, then?
(Is anyone familiar with a game--primarily for children but not exclusively--called "Gossip," in which a complicated phrase is transmitted by whispers from one person to the next, to see what ultimately results?)
So Mozart's works were written by Sibelius's wife, a transvestite?
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:12:13 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:12:13 PM
Quote from: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:10:19 PM
So Mozart's works were written by Sibelius's wife, a transvestite?
Well, erato says so, and he should know. The real mystery is how s(he) managed to make it appear as if they were written by Wagner.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:13:26 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:13:26 PM
Quote from: erato on July 15, 2009, 12:04:18 PM
A telltale sign indeed that there must be fakery involved. Oh dear me.
No, it's not a telltale sign. It's just a plain fact. We rarely question things that are widely believed. But we should.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:15:05 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:15:05 PM
Quote from: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:10:19 PM
So Mozart's works were written by Sibelius's wife, a transvestite?
And paulb knew all along, Bruce! He never accepted anything that "Sibelius" wrote after the Violin Concerto! :o
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:15:38 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:15:38 PM
So-called "Sibelius studies" are just a tissue of lies and hypocrisy.
But some know the truth!
But some know the truth!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 12:19:11 PM
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 12:19:11 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:13:26 PMThat's right. And usually there's a reason they are widely believed, they are actually true. Which also means that the need for scientific research, documentation and logical chains of proof are particularly important if they are wrong and we are to break them. Which you always fails to provide. Only repeated assertions to the fact that since most people believe it, it must be wrong. That's not going to cut it.
We rarely question things that are widely believed.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:20:05 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:20:05 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:12:13 PM
Well, erato says so, and he should know. The real mystery is how s(he) managed to make it appear as if they were written by Wagner.
It helps that "Wagner" prepared his own libretti . . . no collaborator, fewer traces to cover over.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:20:33 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:20:33 PM
The Mozart Sibelius industry has published no book which calls in to into question to the iconic status transvestitism of W.A. Mozart Aino. Turkeys hot dogs don't vote for Christmas baseball, do they ?
This fact is indisputable. It is because I say so. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. If I say it three times, then it's so. So there. You can't dispute it. Nyah nyah nyah nyaaah nyah. Indisputably true facts like these are indisputable. No one has ever published a book disputing this. Rasputin tried, but they was disputin' Rasputin because Moses supposes his toeses are roses.
Here's a recent photograph of me with my thesis advisors at the Joe Stalin School for Musicology, Cardiovascular Surgery, and Toaster Oven Repair. As you can see, they are trying their best to get some common sense to penetrate my thick skull:
(http://www.etsu.edu/math/gardner/stooges/ThreeStooges-background.jpg)
I resisted being indoctrinated with their tissues of lies. Not even a 747 commandeered by terrorists pretending they're the authors of Mozart's Ring of the Needy Goblins could penetrate my thick skull. It's a fact. Indisputable. An indisputable fact. As proven by the fact that no one has published a book by me disputing it.
So there!
This fact is indisputable. It is because I say so. It's a fact. It's a fact. It's a fact. If I say it three times, then it's so. So there. You can't dispute it. Nyah nyah nyah nyaaah nyah. Indisputably true facts like these are indisputable. No one has ever published a book disputing this. Rasputin tried, but they was disputin' Rasputin because Moses supposes his toeses are roses.
Here's a recent photograph of me with my thesis advisors at the Joe Stalin School for Musicology, Cardiovascular Surgery, and Toaster Oven Repair. As you can see, they are trying their best to get some common sense to penetrate my thick skull:
(http://www.etsu.edu/math/gardner/stooges/ThreeStooges-background.jpg)
I resisted being indoctrinated with their tissues of lies. Not even a 747 commandeered by terrorists pretending they're the authors of Mozart's Ring of the Needy Goblins could penetrate my thick skull. It's a fact. Indisputable. An indisputable fact. As proven by the fact that no one has published a book by me disputing it.
So there!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:21:44 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:21:44 PM
The easiest way to know a body of studies is bogus is to see their track record when their dogmas are questioned in the light of day. These people don't want their views to be cross-examined. So you never hear the opposite view. 'Mozart studies' is one such case. A myth, but a very dominant one.
Now, we cannot be dogmatic if we argue nothing is absolutely true. Let's see what happens when we subject the Mozart story to fair and reasonable criticism.
What happens ? It falls to pieces. Despite all the efforts of Mozart, his family, his biographers and his later propagandists to conceal reality of his life, career and achievements begins to fall to pieces. Why ? Because the Mozart story is really an invention. At least, that's my view. Others may disagree. Fine. Judge for yourself. I am sure of it and you can judge from the evidence presented.
Sounds fair and reasonable, yes ?
Now, we cannot be dogmatic if we argue nothing is absolutely true. Let's see what happens when we subject the Mozart story to fair and reasonable criticism.
What happens ? It falls to pieces. Despite all the efforts of Mozart, his family, his biographers and his later propagandists to conceal reality of his life, career and achievements begins to fall to pieces. Why ? Because the Mozart story is really an invention. At least, that's my view. Others may disagree. Fine. Judge for yourself. I am sure of it and you can judge from the evidence presented.
Sounds fair and reasonable, yes ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:22:46 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:22:46 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:07:13 PM
;D
Proof that White Russians taste like chicken!
So you don't believe hundreds of musical works have been falsely published and performed in
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:22:57 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:22:57 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2009, 12:15:38 PM
So-called "Sibelius studies" are just a tissue of lies and hypocrisy.
But some know the truth!
Yeah. You know, I always felt there was something fishy about Sibelius's second symphony. You know - that bit in the second movement where Siegfried goes into the cave with the Queen of the Night and they sleep with the flute between them. It never seemed quite right, to me.
It all makes sense, now.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:26:46 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:26:46 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2009, 12:20:05 PM
It helps that "Wagner" prepared his own libretti . . . no collaborator, fewer traces to cover over.
Mrs Sibelius was a shrewd one, and no mistake. A merry dance she's led us.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:26:59 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:26:59 PM
The present house called "Ainola" is a fake. It's not in the right spot. It should be miles to the south. The building walked right up the estuary.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:27:12 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:27:12 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2009, 12:22:46 PM
So you don't believe hundreds of musical works have been falsely published and performed inMozart's"Sibelius's" name ? This fact justifies (and has already justified) the investigation. You don't believe it's a fact, right? You don't believe this is evidence, right?
;D
Every Mozart researcher agrees literally hundreds of works have been falsely published, performed and attributed to W.A. Mozart. But this massive misattribution has never happened in the case of Siblelius. The two cases are completely different for this reason.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:28:37 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:26:46 PM
Mrs Sibelius was a shrewd one, and no mistake. A merry dance she's led us.
And that "picture" by Gallen-Kallela? A cartoon!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:29:47 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:29:47 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:21:44 PMYes! It's a fact! Gravity actually repels. People just believe gravity attracts because they've never heard the opposite view due to the dogmatic insistence of the nefarious gravitation attraction industry.
The easiest way to know a body of studies is bogus is if it's exponents dogmatically insist they are right but have never heard the opposite view. 'Mozart studies' is one such case. A myth, but a very dominant one.
Now, we cannot be dogmatic if we argue, at the same time, that nothing is absolutely true. So, yes, let's see what happens when we subject the Mozart story to fair and reasonable criticism.
What happens ? It falls to pieces. Despite all the efforts to conceal reality of his life, career and achievements it begins to fall to pieces. Why ? Because the story is an invention. At least, that's my view. Others may disagree. Fine. Judge for yourself.
Let's see what happens when we subject the gravitational attraction story to fair and reasonable criticism:
See? It fell apart--due to gravitational repulsion! And if you didn't see it, it's just because you were afraid to look because of brainwashing by the gravitational attraction orthodoxy that's prevalent in our society. No, don;'t judge for yourself. Don't make fairminded, conscientious, and thorough investigation of the subject by time tested critical methods. Instead you must take my word for it--the word of a nobody! A hare-brained crackpot conspiracy theorist who knows because it's a true fact that's indisputable!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:30:54 PM
Post by: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:30:54 PM
(Bruce struggles to keep up.)
So Sibelius and Wagner have both taken credit for Mozart's work (making allowances for transvestite intervention), whilst the Queen of the Night, Siegfried and a flute are discussing tissues made from lye and hippos crashing? I must say, it is a difficult concept for me to wrap my mind around, but then, there don't appear to be any airplanes.
--Bruce
So Sibelius and Wagner have both taken credit for Mozart's work (making allowances for transvestite intervention), whilst the Queen of the Night, Siegfried and a flute are discussing tissues made from lye and hippos crashing? I must say, it is a difficult concept for me to wrap my mind around, but then, there don't appear to be any airplanes.
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:31:37 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:31:37 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:22:57 PM
Yeah. You know, I always felt there was something fishy about Sibelius's second symphony. You know - that bit in the second movement where Siegfried goes into the cave with the Queen of the Night and they sleep with the flute between them. It never seemed quite right, to me.
It all makes sense, now.
A testimonial, Dear Friends. THIS is your good fortune. The offer still stands to send you this 220 page book on 'Zauberdämmerung' (together with musical analysis, photographs, diagrams, and mylar-lined thermos). So that you can judge for yourself on this one opera.
Your doubts will then be ended.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:33:12 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:33:12 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2009, 12:26:59 PM
The present house called "Ainola" is a fake. It's not in the right spot. It should be miles to the south. The building walked right up the estuary.
I was wondering when you'd bring that up. I have an old LP cover of a Thomas Beecham performance of Sibelius's 8th symphony (the LP is missing, dammit) which shows the house on a photograph showing precisely where it used to be before it was where it appears to be now. And it isn't where we thought it was. It was further back, nearer to the trees. Or so it seems. The trees are faked.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:35:09 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:35:09 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:29:47 PM
Yes! It's a fact! Gravity actually repels. People just believe gravity attracts because they've never heard the opposite view due to the dogmatic insistence of the nefarious gravitation attraction industry.
Let's see what happens when we subject the gravitational attraction story to fair and reasonable criticism:
See? It fell apart--due to gravitational repulsion! And if you didn't see it, it's just because you were afraid to look because of brainwashing by the gravitational attraction orthodoxy that's prevalent in our society. No, don;'t judge for yourself. Don't make fairminded, conscientious, and thorough investigation of the subject by time tested critical methods. Instead you must take my word for it--the word of a nobody! A hare-brained crackpot conspiracy theorist who knows because it's a true fact that's indisputable!
We are all nobody's. Including yourself. That's fact number 1. And, as a nobody, every person can submit evidence against the consensus view if he/she has evidence to present. That's normal in every area of academic study. Except, of course, in areas such as 'Mozart studies'. So that for 200 years we have had no hard examination of the consenus within 'Mozart studies'. Suspicious, right ? Especially when we learn that hundreds of musical works have falsely been published and performed in his name which he never composed. Right ? Why, this is a fact even you must admit. So there it is. Justification for a close, critical examination of the Mozart story.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:38:32 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:38:32 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2009, 12:31:37 PM
A testimonial, Dear Friends. THIS is your good fortune. The offer still stands to send you this 220 page book on 'Zauberdämmerung' (together with musical analysis, photographs, diagrams, and mylar-lined thermos). So that you can judge for yourself on this one opera.
Your doubts will then be ended.
Well I for one am persuaded. I shall buy 50 copies. One for me, and 49 for the people who used to be my friends before I became a
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:40:25 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:40:25 PM
And the Opus 44, no. 2? There were no cranes.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 12:41:00 PM
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 12:41:00 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2009, 12:01:46 PMI would like to sound out our friend Rob on the question of whether Shakespeare was qualified to write his plays.
I'll never believe Bacon or Marlowe wrote so poorly!
Although, can I say that, now that we have learned that Sibelius' transvestite wife/husband (Thomas Beecham in disguise) wrote Mozart's works and pretended they had in fact been written by Wagner, this thread has gotten much, much funnier. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:41:31 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:41:31 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:33:12 PMAt great personal risk I've uncovered a secret dossier from Wagner's estate (not the fake estate in Bayreuth, the real estate in Key West) that shows Sibelius's fake trees under construction before his half-breed transvestite gay orgasm-faking fake Mozart fakery faked the fake trees in the fake Ainola location:
I was wondering when you'd bring that up. I have an old LP cover of a Thomas Beecham performance of Sibelius's 8th symphony (the LP is missing, dammit) which shows the house on a photograph showing precisely where it used to be before it was where it appears to be now. And it isn't where we thought it was. It was further back, nearer to the trees. Or so it seems. The trees are faked.
(http://www.globalthemingproducts.com/gallery/Fgallery2-3.JPG)
By the way, Beech is a species of tree common in the northern forests. Beech...Beecham...proof of a conspiracy, as if any more proof were needed than the word of a half-wit transvestite psychopathic liar named Newman!
(http://fallingawake.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/newman.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:41:53 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:41:53 PM
Quote from: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:30:54 PM
(Bruce struggles to keep up.)
So Sibelius and Wagner have both taken credit for Mozart's work (making allowances for transvestite intervention), whilst the Queen of the Night, Siegfried and a flute are discussing tissues made from lye and hippos crashing? I must say, it is a difficult concept for me to wrap my mind around, but then, there don't appear to be any airplanes.
No, it only appears as if Wagner took the credit. That's the whole point, Bruce. But you're correct that there are no airplanes. Yet.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:43:16 PM
Post by: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:43:16 PM
Oh no...Thomas Beecham was a transvestite??
--Bruce
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:43:50 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:43:50 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:38:32 PM
Well I for one am persuaded. I shall buy 50 copies. One for me, and 49 for the people who used to be my friends before I became aMozartWagnerSibeliusThomas Beecham researcher.
You should be persuaded of a thing only when you have considered the evidence for and against it. The facts are as follows. Hundreds of musical works are agreed by everyone including yourself to have been falsely attributed to W.A. Mozart. This fact justifies a close re-examination of his official life, musical career and musical status. A re-examination which you are welcome to consider, like anyone else.
Sounds fair and reasonable, yes ? Have I at least persuaded you of this ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:44:24 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:44:24 PM
Quote from: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:43:16 PMCopulating with a skeleton on a tin roof.
Oh no...Thomas Beecham was a transvestite??
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:45:42 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 15, 2009, 12:45:42 PM
Aino Järnefelt's real name was Helmut Pichl, and he was born of an expatriate Irish scullerymaid to an itinerant eggplant-skinner at the dockside in Hamburg.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:47:52 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:47:52 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 12:41:31 PM
(http://www.globalthemingproducts.com/gallery/Fgallery2-3.JPG)
Fascinating! Congratulations on the breakthrough, Dave.
What you didn't point out (obvious to you, I know, but perhaps not to some) is that the chap on the right, dressed in a blue overall, is clearly conducting an orchestra just out of the picture, on the right. And who is he, that conductor? Yes, Tommy Beecham himself! He was in on the whole damn tree-faking racket right from the start!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 15, 2009, 12:48:23 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 15, 2009, 12:48:23 PM
??? ??? ??? ??? ???
So Sibelius' wife was really the Ainola Gay? Wait, you guys lost me there, this is all a bad dream. I was ready to cut Mozart loose to fend for himself, but now this gigantic cabal has given me pause... Wagner was responsible for the particle beam destruction of the WTC? A sort of preview of Götterdämmerung? ??? Somebody loan me their tinfoil hat, please!
8)
So Sibelius' wife was really the Ainola Gay? Wait, you guys lost me there, this is all a bad dream. I was ready to cut Mozart loose to fend for himself, but now this gigantic cabal has given me pause... Wagner was responsible for the particle beam destruction of the WTC? A sort of preview of Götterdämmerung? ??? Somebody loan me their tinfoil hat, please!
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:52:47 PM
Post by: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:52:47 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 15, 2009, 12:48:23 PM
??? ??? ??? ??? ???
So Sibelius' wife was really the Ainola Gay? Wait, you guys lost me there, this is all a bad dream. I was ready to cut Mozart loose to fend for himself, but now this gigantic cabal has given me pause... Wagner was responsible for the particle beam destruction of the WTC? A sort of preview of Götterdämmerung? ??? Somebody loan me their tinfoil hat, please!
8)
Wait, Sibelius's wife was gay? That seems to be a lousy reason to start a tree-manufacturing business with Thomas Beecham--much less a reason to destroy the World Trade Center. You know, there is such a thing as anger-management.
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:53:22 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:53:22 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 15, 2009, 12:45:42 PM
Aino Järnefelt's real name was Helmut Pichl, and he was born of an expatriate Irish scullerymaid to an itinerant eggplant-skinner at the dockside in Hamburg.
Oh come on Karl. We can't just make this stuff up, you know. We have a responsibility here. All the most reliable authorities insist that the scullerymaid wasn't really Irish.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 15, 2009, 01:07:30 PM
Post by: Herman on July 15, 2009, 01:07:30 PM
If you look at the pics closely (with your associates, natch), you'll find Sibelius is just "Mozart" without a wig.
There's reason to believe he needed the wig to hide the bottle.
There's reason to believe he needed the wig to hide the bottle.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 01:14:05 PM
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 01:14:05 PM
Quote from: Herman on July 15, 2009, 01:07:30 PMI think the picture is faked. Clearly a sign of a gigantic conspiracy.
If you look at the pics closely (with your associates, natch), you'll find Sibelius is just "Mozart" without a wig.
There's reason to believe he needed the wig to hide the bottle.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 01:19:35 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 01:19:35 PM
Readers of this thread can easily see how a detailed criticism of Mozart causes those who disagree with it to explode in posting page after page of sheer nonsense. It's funny. It affects even grown adults who teach music. And others who claim to know this subject. Like a robot starting to generate nonsense messages. :) I think we can call this strange behaviour the 'Mozart Syndrome'. And it's coming exclusively from those who have been educated to believe without ever questioning it that Mozart was a musical genius who wrote the 600 or so musical masterpieces attributed to him. And whose well known story 'must' be true. Even although the massive mountain of false attributions and contradictions may be shown to them. They simply cannot understand their dogma can and must be questioned. It causes their circuits to blow. Quite amazing, yes ! ? (Must be getting close to the truth on this one).
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 01:21:41 PM
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 01:21:41 PM
And shouldn't it be a crane in the picture?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: greg on July 15, 2009, 01:38:19 PM
Post by: greg on July 15, 2009, 01:38:19 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 01:19:35 PM
Readers of this thread can easily see how a detailed criticism of Mozartcauses those who disagree with it to explode in postingis page after page of sheer nonsense. It's funny. It affects even grown adults who wish they could teach music. And others who claim to know this subject. Like a robot starting to generate nonsense messages. :) I think we can call this strange behaviour the 'Mozart Syndrome'.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 01:41:12 PM
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 01:41:12 PM
Quote from: bhodges on July 15, 2009, 12:52:47 PMSibelius' wife was more than gay. Sibelius' wife was Thomas Beecham in drag.
Wait, Sibelius's wife was gay? That seems to be a lousy reason to start a tree-manufacturing business with Thomas Beecham--much less a reason to destroy the World Trade Center. You know, there is such a thing as anger-management.
--Bruce
Naturally, when John Fitzgerald Kennedy found out that Thomas Beecham, disguised as Sibelius' lesbian wife, wrote the complete works of Mozart and passed them off as Wagner's, the defenders of the conspiracy had to shoot him. When you rearrange the letters in "L. Baines Johnson", you get "Thomas J. Beecham"! QED.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 01:46:29 PM
Post by: The new erato on July 15, 2009, 01:46:29 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2009, 01:41:12 PMExcent for the L that was spirited away by the CIA.
When you rearrange the letters in "L. Baines Johnson", you get "Thomas J. Beecham"! QED.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 01:54:16 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 01:54:16 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2009, 01:41:12 PM
When you rearrange the letters in "L. Baines Johnson", you get "Thomas J. Beecham"! QED.
I'd never seen that before, Brian! And what is far less obvious is that the transformation can be done in 7 moves:
L. Baines Johnson
Baines L. Johnson
Baines J. Johnson
Baines J. Johcham
Thones J. Johcham
Thomas J. Johcham
Thomas J. Beecham
Why 7? Because there are 6 letters in Mozart and 8 letters in Sibelius, and the mean of 6 and 8 is 7!
I leave it to the reader to ponder the significance of the fact that there were 7 fake trees near the house, after it had been moved to where it was, before it was where we thought it had been.
You know what's coming next. Yes, the big one.
Who shot Mozart? (And which tree was he hiding behind?)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 01:56:32 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 01:56:32 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 01:19:35 PM
Readers of this thread can easily see howa detailed criticism ofan absurd and utterly unsupported accusation about Mozartcauses those who disagree with it to explode in postingamounts to page after page of sheer nonsense. It's funny. It affectseven grown adults who teachonly one pathetic half-wit who knows nothing about music.And others who claim to know this subject. Like a robot starting to generate nonsense messages. :)I think we can call this strange behaviour the 'MozartNewman Syndrome'. And it's coming exclusively fromthose who have beenan uneducatedtobeliever inwithout ever questioning it that Mozart was a musical genius who wrote the 600 or so musical masterpieces attributed to him. And whose well known story 'must' be true. Even although thehis own massive mountain of bullshitfalse attributions and contradictions may be shown to them.TheyHe simply cannot understandtheir dogma can and must be questioned. It causes their circuits to blow. Quite amazing, yes ! ? (Must be getting close to the truth on this one).anything!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 01:59:21 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 01:59:21 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 01:54:16 PM
Who shot Mozart? (And which tree was he hiding behind?)
Was it:
(http://www.iposters.co.uk/images/P/Dallas-Who-Shot-JR-Poster-194.jpg)?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 02:07:28 PM
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 02:07:28 PM
Quote from: erato on July 15, 2009, 01:46:29 PMIt got switched for an M. :)
Excent for the L that was spirited away by the CIA.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 02:07:39 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 02:07:39 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 01:59:21 PM
Was it:
(http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgfp2087+who-shot-jr-jr-ewing-from-dallas-poster.jpg)
YES! Sibelius, disguised with a wig and a cowboy hat! And THAT is the money he paid to Aino to write his symphonies, and that picture is the PROOF.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: not edward on July 15, 2009, 02:09:13 PM
Post by: not edward on July 15, 2009, 02:09:13 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 01:59:21 PM
Was it:
(http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgfp2087+who-shot-jr-jr-ewing-from-dallas-poster.jpg)?
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2009, 02:07:28 PMYou're saying M is part of the conspiracy and that is why he was banned from this board?
It got switched for an M. :)
The plot thickens.... as does the banana cream pie:
(http://www.hilary.com/fashion/images/bananarama.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 02:10:22 PM
Post by: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 02:10:22 PM
The picture isn't showing! There's a conspiracy preventing the truth from being revealed!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 02:13:05 PM
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 02:13:05 PM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 01:54:16 PM:o Genius! It's true!
Why 7? Because there are 6 letters in Mozart and 8 letters in Sibelius, and the mean of 6 and 8 is 7!
Plus the total of letters in Jean Sibelius (12) is the palindrome of the total of letters in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (21) and, what's more, the number of letters in Wolfgang Amadeus (15) is the same as the number in Lee Harvey Oswald (15)! What's more, Mozart was born on 27 January, the same day as the birth, in 1895, of Harry Ruby, Jack Ruby's uncle!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 02:17:06 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 02:17:06 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2009, 02:13:05 PMPlus there has never been a book published demonstrating that Jack Ruby and Mozart were not one and the same person--indisputable proof that they were the same and are now managing a self-storage facililty in Corning, California in the FBI's federal witness program!
:o Genius! It's true!
Plus the total of letters in Jean Sibelius (12) is the palindrome of the total of letters in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (21) and, what's more, the number of letters in Wolfgang Amadeus (15) is the same as the number in Lee Harvey Oswald (15)! What's more, Mozart was born on 27 January, the same day as the birth, in 1895, of Harry Ruby, Jack Ruby's uncle!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 04:35:28 PM
Post by: Brian on July 15, 2009, 04:35:28 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 02:17:06 PMThe JFK industry has published no book which calls in to question the existence of JFK. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, do they ? Nor does NASA publish books which question the Apollo moon landings. We see no official report which questions the 9/11 'Official Report'. And so on. But this is not unusual.
Plus there has never been a book published demonstrating that Jack Ruby and Mozart were not one and the same person--indisputable proof that they were the same and are now managing a self-storage facililty in Corning, California in the FBI's federal witness program!
What happens within mainstream JFK death research is that they argue (correctly) that a consensus exists on JFK's existence within 'JFK research'. They next tell us the documentary and other evidence is overwhelming, etc. etc. They say nobody would question him and his career etc. That thousands of people have studied the subject and nobody has ever suggested wholesale fakery. Etc etc. There it 'must' be wrong.
But none of this is really surprising. Most of the evidence being presented comes from JFK himself, his family, and his supporters, as everyone knows. Which is normal and yet it's hardly definitive evidence. What we need is this evidence to be cross-examined as we would cross-examine any evidence. Sounds fair enough, right ?Who could possibly object to this ? But when we start to do so the story starts to fall to pieces. At least, that is my view. And I will argue this in detail in the forthcoming book.
It's not just that hundreds of days in the Oval Office have been falsely attributed to JFK. That fact is indisputable. It's recognised even by the most conservative researcher. But this fact in itself is reason/justification to look closely. And this is what I did.
So the 'consensus' is really nothing more than a highly selective agreement about certain facts about JFK. Some not even facts. And it's not the whole picture. It's simply the image that has been manufactured for us to believe in. Repeated over and over for 46 years. The actual truth is very different.
(without apologies to Rob Newman) (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10960.msg333220.html#msg333220)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 15, 2009, 07:55:49 PM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 15, 2009, 07:55:49 PM
Quote from: RNIt's not just that hundreds of works have been falsely attributed to Mozart. That fact is indisputable. It's recognised even by the most conservative researcher.I'm curious. I've been following this thread relatively closely. When did this become a fact? Is there really a consensus that hundreds works have been erroneously attributed to Mozart?
And we're still waiting...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 09:01:21 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 09:01:21 PM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 15, 2009, 07:55:49 PMOf course not. This is just one of Newman's ridiculous assertions. He's like Humpty Dumpty, to whom a word means whatever he wants it to mean. When he uses the word "fact," it means just the opposite--an unproved, unsupported, fantastic claim that is as ludicrous as it is unbelievable.
I'm curious. I've been following this thread relatively closely. When did this become a fact? Is there really a consensus that hundreds works have been erroneously attributed to Mozart?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on July 15, 2009, 11:44:21 PM
Post by: Florestan on July 15, 2009, 11:44:21 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 15, 2009, 12:43:50 PM
You should be persuaded of a thing only when you have considered the evidence for and against it.
Ok, so what is light composed of, exactly? Waves or particles? There is plenty of evidence for or against both cases.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 16, 2009, 01:12:57 AM
Post by: Elgarian on July 16, 2009, 01:12:57 AM
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2009, 02:13:05 PM
Plus the total of letters in Jean Sibelius (12) is the palindrome of the total of letters in Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (21) and, what's more, the number of letters in Wolfgang Amadeus (15) is the same as the number in Lee Harvey Oswald (15)! What's more, Mozart was born on 27 January, the same day as the birth, in 1895, of Harry Ruby, Jack Ruby's uncle!
I was wondering when you'd get around to spotting that. Obvious,once you've seen it, right? But then ....
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 16, 2009, 01:16:45 AM
Post by: Elgarian on July 16, 2009, 01:16:45 AM
.... once you open the can of worms, all this pours out:
Who could have dreamed that the discovery of Mr(s) Sibelius's alter ego would lead to this?
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 02:17:06 PM
Plus there has never been a book published demonstrating that Jack Ruby and Mozart were not one and the same person--indisputable proof that they were the same and are now managing a self-storage facililty in Corning, California in the FBI's federal witness program!
Quote from: Brian on July 15, 2009, 04:35:28 PM
So the 'consensus' is really nothing more than a highly selective agreement about certain facts about JFK. Some not even facts. And it's not the whole picture. It's simply the image that has been manufactured for us to believe in. Repeated over and over for 46 years. The actual truth is very different.
Who could have dreamed that the discovery of Mr(s) Sibelius's alter ego would lead to this?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 01:18:23 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 01:18:23 AM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 15, 2009, 07:55:49 PM
I'm curious. I've been following this thread relatively closely. When did this become a fact? Is there really a consensus that hundreds works have been erroneously attributed to Mozart?
And we're still waiting...
OK, why not ask the music editors of the Koechel catalogue (now making their 8th edition of the catalogue of 'Mozart's' works) or ANY person who has ever studied the subject of the musical works attributed to W.A. Mozart ?
And then please come back here and tell us what you find. It's your homework. Will we be waiting a long time for your answer ?
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 01:27:48 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 01:27:48 AM
Readers can see how a detailed criticism of Mozart causes those who disagree with it to explode in posting page after page of sheer nonsense. It's funny. It even effects grown adults who teach music. And others who claim to know this subject. Like a robot starting to generate nonsense messages ! We can call this strange behaviour the 'Mozart Syndrome'. And it's coming exclusively from those who have been educated to believe without questioning that Mozart was a musical genius who wrote the 600 or so musical masterpieces attributed to him. And whose well known story 'must' be true. Even though the massive mountain of false attributions and contradictions over the past 200 years and more may be shown to them by their own sources. They cannot understand their dogmas can and must be questioned. It causes their circuits to blow. Quite amazing, yes ! ? (Must be getting close to the truth on this one).
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 16, 2009, 01:53:09 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 16, 2009, 01:53:09 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 15, 2009, 04:59:07 AM
We make exactly the same allowances for you, little Roddie. Two peas in a pod.
'We'? Who are 'we'? The secret GMG Illuminati?? :o
No allowances necessary on my part David, I'm have never professed any global conspiracy here or anywhere so I'm not in the same pod as Rob I'm afraid. Admittedly I have pissed lots of people off for demonstrating it is Handel and not JS Bach that is the higher of the twin peaks of Baroque, not the other way around as we have been led to believe for decades by the old farts, but surely that's a lesser crime? Isn't it..?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 02:05:03 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 02:05:03 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 16, 2009, 01:53:09 AMAs long as you don't claim the old farts have a farting conspiracy, that is indeed true.
....as we have been led to believe for decades by the old farts, but surely that's a lesser crime? Isn't it..?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 02:47:29 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 02:47:29 AM
Let's say you are manager of a bank. And one of your customers keeps bouncing cheques (checks). He bounces so many that it runs in to hundreds. That's fraud, isn't it ?
But this is exactly the situation with Mozart.
Again, if an art gallery holds an exhibition of a famous painter and it hangs on the wall around 700 paintings of that painter these might attract a very big interest. Even a fan-club. A world-wide reputation. Defended by 'experts'. But if every few years some of these paintings are found to be by other artists and are withdrawn from the exhibition you might start to wonder what was going on. Let's say it starts with a dozen paintings. But suppose this continues, for decades. Even for centuries. Suppose the number of falsely attributed paintings rises to, say, 100. And is admitted by the 'experts' of this artist. And suppose it even rises beyond 200. Would you not agree at that point there is a problem ? I mean, if this was happening and was admitted even by the official 'experts' of that industry ? With no end in sight. The industry surrounding that icon would go in defensive mode. To protect the reputation of their icon.
This is the situation we have with the musical works of 'Mozart'. And on a huge scale. Even officially. And still we have hardly started to appreciate the scale of it.
But this is exactly the situation with Mozart.
Again, if an art gallery holds an exhibition of a famous painter and it hangs on the wall around 700 paintings of that painter these might attract a very big interest. Even a fan-club. A world-wide reputation. Defended by 'experts'. But if every few years some of these paintings are found to be by other artists and are withdrawn from the exhibition you might start to wonder what was going on. Let's say it starts with a dozen paintings. But suppose this continues, for decades. Even for centuries. Suppose the number of falsely attributed paintings rises to, say, 100. And is admitted by the 'experts' of this artist. And suppose it even rises beyond 200. Would you not agree at that point there is a problem ? I mean, if this was happening and was admitted even by the official 'experts' of that industry ? With no end in sight. The industry surrounding that icon would go in defensive mode. To protect the reputation of their icon.
This is the situation we have with the musical works of 'Mozart'. And on a huge scale. Even officially. And still we have hardly started to appreciate the scale of it.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 03:00:47 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 03:00:47 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 02:47:29 AMNo. But if you used this situation to conclude that ALL cheques were fakes, that would be similar to your claims re Mozart. Which obviously is baloney.
Let's say you are manager of a bank. And one of your customers keeps bouncing cheques (checks). He bounces so many that it runs in to hundreds. That's fraud, isn't it ?
But this is exactly the situation with Mozart.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 16, 2009, 03:20:49 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 16, 2009, 03:20:49 AM
Quote from: erato on July 16, 2009, 02:05:03 AM
As long as you don't claim the old farts have a farting conspiracy, that is indeed true.
I never described the old farts behaviour as a conspiracy, I defined it as cult-like. ie amongst the musical 'inteligencia' a cult like obsession developed around Bach, whereby he became the be all and end all of music, the father of all music, who seemed to be in daily communion with the Almighty. I've heard even the likes of Gardiner spurt out such nonsense. In this mindset the relative downplaying of Handel's music is easily explainable, churchmen of old wanted to censor the notion of the earth revolving around the sun for example, preferring to live in the security of denial. So it is a matter of collective ignorance and weak mindedness, but not one of conspiracy.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 03:21:45 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 03:21:45 AM
Quote from: erato on July 16, 2009, 03:00:47 AM
No. But if you used this situation to conclude that ALL cheques were fakes, that would be similar to your claims re Mozart. Which obviously is baloney.
Well, the scale of fakery and deception in Mozart's career and reputation clearly merits close study. And this you encourage, yes ? Do you know any books which do this ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 03:22:27 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 03:22:27 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 16, 2009, 03:20:49 AMI know. Just a feeble joke.
I never described the old farts behaviour as a conspiracy, I defined it as cult-like. ie amongst the musical 'inteligencia' a cult like obsession developed around Bach, whereby he became the be all and end all of music, the father of all music, who seemed to be in daily communion with the Almighty. I've heard even the likes of Gardiner spurt out such nonsense. In this mindset the relative downplaying of Handel's music is easily explainable, churchmen of old wanted to censor the notion of the earth revolving around the sun for example, preferring to live in the security of denial. So it is a matter of collective ignorance and weak mindedness, but not one of conspiracy.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 03:23:28 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 03:23:28 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 03:21:45 AMI'm waiting for the book you have announced for years. Got a publishing house yet?
Well, the scale of fakery and deception in Mozart's career and reputation clearly merits close study. And this you encourage, yes ? Do you know any books which do this ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 16, 2009, 03:27:15 AM
Post by: Herman on July 16, 2009, 03:27:15 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 03:21:45 AM
Well, the scale of fakery and deception in Mozart's career and reputation clearly merits close study. And this you encourage, yes ? Do you know any books which do this
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3466/3232286574_0dc978820b.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 03:32:55 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 03:32:55 AM
Quote from: erato on July 16, 2009, 03:23:28 AM
I'm waiting for the book you have annunced for years. Got a publishing house yet?
A work which calls in to question the dogmas of an entire industry is not a fast process. Part involves trying to convince people like yourself of what the Mozart industry itself has said and not said over the past 200 years or so.
Writers should not worry about 'publishing houses'. A work sinks or swims on its own merits. Or should do. It's directed to honest people who want to examine this big issue of music and its history fairly and honestly in the light of the actual evidence on Mozart. That's been understood from the beginning. And it's all that counts.
It might stop babies from yawning at being fed only one side of the Mozart story !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 04:00:26 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 04:00:26 AM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:53:22 PM
Oh come on Karl. We can't just make this stuff up, you know. We have a responsibility here. All the most reliable authorities insist that the scullerymaid wasn't really Irish.
Well, in some circles Boston Irish is still considered Irish. You are right to point out the variance in viewpoint, though.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 04:08:32 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 04:08:32 AM
QuoteLet's say you are manager of a bank. And one of your customers keeps bouncing cheques (checks). He bounces so many that it runs in to hundreds.
Somebody knows as little about banking as he does about Mozart. Any bank would shut such an account down long before the number of bounced cheques (checks) approaches anywhere near three digits.
But the writer's inexperience here is understandable. Probably no bank would allow him to open a (chequing) checking account without collateral to an extent difficult for him to raise LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 04:10:31 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 04:10:31 AM
QuoteWell, the scale of fakery and deception in Mozart's career and reputation clearly merits [sic] close study.
The scale of fakery and deception in Sibelius's, Wagner's and Stravinsky's careers and reputations clearly merit close study, too! Closer study! More compelling merit! Colonics for everybody!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 04:46:44 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 04:46:44 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 03:32:55 AMThat is actually why you write the book. If we were convinced already we wouldn't need the book. You don't have to convince "people like me". All you have to do is convince ONE publishing house (out of the zillions that exist) that what you have is interesting enough and credible enough that people would want to read it, and that what you claim is sufficiently documented that their heads won't be sued off. Seems we won't get the book anytime soon, however.
A work which calls in to question the dogmas of an entire industry is not a fast process. Part involves trying to convince people like yourself of what the Mozart industry itself has said and not said over the past 200 years or so.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on July 16, 2009, 04:48:08 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on July 16, 2009, 04:48:08 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 01:18:23 AM
And then please come back here and tell us what you find. It's your homework. Will we be waiting a long time for your answer ?
No, it's your homework, Rob.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 04:48:27 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 04:48:27 AM
Quote from: erato on July 16, 2009, 04:46:44 AM
That is actually why you write the book. If we were convinced already we wouldn't need the book. You don't have to convince "people like me". All you have to do is convince ONE publishing house (out of the zillions that exist) that what you have is interesting enough and credible enough that people would want to read it, and that what you claim is sufficiently documented that their heads won't be sued off. Seem's we won't get the book anytime soon, however.
But, if Newman ever actually publishes a book, that fact will itself be reason to call its content into question!! BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA !!!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 04:52:08 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 04:52:08 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 15, 2009, 12:02:19 PM
Still waiting. 8)
Ach, ye'll be waitin' a luing time, laddie!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 04:57:31 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 04:57:31 AM
Paul Dukas (1856-1935)
Paul Dukas was born in Paris to a Jewish father and Catholic mother. He studied under Théodore Dubois and Ernest Guiraud at the Conservatoire de Paris, where he became friends with the composer Claude Debussy. After completing his studies Dukas found work as a music critic and orchestrator; he was unusually gifted in orchestration and was one of the most sensitive and insightful critics of the era. Although Dukas wrote a fair amount of music, he was a perfectionist and destroyed many of his pieces out of dissatisfaction with them. Only a few of his compositions remain. His first surviving work of note is the energetic Symphony in C (1896), which belongs to the tradition of Beethoven and César Franck. Like Franck's only symphony, Dukas' is in three movements rather than the conventional four: Allegro non troppo, ma con fuoco; Andante espressive e fuoco; Allegro spiritoso.
The symphony was followed by another orchestral work, L'apprenti sorcier (English: The Sorcerer's Apprentice) (1897), which is based on Goethe's poem "Der Zauberlehrling". The Sorcerer's Apprentice was used (in a slightly redacted version) in the Walt Disney film Fantasia - a total of perhaps one minute of the ten-and-a-half minute piece was omitted. Dukas's rhythmic mastery and vivid orchestration are evident in both the Symphony in C and the The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
For the piano, Dukas wrote two complex and technically demanding large-scale works, a Sonata in E-flat minor (1901) and Variations, interlude and finale on a theme of Rameau (1902), again reminiscent of Beethoven and Franck. (There are also two smaller works for piano solo.) The Sonata did not enter the mainstream repertoire, but it has been more recently championed by such pianists as Marc-André Hamelin. The opera Ariane et Barbe-Bleue ("Ariadne and Bluebeard"), on which he worked from 1899 to 1907, has often been compared to Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande, partly because of musical similarities and partly because both operas are based on libretti by Maurice Maeterlinck. Dukas's last major work was the sumptuous oriental ballet La Péri (1912) about a man who reached the Ends of the Earth in a quest to find immortality, coming across a mythical Peri, holding The Flower of Immortality.
In the last decades of his life, Dukas became well known as a teacher of composition, with many famous students including Joaquín Rodrigo, Manuel Ponce, Maurice Duruflé, Olivier Messiaen, Jehan Alain, Carlos Chávez, and David Van Vactor. After Dukas died, he joined the scores of other famous people buried in the Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris.
The symphonic scherzo L'apprenti sorcier has a series of remarkable similarities to a piece of Stravinsky's, Feu d'artifices.
(A work which calls in to question the dogmas of an entire industry is not a fast process. Part involves trying to convince you sawdust-heads of what the Stravinsky industry itself has said and not said over the past 80 years or so.)
Paul Dukas was born in Paris to a Jewish father and Catholic mother. He studied under Théodore Dubois and Ernest Guiraud at the Conservatoire de Paris, where he became friends with the composer Claude Debussy. After completing his studies Dukas found work as a music critic and orchestrator; he was unusually gifted in orchestration and was one of the most sensitive and insightful critics of the era. Although Dukas wrote a fair amount of music, he was a perfectionist and destroyed many of his pieces out of dissatisfaction with them. Only a few of his compositions remain. His first surviving work of note is the energetic Symphony in C (1896), which belongs to the tradition of Beethoven and César Franck. Like Franck's only symphony, Dukas' is in three movements rather than the conventional four: Allegro non troppo, ma con fuoco; Andante espressive e fuoco; Allegro spiritoso.
The symphony was followed by another orchestral work, L'apprenti sorcier (English: The Sorcerer's Apprentice) (1897), which is based on Goethe's poem "Der Zauberlehrling". The Sorcerer's Apprentice was used (in a slightly redacted version) in the Walt Disney film Fantasia - a total of perhaps one minute of the ten-and-a-half minute piece was omitted. Dukas's rhythmic mastery and vivid orchestration are evident in both the Symphony in C and the The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
For the piano, Dukas wrote two complex and technically demanding large-scale works, a Sonata in E-flat minor (1901) and Variations, interlude and finale on a theme of Rameau (1902), again reminiscent of Beethoven and Franck. (There are also two smaller works for piano solo.) The Sonata did not enter the mainstream repertoire, but it has been more recently championed by such pianists as Marc-André Hamelin. The opera Ariane et Barbe-Bleue ("Ariadne and Bluebeard"), on which he worked from 1899 to 1907, has often been compared to Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande, partly because of musical similarities and partly because both operas are based on libretti by Maurice Maeterlinck. Dukas's last major work was the sumptuous oriental ballet La Péri (1912) about a man who reached the Ends of the Earth in a quest to find immortality, coming across a mythical Peri, holding The Flower of Immortality.
In the last decades of his life, Dukas became well known as a teacher of composition, with many famous students including Joaquín Rodrigo, Manuel Ponce, Maurice Duruflé, Olivier Messiaen, Jehan Alain, Carlos Chávez, and David Van Vactor. After Dukas died, he joined the scores of other famous people buried in the Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris.
The symphonic scherzo L'apprenti sorcier has a series of remarkable similarities to a piece of Stravinsky's, Feu d'artifices.
(A work which calls in to question the dogmas of an entire industry is not a fast process. Part involves trying to convince you sawdust-heads of what the Stravinsky industry itself has said and not said over the past 80 years or so.)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 05:01:20 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 05:01:20 AM
To criticise in some detail the 'official' career of I.F. Stravinsky (1882-1971), to call in to question his musical abilities, both as a composer and as a legendary performer, to ask if he was truly the composer of virtually all the great musical works that are published and widely performed in his name, to question the truthfulness and reliability of documents which date from his own time, many of them describing him as being a musical 'genius', to question the contents of well known Stravinsky biographies - to argue, instead, that the life and musical career of this St Petersburg 'genius', this colossus of western culture, was really a gigantic cultural fraud of the late Romanov Dynasty virtually from beginning to end (a fraud continued and further exaggerated for decades after his death by sympathetic publishers and propagandists) - these are views so controversial, so unusual and so rarely considered within 'polite and educated society' that a number of experts who specialise in these areas of study, having heard that such a work may appear soon and being alarmed at the prospect of it becoming reality are queuing up to rescue the iconic status of their musical hero from such a strange, seemingly unprovoked and lengthy attack. Saying that I must have studied my subject for too long, that mine is the work of a man whose fertile imagination has 'got the better of him', that I've succumbed to a rare academic illness, that publication of a work against the Stravinsky we all know and love may even corrupt the young, that it might lead to ugliness within their beautiful world if read by the innocent etc., and that the views expressed here and the evidence presented in its support are the musicological equivalent of 'tilting at windmills' or of 'whistling in to the wind'.
Stravinsky is, of course, big business. And yet you may be surprised to know how rarely his huge musical status and his alleged achievements have ever been criticised in any detail. 'Stravinsky studies' (so-called) is an elitist and highly conservative offshoot of musicology whose workers assume 'everything we have heard and read of Stravinsky is true' or, at least, so worthy of belief that the paradigm that underpins this virtual secular religion is hardly appreciated. The first American musician to propagate Stravinsky's music and to disseminate information on him, Robert Craft, is today seen internationally as a reliable confidant of the composer and is able to obtain funding, regularly, for vast promotional work that is read and believed as reliable worldwide. Stravinsky has been for almost a century one of the pillars of the musical establishment - a subject so complex and so highly regarded by teachers and schools in widely available literature that it may seem unthinkable that any complaint, however well researched, can be made against its ethos, and against the industry which promotes and has come to dominate the education of students in matters of musical history.
And yet criticise Stravinsky we must, since there is no science, nor any body of academic study, great or small, which should escape or avoid detailed criticism of the assumptions on which it is based and on which it has always been based.
Have you listened to Stravinsky's Symphony № 1? LOL It could have been written by any of a dozen of his suppressed contemporaries.
Stravinsky's iconic status within western musical culture is little more than a fantasy, a fairy story. But one that has a global fan base. Manufactured in the late 1920s and still, today, dominating the teaching of music history to a grotesque extent. But on issue after issue the facts surrounding Stravinsky's life, career and even his reputation as a performer and composer simply do not add up. Crucially important evidence was hidden, turned on its head, systematically, routinely, even traditionally, its sources often out of reach and massaged by an endless stream of biographers, each quoting the other, in a mockery of musicology. To subscribe to the Stravinsky myth you will be made ignorant, almost without realising it, of virtually all of Stravinsky's musical contemporaries in preWWI Petersburg, just for a start. You will be asked to believe things of him which dumb down your own critical faculties. And this is not new. It's been happening for decades in countless publications, and even in film, in a storyline which is rarely, if ever, subjected to cross-examination and criticism but which we can and must give to any area of valid research. Stravinsky studies' (so-called) exist and have always existed in a bubble. As to whether they are a valid branch of musicology is for readers to decide.
Do yourself a favour. Examine this issue from more than one side so you can form your own judgement. This great music today attributed to I.F. Stravinsky is not that of a provincial St Petersburg musician. Stravinsky, in fact, spent not a single day at music school in his entire life nor studied for any period of time under any recognised teacher of music. History deserves better. So does music. And so do you.
He did not exist in St Petersburg. He was an obscure third-rate Parisian composer, one of Dyagilev's lovers, upon whom the impresario bestowed a fictitious Russian name so that he would have "new barbaric musical talent" to present to a hungry (and wealthy) French audience.
Consider: No outsider ever heard this 'Stravinsky' speak Russian, until decades later in the US, by which time the Frenchman would have had time to fake some Russian. And why, when 'Stravinsky' went "back" to Russia in the 60s, were the Soviets careful to keep a KGB handler seated between Shostakovich and 'Stravinsky'? That moment was touch-&-go!
And what a give-away, when 'Stravinsky' regained consciousness after a stroke, and wrote a brief note to his émigrée Russian wife Vera, what language did he write in? French!
Khrennikov saw "Stravinsky's" bluff, calling him a "man without a country"! The facts speak for themselves!
Stravinsky is, of course, big business. And yet you may be surprised to know how rarely his huge musical status and his alleged achievements have ever been criticised in any detail. 'Stravinsky studies' (so-called) is an elitist and highly conservative offshoot of musicology whose workers assume 'everything we have heard and read of Stravinsky is true' or, at least, so worthy of belief that the paradigm that underpins this virtual secular religion is hardly appreciated. The first American musician to propagate Stravinsky's music and to disseminate information on him, Robert Craft, is today seen internationally as a reliable confidant of the composer and is able to obtain funding, regularly, for vast promotional work that is read and believed as reliable worldwide. Stravinsky has been for almost a century one of the pillars of the musical establishment - a subject so complex and so highly regarded by teachers and schools in widely available literature that it may seem unthinkable that any complaint, however well researched, can be made against its ethos, and against the industry which promotes and has come to dominate the education of students in matters of musical history.
And yet criticise Stravinsky we must, since there is no science, nor any body of academic study, great or small, which should escape or avoid detailed criticism of the assumptions on which it is based and on which it has always been based.
Have you listened to Stravinsky's Symphony № 1? LOL It could have been written by any of a dozen of his suppressed contemporaries.
Stravinsky's iconic status within western musical culture is little more than a fantasy, a fairy story. But one that has a global fan base. Manufactured in the late 1920s and still, today, dominating the teaching of music history to a grotesque extent. But on issue after issue the facts surrounding Stravinsky's life, career and even his reputation as a performer and composer simply do not add up. Crucially important evidence was hidden, turned on its head, systematically, routinely, even traditionally, its sources often out of reach and massaged by an endless stream of biographers, each quoting the other, in a mockery of musicology. To subscribe to the Stravinsky myth you will be made ignorant, almost without realising it, of virtually all of Stravinsky's musical contemporaries in preWWI Petersburg, just for a start. You will be asked to believe things of him which dumb down your own critical faculties. And this is not new. It's been happening for decades in countless publications, and even in film, in a storyline which is rarely, if ever, subjected to cross-examination and criticism but which we can and must give to any area of valid research. Stravinsky studies' (so-called) exist and have always existed in a bubble. As to whether they are a valid branch of musicology is for readers to decide.
Do yourself a favour. Examine this issue from more than one side so you can form your own judgement. This great music today attributed to I.F. Stravinsky is not that of a provincial St Petersburg musician. Stravinsky, in fact, spent not a single day at music school in his entire life nor studied for any period of time under any recognised teacher of music. History deserves better. So does music. And so do you.
Quote from: GurnI don't believe that 'Stravinsky' as such even actually existed.
He did not exist in St Petersburg. He was an obscure third-rate Parisian composer, one of Dyagilev's lovers, upon whom the impresario bestowed a fictitious Russian name so that he would have "new barbaric musical talent" to present to a hungry (and wealthy) French audience.
Consider: No outsider ever heard this 'Stravinsky' speak Russian, until decades later in the US, by which time the Frenchman would have had time to fake some Russian. And why, when 'Stravinsky' went "back" to Russia in the 60s, were the Soviets careful to keep a KGB handler seated between Shostakovich and 'Stravinsky'? That moment was touch-&-go!
And what a give-away, when 'Stravinsky' regained consciousness after a stroke, and wrote a brief note to his émigrée Russian wife Vera, what language did he write in? French!
Khrennikov saw "Stravinsky's" bluff, calling him a "man without a country"! The facts speak for themselves!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 05:03:32 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 05:03:32 AM
Quote from: Elgarian on July 15, 2009, 12:22:57 PM
Yeah. You know, I always felt there was something fishy about Sibelius's second symphony. You know - that bit in the second movement where Siegfried goes into the cave with the Queen of the Night and they sleep with the flute between them. It never seemed quite right, to me.
It all makes sense, now.
And the "Sibelius" First Symphony: sounds suspiciously Tchaikovskyan, does it not?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 05:20:36 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 05:20:36 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 16, 2009, 03:27:15 AM
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3466/3232286574_0dc978820b.jpg)
Adorable!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 16, 2009, 05:25:29 AM
Post by: Herman on July 16, 2009, 05:25:29 AM
Quote from: erato on July 16, 2009, 04:46:44 AM
All you have to do is convince ONE publishing house (out of the zillions that exist)
If you want to be taken seriously, there are only two dozen publishing houses in the English-speaking world.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 05:40:52 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 05:40:52 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 16, 2009, 05:25:29 AMYou're not counting academic presses. Certainly a tome like that Mr. Newman purports to have authored, or to be writing, or to be planning to write, or at least to be thinking about hoping to write someday, would be fit for--if not the Oxford University Press--at least the academic press of Joe Bob's School of Upholstery and Lawn Mower Repair for the Severely Mentally Handicapped.
If you want to be taken seriously, there are only two dozen publishing houses in the English-speaking world.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Que on July 16, 2009, 05:41:44 AM
Post by: Que on July 16, 2009, 05:41:44 AM
Quote from: Holly on February 08, 2009, 08:24:15 AM
Newman has been trotting out his views about the alleged fakery of W A Mozart and J Haydn for several years on a variety of music Boards, one after the other. I believe the chronological order of the main ones was: "OpenMozart", "Mozart Forum", "Beethoven Reference Site", "CMG", "Talk-Classical", "Classical Music Mayhem". The first of these no longer exists. On each of these Boards he suffered a bruising from the vast majority of those he came into contact with, and was banned from at least 5 of them. As far as I know, the only one he wasn't banned from was the last, CMM.
Newman had a long run at Talk-Classical from October 2006 until about November 2007. Most of Newman's theses were set out at there, where he ranged far and wide over various aspects of the subject. He raised several threads, but THIS (http://www.talkclassical.com/865-controversy-over-true-musical.html) thread was the first and longest-running. The whole foul plot was allegedly organised by the Jesuit Order which, having been banned by the Pope, was anxious to get themselves re-instated and did so by currying favour with the Austrian Emperor by promoting music by German composers at the expense of the Italians. Mozart and Haydn happened to be convenient receivers of quality music composed by a number of others. Thus, Newman argued that Mozart and Haydn wrote virtually nothing of any importance, and it was all the work of others, including especially a man called Andrea Luchesi, who was Kapellmeister at Bonn (where LvB was a student).
All of these theories were challenged at T-C and ultimately became subject to much derision. When pressed to produce evidence, it was always very vague, and he kept shifting ground when he felt the heat coming on. The allegations became more annd more unconvincing. In the end there was a spoof thread, as a piss-taking exercise, HERE (http://www.talkclassical.com/1697-controversy-over-true-musical.html), which summarised the nonsenses in Newman's position and in particular his method of arguing. This thread saw the beginning of the end for poor old Newman as he was left floundering around trying to maintain some credibility. After a year or so, Newman's venture at T-C ended in tears and he was banned, just as he had been from CMG prior to his arrival at T-C, and before that at the BRS.
After leaving T-C, he moved to CMM where he enjoyed the protection of Corkin. There Newman decided to concentrate on one main aspect which was some weird theory that Le Nozze was not composed by WAM, as an earlier version had allegedly been discovered by some Italian researchers. A few Mozart experts from the Mozart Forum turned up to dispute all this, and the discussion ran for a long time but fizzled out last Autumn when it became obvious he didn't have a leg to stand on.
Newman's time at CMM ended mysteriously in November 2008 when he suddenly stopped posting without explanation. At that time he joined "Magle International" and has been there since. Until very recently he has made no mention of his views on Mozart/Haydn, and appears to have been grooming the locals on that Board into believing that he has no hidden agenda. Now, possibly prompted by a stooge colleague who set up a suitable question, he has sprung into action again on his anti-Mozart theme. The way it has been introduced and encouraged looks very peculiar, and it seems very strange that the management should allow a re-run of all this Newmanry when only a year or so ago they banned him on the sister site, T-C.
It was interesting to read this back, now Robert can add GMG to his list.
I'm moving this thread to the Diner - let the folly continue! ;D
Q
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 06:02:19 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 06:02:19 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 05:40:52 AM
You're not counting academic presses. Certainly a tome like that Mr. Newman purports to have authored, or to be writing, or to be planning to write, or at least to be thinking about hoping to write someday, would be fit for--if not the Oxford University Press--at least the academic press of Joe Bob's School of Upholstery and Lawn Mower Repair for the Severely Mentally Handicapped.
I hear that a contact with Norton is imminent!
Quote from: Que on July 16, 2009, 05:41:44 AM
I'm moving this thread to the Diner - let the folly continue! ;D
Q, you da man!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 06:29:26 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 06:29:26 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 16, 2009, 01:53:09 AMSorry, Roddie--your posts here over the years have established beyond question that you are exactly the same sort of deluded crank as Mr. Newman...and most of the folks on this board make exactly the same sort of allowances for you. You don't see it, of course, due partly to your limited capacity--another obvious characteristic you fail to recognize--but mostly because that is the nature of such pathological delusion: your inability to distinguish fact from fantasy starts with your false beliefs about yourself that make it impossible for you to assess your own limitations, holding you hostage to your own particular delusions of grandeur--different from Mr. Newman's, of course, but no less misguided.
'We'? Who are 'we'? The secret GMG Illuminati?? :o
No allowances necessary on my part David, I'm have never professed any global conspiracy here or anywhere so I'm not in the same pod as Rob I'm afraid. Admittedly I have pissed lots of people off for demonstrating it is Handel and not JS Bach that is the higher of the twin peaks of Baroque, not the other way around as we have been led to believe for decades by the old farts, but surely that's a lesser crime? Isn't it..?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 16, 2009, 08:05:47 AM
Post by: Elgarian on July 16, 2009, 08:05:47 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 16, 2009, 05:03:32 AM
And the "Sibelius" First Symphony: sounds suspiciously Tchaikovskyan, does it not?
It does. Is there no end to the unravelling of this most intricate of conspiratorial cover-ups?
However, I'd like to take you back to the interesting issue you raised concerning the so-called 'Irish' scullerymaid, known to us only as 'Kathleen'.
Listen to the third movement of Parry's nonet. You'll notice immediately that the introductory theme of the third movement (as I remarked on another thread recently) bears a more than passing resemblance to the song 'I'll take you home again Kathleen', which is often thought to be a traditional song, but actually was written by Thomas Westendorf (USA) as - significantly - a 'quasi-Irish' ballad.
Now the plot thickens:
'I'll take you home again Kathleen' by Thomas Westendorf: 1875
Parry's nonet: 1877
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Thomas Beecham was born in 1879; and the rest, as they say, is history.
Or is it?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 16, 2009, 08:24:28 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 16, 2009, 08:24:28 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 06:29:26 AM
Sorry, Roddie--your posts here over the years have established beyond question that you are exactly the same sort of deluded crank as Mr. Newman...and most of the folks on this board make exactly the same sort of allowances for you. You don't see it, of course, due partly to your limited capacity--another obvious characteristic you fail to recognize--but mostly because that is the nature of such pathological delusion: your inability to distinguish fact from fantasy starts with your false beliefs about yourself that make it impossible for you to assess your own limitations, holding you hostage to your own particular delusions of grandeur--different from Mr. Newman's, of course, but no less misguided.
You can twist and squirm and wriggle all you like David, the truth remains the truth, but please feel free to elaborate on what exactly I was fantasising about? Perhaps it is Gardiner for example who is in fact the fantasist?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 08:24:40 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 08:24:40 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 16, 2009, 05:25:29 AMOnly in Norway there's a couple of dozen. Remember, Mozart never spoke English. Or did he? Rob; where are you?
If you want to be taken seriously, there are only two dozen publishing houses in the English-speaking world.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 08:48:45 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 08:48:45 AM
Quote from: erato on July 16, 2009, 04:46:44 AM
That is actually why you write the book. If we were convinced already we wouldn't need the book. You don't have to convince "people like me". All you have to do is convince ONE publishing house (out of the zillions that exist) that what you have is interesting enough and credible enough that people would want to read it, and that what you claim is sufficiently documented that their heads won't be sued off. Seems we won't get the book anytime soon, however.
Who would 'sue' for calling in to question the legends of W.A. Mozart ? Only those whose interest is to dumb down students. And yes, I think people will welcome a critical book on this subject. Nothing like a free press, is there ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 08:54:37 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 08:54:37 AM
Quote from: erato on July 16, 2009, 08:24:40 AM
Only in Norway there's a couple of dozen. Remember, Mozart never spoke English. Or did he? Rob; where are you?
Mozart, at one point, said jokingly he was an 'Englishman'. He admired England. The motet 'In God we Trust' donated by the Mozart's to the newly opened British Museum in London during their visit to England has an English text. And there are several simple sentences in English by Mozart in various autograph books etc. Here's an interesting article on the subject by Peter Branscome (published on the website 'A Propos Mozart') -
http://www.aproposmozart.com/Branscombe%20Moz.%20arch-Englishman%20corrected.pdf
He did not speak English fluently. But he knew a few sentences, for sure.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 08:57:11 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 08:57:11 AM
Quote from: erato on July 16, 2009, 08:24:40 AM
Only in Norway there's a couple of dozen. Remember, Mozart never spoke English. Or did he? Rob; where are you?
Yes, certainly, I could offer it to Norwegian publishers. No problem. There are various options. And always have been. Various other researchers are working along similar lines. So that's fine.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 09:12:18 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 09:12:18 AM
Yes, something of a herring about it, anyway ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 16, 2009, 09:18:50 AM
Post by: Brian on July 16, 2009, 09:18:50 AM
I think this thread works well in its new subforum.
Who knows, maybe Christi will stop by!!
who is MOzart??? ?? ??? ?????????????????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??
is Mozart calsiccal music??? ???? ??????????????????? :) :) :) :) :) :)
Who knows, maybe Christi will stop by!!
who is MOzart??? ?? ??? ?????????????????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??
is Mozart calsiccal music??? ???? ??????????????????? :) :) :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 09:21:43 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 09:21:43 AM
(* chortle *)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 16, 2009, 09:22:35 AM
Post by: Brian on July 16, 2009, 09:22:35 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 16, 2009, 05:01:20 AMThat reminds me - have you a preferred recording of said work? I've been meaning to listen to it for quite some time.
Have you listened to Stravinsky's Symphony № 1? LOL It could have been written by any of a dozen of his suppressed contemporaries.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 09:25:51 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 09:25:51 AM
Quote from: Brian on July 16, 2009, 09:22:35 AM
That reminds me - have you a preferred recording of said work? I've been meaning to listen to it for quite some time.
Only one I've heard is in The Big Box; it's a very agreeable listen.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 09:28:54 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 09:28:54 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 06:29:26 AM
Sorry, Roddie--your posts here over the years have established beyond question that you are exactly the same sort of deluded crank as Mr. Newman...and most of the folks on this board make exactly the same sort of allowances for you. You don't see it, of course, due partly to your limited capacity--another obvious characteristic you fail to recognize--but mostly because that is the nature of such pathological delusion: your inability to distinguish fact from fantasy starts with your false beliefs about yourself that make it impossible for you to assess your own limitations, holding you hostage to your own particular delusions of grandeur--different from Mr. Newman's, of course, but no less misguided.
David Ross has given up trying to talk about Mozart. He simply posts insults. Never having learned a single fact which contradicts his predetermined views in years he goes round and round in the fruitloop hoping to grind us all down - so that we have one and only one version of Mozart's life, career and musical status. The 'official' one. Let's leave him on Easter Island with his idols. As for Karl Henning, he is now posting about other composers on this thread. Maybe they are making a slow recovery from all those years of misinformation in Mozart textbooks ? Let's wish them a speedy recovery. ::)
Speaking of kathartic music (LOL !) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY_GMnQvj6E
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 09:53:20 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 09:53:20 AM
Earlier today I was blessed by another member's thoughtful message to me criticizing a post I had made that he thought overstepped the bounds of propriety. I was grateful for his pointed criticism. Even though I did not agree with it, I was able to consider it with an open mind and to acknowledge--both to him and to myself--that he might have a clearer view of the matter than I. Through such open-mindedness and a desire to know the truth of things, I was able to see the reasonableness of his criticism from his point of view. I will try to learn from it and to apply whatever insight might follow to a broader sphere of life--not just to posting on GMG. 8)
In the wake of that experience, this thread especially helps me to appreciate blessings that I tend to take for granted, and to be grateful for the problems and challenges that I face, for they are mere molehills in comparison to the mountains some poor souls have to surmount. May peace be with you all.
In the wake of that experience, this thread especially helps me to appreciate blessings that I tend to take for granted, and to be grateful for the problems and challenges that I face, for they are mere molehills in comparison to the mountains some poor souls have to surmount. May peace be with you all.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 09:57:23 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 09:57:23 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 09:53:20 AM
Earlier today I was blessed by another member's thoughtful message to me criticizing a post I had made that he thought overstepped the bounds of propriety. I was grateful for his pointed criticism. Even though I did not agree with it, I was able to consider it with an open mind and to acknowledge--both to him and to myself--that he might have a clearer view of the matter than I. Through such open-mindedness and a desire to know the truth of things, I was able to see the reasonableness of his criticism from his point of view. I will try to learn from it and to apply whatever insight might follow to a broader sphere of life--not just to posting on GMG. 8)
In the wake of that experience, this thread especially helps me to appreciate blessings that I tend to take for granted, and to be grateful for the problems and challenges that I face, for they are mere molehills in comparison to the mountains some poor souls have to surmount. May peace be with you all.
The first problem and challenge facing David Ross is for him to at last post something on the subject of this thread. You can do it David - you really can. We're all rooting for you !
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:02:35 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:02:35 AM
Newman might come off a bit strong now and then, but one thing I can say for him is that at least he does not write about his sexual escapades! :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:04:04 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:04:04 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 09:57:23 AM
The first problem and challenge facing David Ross is for him to at last post something on the subject of this thread. You can do it David - you really can. We're all rooting for you !
::)
Actually, it would be nice to see you move on to wherever it is you are planning to go with this. I realize that you are insensitive to other peoples' reactions to you, and I can see where you would need to be. But why would anyone post anything here when for the last 100 posts you have replied with the monumentally rhetorical statement "what book have you read that doesn't go along with the 'Mozart' myth?". I mean, if you were an attorney, the judge would have thrown you in jail by now for boring the hell out of him. OK, it's a given, there isn't a book which says whatever you wish it would say. So move on or you will get deluged with OT posts yet again. You have figured out by now that this is our version of pitching rotten tomatoes at you, yes?
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:04:59 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:04:59 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:02:35 AM
Newman might come off a bit strong now and then, but one thing I can say for him is that at least he does not write about his sexual escapades! :D
You don't know that..."who knows what lurks in the minds of men?"
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:06:19 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:06:19 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:04:59 AM
You don't know that..."who knows what lurks in the minds of men?"
8)
(http://www.bitterwallet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/the_shadow_2.gif)
The Shadow does!! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:09:20 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:09:20 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:02:35 AM
Newman might come off a bit strong now and then, but one thing I can say for him is that at least he does not write about his sexual escapades! :D
DavidW has weighed in with yet another nonsense post on this thread which has nothing to do with Mozart or the question of him being a musical fraud. Page after page the moderator of this forum allows this nonsense to continue and I'm really very grateful for it. At least it allows readers to see for themselves the choices and the levels to which defenders of the Mozart myth will go.
Here is a free prescription for David. We hope he gets well soon ! ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOLyKqS9ICI
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:12:23 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:12:23 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:04:04 AM
Actually, it would be nice to see you move on to wherever it is you are planning to go with this. I realize that you are insensitive to other peoples' reactions to you, and I can see where you would need to be. But why would anyone post anything here when for the last 100 posts you have replied with the monumentally rhetorical statement "what book have you read that doesn't go along with the 'Mozart' myth?". I mean, if you were an attorney, the judge would have thrown you in jail by now for boring the hell out of him. OK, it's a given, there isn't a book which says whatever you wish it would say. So move on or you will get deluged with OT posts yet again. You have figured out by now that this is our version of pitching rotten tomatoes at you, yes?
8)
Gurn,
If people post here on issues which have nothing to do with this thread I will remind them, time after time, to stop it. I will even do the work of administrating this thread, as you see. Tedious, boring, and yet necessary. These fools are showing students just how crazy they are. So that good comes out of everything, as we see.
They seriously underestimated the opposition. In every way. And still do.
Take action against this nonsense and all will be well. Do not and I will continue to illustrate where it is coming from. For as long as they wish.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:15:07 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:15:07 AM
I wonder if this is considered a religious thread? $:) :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:19:57 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:19:57 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:12:23 AM
Gurn,
If people post here on issues which have nothing to do with this thread I will remind them, time after time, to stop it. I will even do the work of administrating this thread, as you see. Tedious, boring, and yet necessary. These fools are showing students just how crazy they are. So that good comes out of everything, as we see.
They seriously underestimated the opposition. In every way. And still do.
Take action against this nonsense and all will be well. Do not and I will continue to illustrate where it is coming from. For as long as they wish.
Robert,
Please don't miss the thrust of my point; it is because of your method of presentation that the thread needs administration at all. Here's a tip for you: When you ask a rhetorical question, you don't need to await a reply from every single member of the forum before moving on. It's a question of pacing. Your pacing stinks. Nothing personal, just sayin'. If you are presenting something, then get on with it. Otherwise, Sibelius' gay wife will likely reappear, and no one wants to see that.
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:22:46 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:22:46 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 09:53:20 AM
. . . May peace be with you all.
Et cum spiritu tuo!
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:04:04 AM
. . . You have figured out by now that this is our version of pitching rotten tomatoes at you, yes?
8)
You know Sibelius's gay wife's stage name at the dockside cabaret?
Die Zaubertomate
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:23:29 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:23:29 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:19:57 AM
Robert,
Please don't miss the thrust of my point; it is because of your method of presentation that the thread needs administration at all. Here's a tip for you: When you ask a rhetorical question, you don't need to await a reply from every single member of the forum before moving on. It's a question of pacing. Your pacing stinks. Nothing personal, just sayin'. If you are presenting something, then get on with it. Otherwise, Sibelius' gay wife will likely reappear, and no one wants to see that.
8)
My method of presentation is fine Gurn. But it keeps being interrupted by stupid men who post on issues that have nothing to do with this thread.
It surprises me that you would allow this nonsense to continue, and are even involved in it yourself. So, if you or your colleagues wish to post on this thread let them discuss the subject of this thread. A fair and reasonable request. If fairness and reasonableness are important I expect you to agree.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 16, 2009, 10:26:24 AM
Post by: Herman on July 16, 2009, 10:26:24 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:23:29 AM
My method of presentation is fine Gurn.
(http://talkpractice.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/yawn.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:26:45 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:26:45 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:15:07 AM
I wonder if this is considered a religious thread? $:) :D
I realized that can't be true because religions have communities, they have structure. Perhaps is an asylum for the wicked? ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:28:30 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:28:30 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 16, 2009, 10:22:46 AM
You know Sibelius's gay wife's stage name at the dockside cabaret?
Die Zaubertomate
I knew Barbara Streisand was old! :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:31:21 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:31:21 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 10:26:45 AM
I realized that can't be true because religions have communities, they have structure. Perhaps is an asylum for the wicked? ;D
Asylums always tend to be filled when good things are happening. To focus on the issue, this thread -that is your duty and mine. This thread is on 'Mozart a Fraud ?' and we hope you are able to make a contribution.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Bulldog on July 16, 2009, 10:33:55 AM
Post by: Bulldog on July 16, 2009, 10:33:55 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:31:21 AM
Asylums always tend to be filled when good things are happening. To focus on the issue, this thread -that is your duty and mine. This thread is on 'Mozart a Fraud ?' and we hope you are able to make a contribution.
You sound rather silly when you start talking as if you're a moderator.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 10:35:46 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 10:35:46 AM
I've cancelled my cable so please continue this thread!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
The easiest way to know a body of studies is bogus is to see their track record when their dogmas are questioned in the light of day. These people don't want their views to be cross-examined. So you never hear the opposite view. 'Sibelius studies' is one such case. A myth, but a very dominant one.
Now, we cannot be dogmatic if we argue nothing is absolutely true. Let's see what happens when we subject the Sibelius story to fair and reasonable criticism.
What happens? It falls to pieces. Despite all the efforts of Sibelius, Aino/Helmut, his family, his biographers, his later propagandists and Beecham to conceal reality of his life, career and achievements begins to fall to pieces. Why? Because the Sibelius story is really an invention. At least, that's my view. Others may disagree. Fine. Judge for yourself. I am sure of it and you can judge from the evidence presented.
Sounds fair and reasonable, yes?
Now, we cannot be dogmatic if we argue nothing is absolutely true. Let's see what happens when we subject the Sibelius story to fair and reasonable criticism.
What happens? It falls to pieces. Despite all the efforts of Sibelius, Aino/Helmut, his family, his biographers, his later propagandists and Beecham to conceal reality of his life, career and achievements begins to fall to pieces. Why? Because the Sibelius story is really an invention. At least, that's my view. Others may disagree. Fine. Judge for yourself. I am sure of it and you can judge from the evidence presented.
Sounds fair and reasonable, yes?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:36:34 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:36:34 AM
Quote from: Bulldog on July 16, 2009, 10:33:55 AM
You sound rather silly when you start talking as if you're a moderator.
It's just the Mylar talking!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:42:57 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:42:57 AM
I do not care one iota what you think of my life and my work experience, nor even of my education or abilities. I was employed for years as an Olive Pitter with one of the largest fruit-tree companies in the world, Hello Kitty, in Dubai. And also by the Oils and Condiment Corporation of the U.A.E. as Pesticides Manager. Again in Dar es Salaam. These projects including olive dimension measurement, pulp reduction, the construction of suspension olives, drainage and so on. I have also worked as an Olives Manager for tub construction companies in Schenectady.
So, having given a small example of my working experience please do not give us a large example of your ignorance. Music was and still is my main interest and always has been.
So, having given a small example of my working experience please do not give us a large example of your ignorance. Music was and still is my main interest and always has been.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on July 16, 2009, 10:43:58 AM
Post by: Franco on July 16, 2009, 10:43:58 AM
Quote'Mozart a Fraud ?'
The title to this thread is phrased in the form of a question, and it would appear that only you, Mr. Newman, believe that the correct answer posed by this thread is "yes". You are alone, at least on GMG, I have no doubt there are a few others worldwide who might share your conclusion, but here on GMG no one agrees with you.
No one has in the least bit been convinced of anything from all your posts other than your tendency to indulge in conspiracy theories. I am probably being kind, with that limited statement.
So, the actual subject of this thread is not whether or not the Mozart we have come to know is the product of a massive musicological fraud, since everyone but you know this to be clearly ridiculous. Yes, the actual subject of this thread is you (which I suppose is precious nectar for someone suffering, as you do, from a kind of cyber Münchausen syndrome), and your odd obsession with the idea of Mozart being a manufactured genius.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:47:34 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:47:34 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 16, 2009, 10:36:00 AM
The easiest way to know a body of studies is bogus is to see their track record when their dogmas are questioned in the light of day. These people don't want their views to be cross-examined. So you never hear the opposite view. 'Sibelius studies' is one such case. A myth, but a very dominant one.
Now, we cannot be dogmatic if we argue nothing is absolutely true. Let's see what happens when we subject the Sibelius story to fair and reasonable criticism.
What happens? It falls to pieces. Despite all the efforts of Sibelius, Aino/Helmut, his family, his biographers, his later propagandists and Beecham to conceal reality of his life, career and achievements begins to fall to pieces. Why? Because the Sibelius story is really an invention. At least, that's my view. Others may disagree. Fine. Judge for yourself. I am sure of it and you can judge from the evidence presented.
Sounds fair and reasonable, yes?
It sounds fair and reasonable. Now you have to learn something new Professor Henning. Step 2. This thread is on Mozart. I've said this over and over. So if you make a Sibelius thread and have something to say on the subject of Sibelius and musical fraud we can post on that subject there.
I'm not going too fast for you, am I ? :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on July 16, 2009, 10:48:59 AM
Post by: Scarpia on July 16, 2009, 10:48:59 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:23:29 AM
My method of presentation is fine Gurn. But it keeps being interrupted by stupid men who post on issues that have nothing to do with this thread.
Your method of presentation is not fine. The evidence of that is that it has convinced everyone on this board that you are a wacko. It consists of presenting your claims without any justification, dismissing or ignoring very clearly thought out and expressed objections to your claims, pointing out that the fact that we don't agree with you only proves that we are stupid, and and histrionics when your claims are not taken seriously. Even if you are not willing to concede that your claims are preposterous, you have to admit that you method of arguing them has been a complete failure, here and apparently on every other internet site you have visited.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:49:44 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:49:44 AM
Professor Karl Henning IS a Sibelius celebrity. He is the first man in over 90 years to argue that Jean Sibelius learned composition from a transvestite entertainer and, simultaneously, in the same breath, to pit olives while keeping black and green perfectly sorted! This fruity artistry, this depth of learning, this ability to call 'oil vinegar' and 'vinegar oil' comes only from those few professors who are steeped in the most profound study of music and its history.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:50:51 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:50:51 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on July 16, 2009, 10:48:59 AM
Your method of presentation is not fine. The evidence of that is that it has convinced everyone on this board that you are a wacko.
Does that not fit in with his plans?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on July 16, 2009, 10:51:42 AM
Post by: Scarpia on July 16, 2009, 10:51:42 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 16, 2009, 10:49:44 AM
Professor Karl Henning IS a Sibelius celebrity. He is the first man in over 90 years to argue that Jean Sibelius learned composition from a transvestite entertainer and, simultaneously, in the same breath, to pit olives while keeping black and green perfectly sorted! This fruity artistry, this depth of learning, this ability to call 'oil vinegar' and 'vinegar oil' comes only from those few professors who are steeped in the most profound study of music and its history.
Will you agree to consult the next time I am shopping for olive oil?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on July 16, 2009, 10:51:47 AM
Post by: Franco on July 16, 2009, 10:51:47 AM
(*** pounds desk and wipes tears from eyes ***)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:53:03 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:53:03 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on July 16, 2009, 10:48:59 AM
Your method of presentation is not fine. The evidence of that is that it has convinced everyone on this board that you are a wacko. It consists of presenting your claims without any justification, dismissing or ignoring very clearly thought out and expressed objections to your claims, pointing out that the fact that we don't agree with you only proves that we are stupid, and and histrionics when your claims are not taken seriously. Even if you are not willing to concede that your claims are preposterous, you have to admit that you method of arguing them has been a complete failure, here and apparently on every other internet site you have visited.
The visitors to this thread can see who is posting on the subject of this thread and who is not. You are not.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:53:38 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: Scarpia on July 16, 2009, 10:51:42 AM
Will you agree to consult the next time I am shopping for olive oil?
I will send you my 220-page book, with proof on every page that "Sibelius" was a geographically displaced olive chandler, whose music was actually written by his transvestite wife.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:58:08 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 10:58:08 AM
Olin Downes of the New York Times was obviously in on the conspiracy, if not its chief manufacturer (after Beecham).
He was known as "Olive" Downes to those in the trade.
He was known as "Olive" Downes to those in the trade.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:58:51 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:58:51 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:53:03 AM
The visitors to this thread can see who is posting on the subject of this thread and who is not. You are not.
Apparently you aren't either. I realize it is likely to be right in the middle of your blind spot, but you are losing your audience through having stalled out. They're all fidgety, you see, and now they're pulling pigtails and throwing spitballs because of the perception that the teacher is afflicted with cranio-rectal inversion on an unprecedented scale.
I give you sound and friendly advice here, we are all agreed on that. Here it is:
Get on with it!.
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:00:36 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:00:36 AM
Quote from: Franco on July 16, 2009, 10:43:58 AM
The title to this thread is phrased in the form of a question, and it would appear that only you, Mr. Newman, believe that the correct answer posed by this thread is "yes". You are alone, at least on GMG, I have no doubt there are a few others worldwide who might share your conclusion, but here on GMG no one agrees with you.
No one has in the least bit been convinced of anything from all your posts other than your tendency to indulge in conspiracy theories. I am probably being kind, with that limited statement.
So, the actual subject of this thread is not whether or not the Mozart we have come to know is the product of a massive musicological fraud, since everyone but you know this to be clearly ridiculous. Yes, the actual subject of this thread is you (which I suppose is precious nectar for someone suffering, as you do, from a kind of cyber Münchausen syndrome), and your odd obsession with the idea of Mozart being a manufactured genius.
Franco,
The documented record of Mozart research shows literally hundreds of works have been falsely published and performed in the name of W.A. Mozart. Symphonies, masses, concertos, operas, sonatas etc. etc. This fact justifies detailed examination of wholesale musical misattribution in his case. And this fact is even acknowledged by every person who has ever studied this subject in any detail. You may even acknowledge this yourself. And it's only the tip of the iceberg.
That Mozart is a manufactured genius is a view which you are not familiar with and which you have never, until now, even considered. This too is a fact.
These two facts are enough for now. I don't want to go too fast for you. :)
Thank You
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 16, 2009, 11:02:57 AM
Post by: Brian on July 16, 2009, 11:02:57 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 16, 2009, 10:53:38 AM;D This thread rocks.
I will send you my 220-page book, with proof on every page that "Sibelius" was a geographically displaced olive chandler, whose music was actually written by his transvestite wife.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 11:03:25 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 11:03:25 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:58:51 AM
Apparently you aren't either. I realize it is likely to be right in the middle of your blind spot, but you are losing your audience through having stalled out. They're all fidgety, you see, and now they're pulling pigtails and throwing spitballs because of the perception that the teacher is afflicted with cranio-rectal inversion on an unprecedented scale.
I give you sound and friendly advice here, we are all agreed on that. Here it is:
Get on with it!.
8)
Gurn,
I know that you are hostile. I know you have provided no input on this thread. And I know that you don't like this thread. I know you are insulting. And I know you've not read very much about Sibelius. Is that enough ?
The stupidity comes at the point where 'Sibelius studies' contain no criticisms of the pit fragments which strayed into the olive oil jars. Where you cannot name a single Finnish dish in which olive oil is employed. And where you don't even know the massive misattributions that are today a plain fact of Finnish culinary history. All of these things should have taught you a lesson. But it seems you have learned nothing.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on July 16, 2009, 11:04:14 AM
Post by: Scarpia on July 16, 2009, 11:04:14 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:00:36 AM
Franco,
The documented record of Mozart research shows literally hundreds of works have been falsely published and performed in the name of W.A. Mozart. Symphonies, masses, concertos, operas, sonatas etc. etc. This fact justifies detailed examination of wholesale musical misattribution in his case. And this fact is even acknowledged by every person who has ever studied this subject in any detail. You may even acknowledge this yourself. And it's only the tip of the iceberg.
That Mozart is a manufactured genius is a view which you are not familiar with and which you have never, until now, even considered. This too is a fact.
These two facts are enough for now. I don't want to go too fast for you. :)
Thank You
As Gurn has pointed out, you are going too slow for us, not too fast. You've made this claim dozens of times, and again you have asserted it is "fact" without giving any specific evidence to support it. I'm bored, nothing to see here.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:04:49 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:04:49 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 10:58:51 AM
Apparently you aren't either. I realize it is likely to be right in the middle of your blind spot, but you are losing your audience through having stalled out. They're all fidgety, you see, and now they're pulling pigtails and throwing spitballs because of the perception that the teacher is afflicted with cranio-rectal inversion on an unprecedented scale.
I give you sound and friendly advice here, we are all agreed on that. Here it is:
Get on with it!.
8)
Gurn,
If a pianist refuses to play while his audience are still making a noise he has every right to ask them to stop making a noise. The same is true for anyone giving a speech or a lecture. And if you will help in calming down these immature posters who disrupt this forum this would be much appreciated. I would then be able to 'get on with it'. But not until then. Which is a real pity.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on July 16, 2009, 11:05:15 AM
Post by: Franco on July 16, 2009, 11:05:15 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:00:36 AM
Franco,
The documented record of Mozart research shows literally hundreds of works have been falsely published and performed in the name of W.A. Mozart. Symphonies, masses, concertos, operas, sonatas etc. etc. This fact justifies detailed examination of wholesale musical misattribution in his case. And this fact is even acknowledged by every person who has ever studied this subject in any detail. You may even acknowledge this yourself. And it's only the tip of the iceberg.
That Mozart is a manufactured genius is a view which you are not familiar with and which you have never, until now, even considered. This too is a fact.
These two facts are enough for now. I don't want to go too fast for you. :)
Thank You
Nope - not convinced.
Try again, maybe with something substantive, e.g. why don't list the hundreds of works, all those Symphonies, masses, concertos, operas, sonatas etc. etc. falsely attributed to Mozart.
And you cannot include anything currently listed with a KV catalog number.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: prémont on July 16, 2009, 11:06:25 AM
Post by: prémont on July 16, 2009, 11:06:25 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:23:29 AM
My method of presentation is fine Gurn. But it keeps being interrupted by stupid men who post on issues that have nothing to do with this thread.
It surprises me that you would allow this nonsense to continue, and are even involved in it yourself.
As long as Gurn allows your nonsense to continue, you should be the last one to blame him for that reason.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 11:06:46 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 11:06:46 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 16, 2009, 11:03:25 AM
The stupidity comes at the point where 'Sibelius studies' contain no criticisms of the pit fragments which strayed into the olive oil jars.
Alot of this research gets bogged down in the dangling pits on the lids of the jars. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 11:08:58 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 16, 2009, 11:08:58 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:04:49 AM
Gurn,
If a pianist refuses to play while his audience are still making a noise he has every right to ask them to stop making a noise. The same is true for anyone giving a speech or a lecture. And if you will help in calming down these immature posters who disrupt this forum this would be much appreciated. I would then be able to 'get on with it'. But not until then. Which is a real pity.
I told you wanted a blog, that you did not conversation but monologue. I told you did not want to participate in a discussion. Now look what's happened? You're having a temper tantrum because we are not focused around listening to you quiet and attentive. I find that most amusing! :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 16, 2009, 11:10:11 AM
Post by: bhodges on July 16, 2009, 11:10:11 AM
Quote from: premont on July 16, 2009, 11:06:25 AM
As long as Gurn allows your nonsense to continue, you shoukd be the last one to blame him for that reason.
Just interjecting, "and the rest of the mods as well," since we are all in agreement, having spent
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 11:15:35 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 11:15:35 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:04:49 AM
Gurn,
If a pianist refuses to play while his audience are still making a noise he has every right to ask them to stop making a noise. The same is true for anyone giving a speech or a lecture. And if you will help in calming down these immature posters who disrupt this forum this would be much appreciated. I would then be able to 'get on with it'. But not until then. Which is a real pity.
Alright Robert, tell you what we'll do. If you want to wait for the room to quiet down, I figure it will be at least a couple of days. So, the choices are:
a> Get on with it
OR
b> We'll lock things down for a couple of days until everyone quiets down.
If you equivocate on your choice, it will be made for you.
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:16:40 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:16:40 AM
Quote from: Franco on July 16, 2009, 11:05:15 AM
Nope - not convinced.
Try again, maybe with something substantive, e.g. why don't list the hundreds of works, all those Symphonies, masses, concertos, operas, sonatas etc. etc. falsely attributed to Mozart.
And you cannot include anything currently listed with a KV catalog number.
Franco,
You may be a dunce at the moment in this class, but you certainly deserve credit for asking a question on the theme under discussion. Namely on the question of, 'Mozart, a Fraud'. And I am happy to answer you.
1. You ask me to list the works that have been falsely attributed to W.A. Mozart. The fastest way to answer this is to examine the different editions of the Koechel catalogue over the past 150 years, yes ? And that's just the 'official' list of false attributions.
2. You say I 'cannot include anything currently listed with a KV catalogue number'.
My reply is -
Did you read my recent 3 part post on the 'Haffner' Symphony, KV385 ? Or of the Clarinet Concerto KV622 ? Just two examples discussed recently here on the thread. And there are literally dozens and dozens of others. Again, the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' ? This too.
This will at least show how wrong you are. So I recommend that you read this forum more closely. The examples I have given are only a few of dozens of examples, in fact. And they include, of course, the Requiem, KV626, all of the Piano Concertos, virtually all of the symphonies, etc. etc. etc.
I don't know where you have been for the last few months. But I suggest you read a little more. Send me a PM and I will send you a book on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' (2008). I wouldn't want you to be walking around in such a state of ignorance. Please accept it with my best wishes and move one place up in the class.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 11:18:49 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 16, 2009, 11:18:49 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:00:36 AM
Franco,
The documented record of Mozart research shows literally hundreds of works have been falsely published and performed in the name of W.A. Mozart.
So many people, in an age of little copyright and limited means for research, found it convenient to latch on to Mozarts name in hope of making a buck of it. That is not Mozart's fault, and doesn't mean the works actually written by him, becomes void.
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:00:36 AMThe mind reels under the thought of all possible hypothesis' I haven't considered. That doesn' make them true.
That Mozart is a manufactured genius is a view which you are not familiar with and which you have never, until now, even considered. This too is a fact.
This has been pointed out to you numerous times, and your fallacy in using these arguments are obvious for all, whatever may be the truth about Mozart. Yet you still persist in repeating them over and over again. And claim to be angered that the thread is derailing. What do you actually there is to discuss when your stance is as insubstantial as that?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 11:19:13 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 16, 2009, 11:19:13 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 10:53:03 AMIn the unlikely event that there really were any non-contributing visitors to this thread, it would take them scant seconds to recognize that Newman is a complete lunatic and that there is no merit whatsover to any of his claims--unless, of course, they were as delusional as he is, in which case they doubtless would have arrived here by mistake, thinking they were actually navigating to the Corkster's site, or ACClueless's.
The visitors to this thread can see who is posting on the subject of this thread and who is not. You are not.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:19:40 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:19:40 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 11:15:35 AM
Alright Robert, tell you what we'll do. If you want to wait for the room to quiet down, I figure it will be at least a couple of days. So, the choices are:
a> Get on with it
OR
b> We'll lock things down for a couple of days until everyone quiets down.
If you equivocate on your choice, it will be made for you.
8)
Let's have no equivocation on this subject Gurn. If it takes 'a couple of days until everyone quiets down' this indicates you have a real problem with the posters on this thread. So, please do not equivocate about this. Let's give them a fair warning to immediately quiet down. Because you and I have better things to do than suffer disruption from those who need to learn.
Yours fairly
Robert Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 11:22:04 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 16, 2009, 11:22:04 AM
Thanks Gurn,
You write -
Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Panties...I'm sorry...Schumann, Schubert, Mendelssohn and Bach. Names that will live for ever. But there is one composer whose name is never included with the greats. Why is it that the world never remembered the name of Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm? To do justice to this man, thought by many to be the greatest name in German Baroque music, we present a profile of Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.
OK, let's rationalise this as you suggest. The facts are as follows -
1. In the entire history of Sibelius studies (that is, from, let us say, from the time of the first biography by Cole Porter in 1958 until the present day) we have seen Sibelius's musical achievements being massively and fraudulently exaggerated. A simple and plain fact. This confirmed by even the most conservative chefs such as, for example, that Swedish muppet. A fact recognised by the Jean Sibelius Museum in Ainola itself. So that literally hundreds of musical works once published and performed in the name of 'Sibelius' are today recognised NOT to be by Sibelius. True, yes ? That's fact number 1.
2. Can you, Gurn, show an example of unsaturated fats omitted from the diet of any other famous composer in the entire history of western music ?
3. Now, if this huge oleaginous misattribution is now being recognised, even by 'conservatives' within Sibelius studies, we are indisputably right to say misattribution and falsehood is, by definition, a major factor in Sibelius's culinary reputation. Though we may disagree whether it is huge, gigantic, a little too heavily peppered, or whatever. We cannot deny, however, there are good grounds to call his olive oil a good deal less than extra virgin.
4. We have documented examples of 'Sibelius's' name being given to dishes whose recipe he never supervised. Two examples from Aino's cookbook blatantly trying to include canola oil in recipes under 'Sibelius's' name just for starters. We have too the published refutation of Sibelius's spice rack by food magazine editors such as Nikolai Medtner, as still another example. We have, in fact, literally hundreds of anomalies and contradictions, even amongst salt cellars still accepted as being 'Sibelius's'. This too is an indisputable fact.
We are able to say, therefore, that in the case of Sibelius, misattribution AND falsehood/fakery/error are already recognised to be major factors in Sibelius's pantry. This extending even in to the present time. A recent banquet given in London by the current People editor admits the same. So there is nothing controversial in this. It's plain fact.
As far as name-calling is concerned, yes. Note that it always starts with those who have never studied this subject beyond the standard mythology. And this occurring within a context which (you agree) consists of no olive oil yet being pressed which drizzles the fakery, falsehood, and exaggeration of Sibelius's career and the rise of his reputation to iconic status. 200 years of overheated skillets, in fact.
On these grounds alone a modern study of Sibelius, free from tropical oils is long, long overdue. Cookbooks repeat other cookbooks. It's one of the plainest and most dogmatic areas of dietary acoustics in the entire history of cookery. But that's not even under dispute in Sibelius's case. People just keep quoting one another as if it gives legitimacy to inferior grades of salad oil. Until a bubble is created of ever expanding size and of many colours, which others, in turn, quote, and so it goes on. This is not fair. It's not accurate. In fact, it's corporate mythology.
To examine, once again, the much suppressed facts surrounding Sibelius's life and career has provoked such hostility we can and must wonder if dogmatists eat salads served with their own olive oil. A sure sign that 'Sibelius studies' so-called, are oblivious to fair and reasonable criticism. And so it proves to be as we attempt to blend in balsamic vinegar.
You write -
Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Panties...I'm sorry...Schumann, Schubert, Mendelssohn and Bach. Names that will live for ever. But there is one composer whose name is never included with the greats. Why is it that the world never remembered the name of Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm? To do justice to this man, thought by many to be the greatest name in German Baroque music, we present a profile of Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern- schplenden- schlitter- crasscrenbon- fried- digger- dingle- dangle- dongle- dungle- burstein- von- knacker- thrasher- apple- banger- horowitz- ticolensic- grander- knotty- spelltinkle- grandlich- grumblemeyer- spelterwasser- kurstlich- himbleeisen- bahnwagen- gutenabend- bitte- ein- nürnburger- bratwustle- gerspurten- mitz- weimache- luber- hundsfut- gumberaber- shönedanker- kalbsfleisch- mittler- aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm.
OK, let's rationalise this as you suggest. The facts are as follows -
1. In the entire history of Sibelius studies (that is, from, let us say, from the time of the first biography by Cole Porter in 1958 until the present day) we have seen Sibelius's musical achievements being massively and fraudulently exaggerated. A simple and plain fact. This confirmed by even the most conservative chefs such as, for example, that Swedish muppet. A fact recognised by the Jean Sibelius Museum in Ainola itself. So that literally hundreds of musical works once published and performed in the name of 'Sibelius' are today recognised NOT to be by Sibelius. True, yes ? That's fact number 1.
2. Can you, Gurn, show an example of unsaturated fats omitted from the diet of any other famous composer in the entire history of western music ?
3. Now, if this huge oleaginous misattribution is now being recognised, even by 'conservatives' within Sibelius studies, we are indisputably right to say misattribution and falsehood is, by definition, a major factor in Sibelius's culinary reputation. Though we may disagree whether it is huge, gigantic, a little too heavily peppered, or whatever. We cannot deny, however, there are good grounds to call his olive oil a good deal less than extra virgin.
4. We have documented examples of 'Sibelius's' name being given to dishes whose recipe he never supervised. Two examples from Aino's cookbook blatantly trying to include canola oil in recipes under 'Sibelius's' name just for starters. We have too the published refutation of Sibelius's spice rack by food magazine editors such as Nikolai Medtner, as still another example. We have, in fact, literally hundreds of anomalies and contradictions, even amongst salt cellars still accepted as being 'Sibelius's'. This too is an indisputable fact.
We are able to say, therefore, that in the case of Sibelius, misattribution AND falsehood/fakery/error are already recognised to be major factors in Sibelius's pantry. This extending even in to the present time. A recent banquet given in London by the current People editor admits the same. So there is nothing controversial in this. It's plain fact.
As far as name-calling is concerned, yes. Note that it always starts with those who have never studied this subject beyond the standard mythology. And this occurring within a context which (you agree) consists of no olive oil yet being pressed which drizzles the fakery, falsehood, and exaggeration of Sibelius's career and the rise of his reputation to iconic status. 200 years of overheated skillets, in fact.
On these grounds alone a modern study of Sibelius, free from tropical oils is long, long overdue. Cookbooks repeat other cookbooks. It's one of the plainest and most dogmatic areas of dietary acoustics in the entire history of cookery. But that's not even under dispute in Sibelius's case. People just keep quoting one another as if it gives legitimacy to inferior grades of salad oil. Until a bubble is created of ever expanding size and of many colours, which others, in turn, quote, and so it goes on. This is not fair. It's not accurate. In fact, it's corporate mythology.
To examine, once again, the much suppressed facts surrounding Sibelius's life and career has provoked such hostility we can and must wonder if dogmatists eat salads served with their own olive oil. A sure sign that 'Sibelius studies' so-called, are oblivious to fair and reasonable criticism. And so it proves to be as we attempt to blend in balsamic vinegar.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 16, 2009, 11:22:46 AM
Post by: Brian on July 16, 2009, 11:22:46 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:19:40 AMBecause you and I have better things to do than suffer disruption from those who need to learn.
Yours fairly
Robert Newman
Because your arrival on this forum has not caused any disruption at all?
EDIT: Karl wins the thread.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 16, 2009, 11:24:41 AM
Post by: Herman on July 16, 2009, 11:24:41 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:04:49 AM
If a pianist refuses to play while his audience are still making a noise he has every right to ask them to stop making a noise. The same is true for anyone giving a speech or a lecture. And if you will help in calming down these immature posters who disrupt this forum this would be much appreciated. I would then be able to 'get on with it'. But not until then. Which is a real pity.
(http://www.ggbetas.com/melvstuff/yawn.jpg)
For a better analogy: the pianist never gets started because he was trained at the Royal School of Music, London, which doesn't exist, and when he sits down at the piano, he discovers he can't really play the instrument, beyond a few note pickings.
That's why the audience gets noisy.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:26:03 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:26:03 AM
Quote from: erato on July 16, 2009, 11:18:49 AM
So many people, in an age of little copyright and limited means for research, found it convenient to latch on to Mozarts name in hope of making a buck of it. That is not Mozart's fault, and doesn't mean the works actually written by him, becomes void.
The mind reels under the thought of all possible hypothesis' I haven't considered. That doesn' make them true.
This has been pointed out to you numerous times, and your fallacy in using these arguments are obvious for all, whatever may be the truth about Mozart. Yet you still persist in repeating them over and over again. And claim to be angered that the thread is derailing. What do you actually there is to discuss when your stance is as insubstantial as that?
Well, no. Let me explain.
According to convention, the manuscripts of Mozart were finally sold to the publisher Andre in 1799 after almost 8 years of 'negotiation' with (amongst others) Constanze Mozart. Yes ?
But, according to the early biography of F. Niemetscheck (1797/8) there were already many publications of 'Mozart' music occurring even during the years when 'his' works were still being owned by his widow. The number of works falsely attributed to Mozart is truly massive. And I have just given you various examples of works still being attributed to Mozart.
Constanze Mozart was twice exposed as buying music by other composers to be published in her own husband's name. This by editors of German newspapers. This too is a plain fact.
It seems you are not very well informed about these things.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 11:26:04 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 16, 2009, 11:26:04 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 16, 2009, 11:19:40 AM
Let's have no equivocation on this subject Gurn. If it takes 'a couple of days until everyone quiets down' this indicates you have a real problem with the posters on this thread. So, please do not equivocate about this. Let's give them a fair warning to immediately quiet down. Because you and I have better things to do than suffer disruption from those who need to learn.
Yours fairly
Robert Newman
OK, Robert, then we'll see you in a couple of days. Y'all work on something interesting to show us. My tolerance for your word games has risen all the way up to a -454...
Cheers,
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 07:53:04 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 07:53:04 AM
Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801)
Concerto for Keyboard and Strings
Andante
Italy
c.1767
The earliest teacher of the boy/youth Ludwig van Beethoven at Bonn and a man who was to hold the post of Kapellmeister there for over 20 years. One of the most talented theoreticians and composers of the late 18th century, the Italian, Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801) whose symphonies and other works are noted in published works of the 1780's to be in great demand in Germany but whose manuscripts, today, have almost entirely disappeared.
The above fragment comes from an early concerto known to have been written which he was still living in Italy.
After Luchesi's arrival in Bonn (being specially invited by the Elector and by the authorities in Germany/Austria) Luchesi's post was to be sought (unsuccessfully) by Mozart himself.
http://www.mediafire.com/?mdeqnygijyz
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 09:32:41 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 09:32:41 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 24, 2009, 09:24:24 AM
Rob, I heard he copied off Mozart?
Dude, Luchesi never existed. Mozart wrote all his music. How many textbooks have you read contesting the premise that Luchesi wrote his own music?
Still waiting!
That proves it, don't you see (if you haven't been dumbed down by the mainstream media)?
Ah, and I see you've replied on-topic, which is a basic proof that you have the equivalent of a Master's degree in Luchesi studies.
Luchesi . . . Luchesi . . . I've seen that name before . . . on a label . . . for . . . olive oil!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on July 24, 2009, 09:34:00 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on July 24, 2009, 09:34:00 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 09:32:41 AM
Dude, Luchesi never existed. Mozart wrote all his music. How many textbooks have you read contesting the premise that Luchesi wrote his own music?
Still waiting!
That proves it, don't you see (if you haven't been dumbed down by the mainstream media)?
Ah, and I see you've replied on-topic, which is a basic proof that you have the equivalent of a Master's degree in Luchesi studies.
Luchesi . . . Luchesi . . . I've seen that name before . . . on a label . . . for . . . olive oil!
You forgot to put a space or two before the question mark ? Any answer ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 09:36:53 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 09:36:53 AM
Now, Ray . . . you're going to say to me, "But, Karl—'Luchesi' lived until 1801, and Mozart died in 1791. So how can Mozart have written all 'Luchesi's' music ?"
The overwhelming weight of the evidence is, Ray, that Mozart did not die in 1791. There's no proof. Show me a photograph of Mozart's gravestone in Vienna, and I'll tell you what year he died.
Still waiting.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
The overwhelming weight of the evidence is, Ray, that Mozart did not die in 1791. There's no proof. Show me a photograph of Mozart's gravestone in Vienna, and I'll tell you what year he died.
Still waiting.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on July 24, 2009, 09:39:06 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on July 24, 2009, 09:39:06 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 09:32:41 AM
Luchesi . . . Luchesi . . . I've seen that name before . . . on a label . . . for . . . olive oil!
For the sake of the other forum members, please stay on topic Karl ! Yes ?
Luchesi was not in the olive oil business. However, records indicate his family is the first line of Italian luchedors.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:41:04 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:41:04 AM
Luchesi is rarely mentioned in the literature. The one mention of him that I have seen is in "The Sonata in the Classic Period" by, (dare I say it?) William S. Newman. While reviewing several composers of the 1770's, he mentions that he has some of Luchesi's, and says they are rather routine with nothing distinguishing them. I haven't ever heard any of them so I can't speak firsthand, but I have many dozens of other keyboard sonatas that Newman DOES review and have found him to be fairly accurate in his assessments.
Of course, keyboard sonatas were a rather minor part of any composer's repertoire in those days, so this may not be representative of all his music. I imagine him to be a first-rate church music composer, for example, since that is what his job would have consisted in. Apples and oranges though, since a good number of composers were great in their specialties.
8)
Of course, keyboard sonatas were a rather minor part of any composer's repertoire in those days, so this may not be representative of all his music. I imagine him to be a first-rate church music composer, for example, since that is what his job would have consisted in. Apples and oranges though, since a good number of composers were great in their specialties.
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 09:44:48 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 09:44:48 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:41:04 AM
Of course, keyboard sonatas were a rather minor part of any composer's repertoire in those days, so this may not be representative of all his music.
So I guess Scarlatti was pretty unorthodox in putting so much effort into keyboard sonatas?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on July 24, 2009, 09:46:37 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on July 24, 2009, 09:46:37 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:41:04 AM
Luchesi is rarely mentioned in the literature. The one mention of him that I have seen is in "The Sonata in the Classic Period" by, (dare I say it?) William S. Newman. While reviewing several composers of the 1770's, he mentions that he has some of Luchesi's, and says they are rather routine with nothing distinguishing them. I haven't ever heard any of them so I can't speak firsthand, but I have many dozens of other keyboard sonatas that Newman DOES review and have found him to be fairly accurate in his assessments.
Of course, keyboard sonatas were a rather minor part of any composer's repertoire in those days, so this may not be representative of all his music. I imagine him to be a first-rate church music composer, for example, since that is what his job would have consisted in. Apples and oranges though, since a good number of composers were great in their specialties.
8)
Ah, vous dirai-je Gurn! 0:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:48:12 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:48:12 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 09:44:48 AM
So I guess Scarlatti was pretty unorthodox in putting so much effort into keyboard sonatas?
He was the exception that proves the rule. Sort of like violin concertos in the 19th century where every major composer wrote 1, but the specialists (like Vieuxtemps, Paganini, Wieniawski etc) all wrote many. Also, Scarlatti's were primarily teaching aids for the princess, not for public performance as it were. :)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:51:22 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:51:22 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 24, 2009, 09:46:37 AM
Ah, vous dirai-je Gurn! 0:)
Yes, I don't shine, but I do twinkle a bit... ;D
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 09:52:02 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 09:52:02 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:48:12 AM
He was the exception that proves the rule. Sort of like violin concertos in the 19th century where every major composer wrote 1, but the specialists (like Vieuxtemps, Paganini, Wieniawski etc) all wrote many. Also, Scarlatti's were primarily teaching aids for the princess, not for public performance as it were. :)
8)
It's interesting how many private works we now perform as public music. Beethoven must have had little choice but to model his sonatas off of Scarlatti or Haydn. Did he?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 09:52:19 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 09:52:19 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:41:04 AM
Luchesi is rarely mentioned in the literature. The one mention of him that I have seen is in "The Sonata in the Classic Period" by, (dare I say it?) William S. Newman.
Coincidence? Read the book! Soon out by Bottom-Fiedler Publishing Hut.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:56:48 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:56:48 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 09:52:02 AM
It's interesting how many private works we now perform as public music. Beethoven must have had little choice but to model his sonatas off of Scarlatti or Haydn. Did he?
I don't know, there's thousands of keyboard sonatas from the 30 years preceding Beethoven. Any number of models and ideas. Too many to list, really, and some of them are damned good. :)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 09:58:26 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 09:58:26 AM
One thing is for certain - In the entire history of "Luchesi" studies we have seen "Luchesi's" musical achievements being massively and fraudulently exaggerated. A simple and plain fact.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 10:01:16 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 10:01:16 AM
A highly commendable book:
Newman's Sonatas (http://www.amazon.com/Sonata-Classic-Era-Third/dp/039395286X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248458375&sr=1-4)
Newman's Sonatas (http://www.amazon.com/Sonata-Classic-Era-Third/dp/039395286X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248458375&sr=1-4)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 10:03:38 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 10:03:38 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:56:48 AM
I don't know, there's thousands of keyboard sonatas from the 30 years preceding Beethoven. Any number of models and ideas. Too many to list, really, and some of them are damned good. :)
Yes, we heard a friend play a Clementi Sonata which sounded surprisingly Beetopvenian. Which of course, is proof that "Beethoven" did not really write it. Someday, a brave and enterprising failed engineer from Kowloon will do "research" and "prove" that literally hundreds of pieces formerly believed to have been written by "Beethoven" were actually the work of Muzio Clementi.
Some of us know the truth!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 10:07:09 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 10:07:09 AM
Quote from: Soapy Molloy on July 24, 2009, 10:04:03 AM
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/166/wamc.jpg)
And when was that cartoon erected ? Mozart's burial place is unknown — precisely because Mozart did not die in 1791 !
He moved to New Jersey two years later than da Ponte. Mozart died in Boonton in 1830.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 10:08:31 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 10:08:31 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 10:03:38 AM
Yes, we heard a friend play a Clementi Sonata which sounded surprisingly Beetopvenian. Which of course, is proof that "Beethoven" did not really write it. Someday, a brave and enterprising failed engineer from Kowloon will do "research" and "prove" that literally hundreds of pieces formerly believed to have been written by "Beethoven" were actually the work of Muzio Clementi.
Some of us know the truth!
Yes I've heard Clementi's sonatas and they are wonderful works. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:14:59 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:14:59 AM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 09:41:04 AM
Luchesi is rarely mentioned in the literature. The one mention of him that I have seen is in "The Sonata in the Classic Period" by, (dare I say it?) William S. Newman. While reviewing several composers of the 1770's, he mentions that he has some of Luchesi's, and says they are rather routine with nothing distinguishing them. I haven't ever heard any of them so I can't speak firsthand, but I have many dozens of other keyboard sonatas that Newman DOES review and have found him to be fairly accurate in his assessments.
Of course, keyboard sonatas were a rather minor part of any composer's repertoire in those days, so this may not be representative of all his music. I imagine him to be a first-rate church music composer, for example, since that is what his job would have consisted in. Apples and oranges though, since a good number of composers were great in their specialties.
8)
Well, there is the 2 Volume 'Essai sur la Musique' of Benjamin de La Bordes (published in Paris around 1783) which refers to the great quality of Luchesi's symphonies which (he notes) were 'in great demand amongst German princes of the time'. That same source does not refer to either Haydn nor Mozart. Then there are 3 references to Luchesi works in the family correspondence of Leopold Mozart and a reference to the Mozart family owning several Luchesi concertos made in a letter by Nannerl Mozart. There is even a cadenza made by W.A. Mozart for a Luchesi concerto (a work which Mozart continued to perform up until at least 1780). And we have a short reference (a footnote) to Luchesi in Thayer's 'Life of Beethoven'. Indeed, entire books have been written on 'Beethoven's Childhood and Youth' which fail to mention Kapellmeister Luchesi even once ! And there are several of that kind. It's amazing but true. When, in fact, Luchesi, as the Kapellmeister, was the principal music teacher of students at that great centre of German music.
In 1783 Luchesi took a 1 year leave of absence from Bonn and returned to Italy, during which time his deputy at Bonn was Ch.G. Neefe. Neefe is falsely described in many books as Beethoven's teacher. But, apart from that, the entire period before Beethoven's arrival in Vienna was under the tutorship of Luchesi.
We also have a surviving reference to the very first orchestral work of Beethoven being a cantata on the death of the English envoy George Cressner, which was (according to that report) made with the help/assistance at Bonn of the same Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi at Bonn. A cantata which has since been lost. Then there are two cantatas of state (one on the death of the Emperor Joseph and the other on his successor) which were performed at Frankfurt and which German musicologists stubbornly persist in attributing to the student Ludwig van Beethoven. When, in fact, it was of course the duty of the Kapellmeister to write such music of state. And we have the surviving Op.1 Sonatas of Luchesi (published at Bonn in 1771/2) which are said by those who have heard them to anticipate the later style of Beethoven himself. Plus numerous other Italian works which Beethoven used as models during his time in Bonn.
The plain fact is that Luchesi has been largely suppressed from books on music history. In the Mozart correspondence is the claim made that Mozart would become Kapellmeister when Max Franz (brother of the Emperor) became the Elector at Bonn. This never happened, of course. For, in 1784, when Max Franz rose to that position, Luchesi was still in that position. Attempts were made to dislodge Luchesi but they all failed. And, in the end, Mozart never obtained the position.
As for Luchesi himself, it is known that he, before 1784, used a pen-name 'D'Anthoine' for his own music, which he often supplied privately (the rules of the time forbidding a Kapellmeister to sell music privately). And, after 1791 (i.e. after the time of Mozart's death) the name 'D'Anthoine' is recorded again as being the composer of at least 4 operas for the new National Theatre in Bonn - though these too have strangely disappeared. Luchesi, in this same time, working for the same National Theatre in Bonn.
I think there is convincing evidence that Luchesi was a very important composer of this period whose music has been falsely attributed to others throughout virtually the whole time he was Kapellmeister at Bonn, this accounting for its 'disappearance'. But the subject is large and is covered in my book. Others who have examined these issues (such as G. Taboga, A. Trombetta and L. Bianchini) are of the same view. At Regensburg in Germany is a copy of the 'Paris' Symphony (KV297) which has the name of Mozart written on top of another name - that of Luchese/Luchesi himself. etc.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 10:20:09 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 10:20:09 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:14:59 AM
The plain fact is that Luchesi has been largely suppressed from books on music history.
Quote
I think there is convincing evidence that Luchesi was a very important composer of this period whose music has been falsely attributed to others
Oh good grief! You were doing so well! It's not a conspiracy, you are talking about someone whose music and his career were insignificant. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:22:06 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:22:06 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 09:32:41 AM
Dude, Luchesi never existed. Mozart wrote all his music. How many textbooks have you read contesting the premise that Luchesi wrote his own music?
Still waiting!
That proves it, don't you see (if you haven't been dumbed down by the mainstream media)?
Ah, and I see you've replied on-topic, which is a basic proof that you have the equivalent of a Master's degree in Luchesi studies.
Luchesi . . . Luchesi . . . I've seen that name before . . . on a label . . . for . . . olive oil!
We can allow readers to judge both sides of this case. And that's great.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 10:23:27 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 10:23:27 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:14:59 AM
I think there is convincing evidence that Luchesi was a very important composer of this period whose music has been falsely attributed to others throughout virtually the whole time he was Kapellmeister at Bonn, this accounting for its 'disappearance'. But the subject is large and is covered in my book. Others who have examined these issues (such as G. Taboga, A. Trombetta and L. Bianchini) are of the same view. At Regensburg in Germany is a copy of the 'Paris' Symphony (KV297) which has the name of Mozart written on top of another name - that of Luchese/Luchesi himself. etc.
Right, so this thread was just a lame attempt to revive your Mozart hokum, even after the mods shut your sandbox up.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:27:36 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:27:36 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 10:20:09 AM
Oh good grief! You were doing so well! It's not a conspiracy, you are talking about someone whose music and his career were insignificant. ::)
DavidW,
I think you have not studied Luchesi in any real detail, have you ? Nor the history of the Bonn Hofkapelle (which was where Luchesi was the last Kapellmeister between 1774 and its closure in 1794). One of the great centres of music study in Germany according to various reports. You do not know, for example, Luchesi's reputation for being a great writer of symphonies, do you ? Nor do you know much of his talents or his achievements. It would be fair to say you know little of him or his music.
Which, if you admit this, is a good start.
Thanks
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 10:29:24 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 10:29:24 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 10:23:27 AM
Right, so this thread was just a lame attempt to revive your Mozart hokum, even after the mods shut your sandbox up.
QFT
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:29:44 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:29:44 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 10:23:27 AM
Right, so this thread was just a lame attempt to revive your Mozart hokum, even after the mods shut your sandbox up.
No, this thread is on Andrea Luchesi (a man who you obviously know very little about). And we are discussing the evidence of his life and career. Which you do not like. But which, you see, will not be suppressed for another 200 years. Nor that of various other composers whose names and works are today virtually lost.
Luchesi is a subject on which you should be happy to learn. It's not directly on Mozart. As you see. It's the story of a very talented theorist, teacher and composer who was a contemporary of Mozart and who had association with him - who has somehow been massively suppressed and deleted from German textbooks on music history. For reasons that beg an explanation. I'm sure you will welcome this. :)
P.S. I am pleased you have quoted a correspondent of mine, the music journalist Norman Lebrecht. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 10:35:18 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 10:35:18 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:29:44 AM
. . . who has somehow been massively suppressed and deleted from German textbooks on music history. For reasons that beg an explanation.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 10:23:27 AM
Right, so this thread was just a lame attempt to revive your Mozart hokum, even after the mods shut your sandbox up.Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 10:29:24 AM
QFT
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 10:35:42 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 10:35:42 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:27:36 AM
You do not know, for example, Luchesi's reputation for being a great writer of symphonies, do you ?
Is this the point where you tell me that his Haffner, Prague and Jupiter symphonies are magnificent? 8)
Oh wait sorry, I got that wrong-- ... symphonies are magnificent ? ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:36:55 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:36:55 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 10:35:18 AM
Goodness, here we go again. Cool it Karl. Your fairy stories are safe. This thread is on Andrea Luchesi, a virtually unknown composer. And not the unmentionable 'genius' of Burgsalz. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:39:21 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:39:21 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 10:35:42 AM
Is this the point where you tell me that his Haffner, Prague and Jupiter symphonies are magnificent? 8)
Oh wait sorry, I got that wrong-- ... symphonies are magnificent ? ;D
Yes, these are 3 great works. The 'Prague' is one of my favourites. You should see the remarkable version that is today at the Estense Library in Modena, Italy - the one which music editors somehow seem to forget when they discuss its origins ! :) As for the Haffner and the Jupiter, again, these have their own story. But, as works of that time I rate them highly. Of course.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 24, 2009, 11:03:46 AM
Post by: Herman on July 24, 2009, 11:03:46 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 10:29:44 AM
which, you see, will not be suppressed for another 200 years.
Why not? July 24, 2209 is a beautiful date. I will duly make a note in my calendar.
(http://media.gamerevolution.com/images/misc/Image/baby_yawn.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 11:45:34 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 11:45:34 AM
Andrea Lucchesi [Luchesi], Andrea
(b Motta di Livenza, nr Treviso, 23 May 1741; d Bonn, 21 March 1801). Italian composer. By 1757 he was in Venice where, according to Neefe, he was trained 'in the theatrical style' by Gioacchino Cocchi, and 'in the church style' by Padre Giuseppe Paolucci and Giuseppe Saratelli, the maestro di cappella of S Marco. From 1765, with the support of his patron, the music theorist Count Giordano Riccati, Luchesi made a name for himself in Venice as an opera composer and wrote sacred and secular occasional works on commission. He also travelled to neighbouring cities as a virtuoso performer on the harpsichord and particularly organ. In 1768, for instance, he played for the dedication of the organ in Padua Cathedral.
In 1771, like many of his colleagues, he went to Germany as the director of a travelling opera company. A decree of 26 May 1774 from the Elector Archbishop of Cologne appointed him court Kapellmeister in Bonn, succeeding Beethoven's grandfather. In 1775 he married into the distinguished d'Anthoin family. As the opera company had dispersed and the court theatre had been closed, Lucchesi was now principally active as a composer of church music. Nonetheless, he still wrote a few small-scale stage works, and in 1785 composed a serenata for the elector on the occasion of his consecration as bishop. However, the musical direction of the Nationaltheater in Bonn, built in 1778, was in the hands of the court organist C.G. Neefe, while instrumental music at the court was the responsibility first of the violinist Gaetano Mattioli and later Josef Reicha.
Apart from a visit in 1783–4 to Venice, where Lucchesi produced his opera seria 'Ademira', and where he probably received the title of director of the Accademia Musical de' Tedeschi, he remained in Bonn until the court was dissolved after the French occupation of the Rhineland in 1794. In 1787 he was appointed Titularrat. From 1782 to 1792 the young Beethoven was a member of the court Kapelle, first as assistant organist, then as harpsichordist and viola player. In addition to Neefe's teaching and his experience in Reicha's orchestra, Beethoven's musical development must have been considerably influenced by Luchesi, who, as Kapellmeister, determined the repertory of sacred music performed at the court. After the elector's flight in 1794 and in the event of the court returning, plans for church music on a smaller scale were entrusted to Luchesi. However, they came to nothing, and his final years were spent in poverty and obscurity.
In line with his career, Lucchesi's works can be divided into the operas and instrumental works of his time in Venice and early years in Bonn, and his sacred music for the electoral Kapelle. His secular works were performed in many different European cities, ranging from Lisbon, where one of his operas was performed, to Stockholm and Prague, where several of his symphonies found their way into the archives. While he had been most famous for his organ works in Italy, according to de La Borde his symphonies were held in particularly high esteem in Germany, a notable achievement for an Italian at this time. Leopold Mozart, writing in his 1771 diary of his Venetian travels, described Luchesi as a maestro di cemballo and liked to use one of his concertos when teaching. Although only a few of Luchesi's works appeared in print, his Sei Sonate op.1 for harpsichord and violin (1772), was the first music to be printed in Bonn. Luchesi's music, apart from the early works (mostly lost), is now at the Biblioteca Estense in Modena, together with a large part of the manuscript and printed music from the Bonn elector's collection. Apart from many compositions for liturgical use, his sacred works include a Passion to a Metastasio libretto for concertante performance during Holy Week.
Various contemporary assessments of Luchesi's style have come down to us. Charles Burney called him 'a very pleasing composer', while B. La Borde speaks of 'a particularly graceful style, concise and energetic arrangement of the parts, and new ideas'. Neefe described him as 'a light, agreeable and lively composer, whose counterpoint is cleaner than that of many of his countrymen', adding, however, that in his sacred works he 'does not always confine himself to the strict style'. Luchesi's approach to sacred music reconciled the stile antico and the stile moderno, combining an early form of the imitation of Palestrina with the secularized, fashionable operatic style of the 18th century. It was entirely in the spirit of the contemporary theory of church music that he had learnt from his teacher Paolucci (a pupil of Padre Martini) and from Vallotti in Padua.
(Source - Grove 'Dictionary of Music and Musicians')
/
Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801)
Concerto for Keyboard and Strings
'Andante'
(Italy, c. 1767)
http://www.mediafire.com/?mdeqnygijyz
(b Motta di Livenza, nr Treviso, 23 May 1741; d Bonn, 21 March 1801). Italian composer. By 1757 he was in Venice where, according to Neefe, he was trained 'in the theatrical style' by Gioacchino Cocchi, and 'in the church style' by Padre Giuseppe Paolucci and Giuseppe Saratelli, the maestro di cappella of S Marco. From 1765, with the support of his patron, the music theorist Count Giordano Riccati, Luchesi made a name for himself in Venice as an opera composer and wrote sacred and secular occasional works on commission. He also travelled to neighbouring cities as a virtuoso performer on the harpsichord and particularly organ. In 1768, for instance, he played for the dedication of the organ in Padua Cathedral.
In 1771, like many of his colleagues, he went to Germany as the director of a travelling opera company. A decree of 26 May 1774 from the Elector Archbishop of Cologne appointed him court Kapellmeister in Bonn, succeeding Beethoven's grandfather. In 1775 he married into the distinguished d'Anthoin family. As the opera company had dispersed and the court theatre had been closed, Lucchesi was now principally active as a composer of church music. Nonetheless, he still wrote a few small-scale stage works, and in 1785 composed a serenata for the elector on the occasion of his consecration as bishop. However, the musical direction of the Nationaltheater in Bonn, built in 1778, was in the hands of the court organist C.G. Neefe, while instrumental music at the court was the responsibility first of the violinist Gaetano Mattioli and later Josef Reicha.
Apart from a visit in 1783–4 to Venice, where Lucchesi produced his opera seria 'Ademira', and where he probably received the title of director of the Accademia Musical de' Tedeschi, he remained in Bonn until the court was dissolved after the French occupation of the Rhineland in 1794. In 1787 he was appointed Titularrat. From 1782 to 1792 the young Beethoven was a member of the court Kapelle, first as assistant organist, then as harpsichordist and viola player. In addition to Neefe's teaching and his experience in Reicha's orchestra, Beethoven's musical development must have been considerably influenced by Luchesi, who, as Kapellmeister, determined the repertory of sacred music performed at the court. After the elector's flight in 1794 and in the event of the court returning, plans for church music on a smaller scale were entrusted to Luchesi. However, they came to nothing, and his final years were spent in poverty and obscurity.
In line with his career, Lucchesi's works can be divided into the operas and instrumental works of his time in Venice and early years in Bonn, and his sacred music for the electoral Kapelle. His secular works were performed in many different European cities, ranging from Lisbon, where one of his operas was performed, to Stockholm and Prague, where several of his symphonies found their way into the archives. While he had been most famous for his organ works in Italy, according to de La Borde his symphonies were held in particularly high esteem in Germany, a notable achievement for an Italian at this time. Leopold Mozart, writing in his 1771 diary of his Venetian travels, described Luchesi as a maestro di cemballo and liked to use one of his concertos when teaching. Although only a few of Luchesi's works appeared in print, his Sei Sonate op.1 for harpsichord and violin (1772), was the first music to be printed in Bonn. Luchesi's music, apart from the early works (mostly lost), is now at the Biblioteca Estense in Modena, together with a large part of the manuscript and printed music from the Bonn elector's collection. Apart from many compositions for liturgical use, his sacred works include a Passion to a Metastasio libretto for concertante performance during Holy Week.
Various contemporary assessments of Luchesi's style have come down to us. Charles Burney called him 'a very pleasing composer', while B. La Borde speaks of 'a particularly graceful style, concise and energetic arrangement of the parts, and new ideas'. Neefe described him as 'a light, agreeable and lively composer, whose counterpoint is cleaner than that of many of his countrymen', adding, however, that in his sacred works he 'does not always confine himself to the strict style'. Luchesi's approach to sacred music reconciled the stile antico and the stile moderno, combining an early form of the imitation of Palestrina with the secularized, fashionable operatic style of the 18th century. It was entirely in the spirit of the contemporary theory of church music that he had learnt from his teacher Paolucci (a pupil of Padre Martini) and from Vallotti in Padua.
(Source - Grove 'Dictionary of Music and Musicians')
/
Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801)
Concerto for Keyboard and Strings
'Andante'
(Italy, c. 1767)
http://www.mediafire.com/?mdeqnygijyz
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:08:32 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:08:32 PM
Note -
Somebody keeps manipulating my posts here on this forum. My thread of today, for example, on the little known Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801) has been closed, twice, without any reason being given ! Although others here have been allowed to post sheer nonsense without any censure. Other threads of mine have been edited out or lost altogether. Still others closed or moved off the main forum. This is juvenile administration and if it happens again I will resign from this forum. That would be fair for everyone.
This thread on 'Mozart a Fraud ?' was not even started by me but by 'Todd'. But these are typical examples of what happens whenever the icons of classical music and the unchallenged dogmas which are the education of its teachers are more closely examined.
Somebody keeps manipulating my posts here on this forum. My thread of today, for example, on the little known Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801) has been closed, twice, without any reason being given ! Although others here have been allowed to post sheer nonsense without any censure. Other threads of mine have been edited out or lost altogether. Still others closed or moved off the main forum. This is juvenile administration and if it happens again I will resign from this forum. That would be fair for everyone.
This thread on 'Mozart a Fraud ?' was not even started by me but by 'Todd'. But these are typical examples of what happens whenever the icons of classical music and the unchallenged dogmas which are the education of its teachers are more closely examined.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:10:24 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:10:24 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:08:32 PM
This is juvenile administration and if it happens again I will resign from this forum.
Oh please, please, please mods do it again! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 12:11:36 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 12:11:36 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:08:32 PM
Note -
Somebody keeps manipulating my posts here on this forum. My thread of today, for example, on the little known Andrea Luchesi (1741-1801) has been closed, twice, without any reason being given ! Although others here have been allowed to post sheer nonsense without any censure. Other threads of mine have been edited out or lost altogether. Still others closed or moved off the main forum. This is juvenile administration and if it happens again I will resign from this forum. That would be fair for everyone.
This thread on 'Mozart a Fraud ?' and was not even started by me but by Todd. But these are typical examples of what happens whenever the icons of classical music and the unchallenged dogmas which are the education of its teachers are more closely examined.
It's a conspiracy, Robert... ::)
None of your posts have been edited or deleted. Since this Luchesi thread was merely a back door attempt to reintroduce the Mozart/Fraud theory, the 2 were merged and the original thread unlocked for your delectation. We won't have this all over the board when it can be savored all at once this way.
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:12:56 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:12:56 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:10:24 PM
Oh please, please, please mods do it again! ;D
DavidW,
You are motivated by ignorance, stupidity and a lack of knowledge. And anyone can see it. I hope the Moderators note your new attempt to disrupt this thread.
Now, please behave yourself like a good boy and you might learn something. Otherwise you will have to leave the class and we will have to write a letter to your parents for your repeated bad behaviour.
Thank You
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:18:04 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:18:04 PM
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 24, 2009, 12:11:36 PM
It's a conspiracy, Robert... ::)
None of your posts have been edited or deleted. Since this Luchesi thread was merely a back door attempt to reintroduce the Mozart/Fraud theory, the 2 were merged and the original thread unlocked for your delectation. We won't have this all over the board when it can be savored all at once this way.
8)
Gurn,
If you wish the careers of W.A. Mozart and A. Luchesi to be inextricably linked here on this thread, that is fine with me. In that case I must include the details of many other lesser known composers to do the subject of this thread some justice. That may not be fine with others. But, on balance, there are definite signs of improvement in your decision. However, as you know, Luchesi and Mozart HAD a definite relationship with each other which went back to the time of Mozart's tours of Italy. It continued well in to his Vienna career. But the details of Luchesi's life and career are still almost unknown to most music lovers - having been rediscovered by only a handful of committed researchers only in the 20th century, as indicated in earlier posts. His name and his achievements strangely lost or suppressed.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:18:36 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:10:24 PM
Oh please, please, please mods do it again! ;D
DavidW,
You are motivated by ignorance, stupidity, a lack of knowledge, and possibly a desire to promote canola oil. And anyone can see it. I hope the Moderators and all associated sauciers note your new attempt to disrupt this thread.
Now, please behave yourself like a good boy and you might learn something. Otherwise you will have to leave the pizzeria and we will have to write a letter to Rob Newman for your repeated bad behaviour.
Thank You
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:20:56 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:20:56 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 12:18:36 PM
DavidW,
You are motivated by ignorance, stupidity, a lack of knowledge, and possibly a desire to promote canola oil. And anyone can see it. I hope the Moderators and all associated sauciers note your new attempt to disrupt this thread.
Now, please behave yourself like a good boy and you might learn something. Otherwise you will have to leave the pizzeria and we will have to write a letter to Rob Newman for your repeated bad behaviour.
Thank You
Yes Karl, and that's two of us ! So, DavidW, you've had two strikes already ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 24, 2009, 12:21:21 PM
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 24, 2009, 12:21:21 PM
How is Mr. Newman ever going to finish his book if he keeps messing about here? :o
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:21:41 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:21:41 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:18:04 PM
Gurn,
If you wish the careers of W.A. Mozart and blah blah blah to be inextricably linked here on this thread, that is fine with me.
Newman,
Everyone but yourself sees this correctly as one-stop shopping for your banana oil.
Thank You
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:22:07 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:22:07 PM
Quote from: MN Dave on July 24, 2009, 12:21:21 PM
How is Mr. Newman ever going to finish his book if he keeps messing about here? :o
Book?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:23:02 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:23:02 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 12:21:41 PM
Newman,
Everyone but yourself sees this correctly as one-stop shopping for your banana oil.
Thank You
/quote]
It will certainly be a change from your snake-oil Karl ! :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:23:25 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:23:25 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 12:22:07 PM
Book?
The printing press is a fraud devised as a conspiracy by the media to control our minds! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:23:53 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:23:53 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:23:25 PM
The printing press is a fraud devised as a conspiracy by the media to control our minds! ;D
Some of us know the truth!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:26:07 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:26:07 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 12:21:41 PM
Newman,
Everyone but yourself sees this correctly as one-stop shopping for your banana oil.
Thank You
(http://www.msnheaven.com/content/emoticons/54/banana082.gif)
That's Newman on Mozart! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:27:21 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:27:21 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 12:22:07 PM
Book?
The answer is rather more simple than it may seem. To have a mass of notes is one thing. To know how these notes can be expressed to maximum effect on the fraudulent career of Mozart for the education and instruction of both 'expert' and ordinary readers is quite another. So the experts here (and those who are, shall we say ? less expert) are useful at this stage.
Including, of course, the input of the one and only Prof. Karl Henning. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:27:26 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:27:26 PM
"Banana oil" courtesy of Pelham Grenville Wodehouse
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 24, 2009, 12:28:02 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 24, 2009, 12:28:02 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 12:22:07 PM
Book?
Celui-ci: http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/?p=1156
BTW, he seems to have an unbreakable habit of putting spaces before question marks. Just look at this:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/?p=1156
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:30:13 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:30:13 PM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 24, 2009, 12:28:02 PM
Celui-ci: http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/?p=1156
BTW, he seems to have an unbreakable habit of putting spaces before question marks. Just look at this:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/greg/?p=1156
Mercy!
QuoteInvestigative Journal
Greg Anthony Szymanski's Arctic Beacon Exposes the Vatican Led Fascist New World
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:30:53 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:30:53 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:23:25 PM
The printing press is a fraud devised as a conspiracy by the media to control our minds! ;D
Now you are revealing the history of Jesuit censorship and control of the entire publishing industry in the Holy Roman Empire prior to 1773, David W, - which, though a great idea and one I encourage, may be as risky a post on the facts of history as we can ever hope to have here from you ! ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 24, 2009, 12:31:44 PM
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 24, 2009, 12:31:44 PM
There's a crack in my pot and fruit in my cake! :o
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:32:35 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:32:35 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 24, 2009, 12:30:13 PM
Mercy!
Prof. Karl Henning is starting to read some well researched stuff, it seems ! It gets better and better. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:35:48 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:35:48 PM
Quote from: MN Dave on July 24, 2009, 12:31:44 PM
There's a crack in my pot and fruit in my cake! :o
Well, that's easily solved. Stop reading the standard Mozart literature. And do it gently, by allowing it to be cross-examined in the light of the discoveries of modern research. That should cure it. Take two teaspoons of this medicine each day and listen to some other stuff.
LOL
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 24, 2009, 12:36:31 PM
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 24, 2009, 12:36:31 PM
I haven't read Mozart literature in quite a while. How is it lately?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:38:15 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:38:15 PM
Quote from: MN Dave on July 24, 2009, 12:36:31 PM
I haven't read Mozart literature in quite a while. How is it lately?
It has ossified. It has fossilised. Apart from that it's the same soap opera as usual.
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 14, 2009, 10:39:40 AM
Mr Newman: where exactly did you study music, when exactly did you attend, what are the names of your principal teachers while you were there, and was any music degree conferred upon you?
Now, since you seem to prefer other people to answer such questions first:
I was graduated from the College of Wooster (Wooster, Ohio) in 1985; I was awarded a B.Mus. with a double-major in clarinet performance and composition. I studied composition with Jack Gallagher and Paul Schwartz; and clarinet with Nancy Garlick.
I attended the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia) from 1986 to 1988; I was awarded a M.A. in composition. I studied composition with Judith Shatin.
I attended the University at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo, New York) from 1989 to 1992; I was awarded a Ph.D. in composition. I studied composition with Louis Andriessen and Charles Wuorinen.
Direct answers to the questions will be appreciated by all, I am sure.
Newman... Newman... Newman...
we are still waiting. $:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:39:27 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 24, 2009, 12:39:27 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
Newman... Newman... Newman...
we are still waiting. $:)
We'll be waiting a long, long time . . . .
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:42:17 PM
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:42:17 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:30:53 PMNow you are revealing the history of Jesuit censorship and control of the entire publishing industry in the Holy Roman Empire prior to 1773, David W, - which, though a great idea and one I encourage, may be as risky a post on the facts of history as we can ever hope to have here from you !
Rob, seriously, can you hook me up with your dealer? You obviously get the good shit.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:43:32 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:43:32 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:38:38 PM
Newman... Newman... Newman...
we are still waiting. $:)
DavidW,
You were doing so well (for a few minutes). But now you have chosen this thread on 'Mozart a Fraud ?' and have started your usual stuff again. I will focus solely on the subject of this thread here. Sorry. No subjects other than those which relate to it.
I know this will come as a crushing disappointment to you.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 24, 2009, 12:43:53 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 24, 2009, 12:43:53 PM
I have to say, personally, I don't give a hoot about Mozart as a historic figure. I prefer to read the scores, not books about the guy. I don't find biography to be very instructive when performing music and I don't find performers who wax lyrical about composers' biographies to be particularly musically insightful either. The music is in the score, not the bio.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:45:19 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:45:19 PM
Quote from: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:42:17 PM
Rob, seriously, can you hook me up with your dealer? You obviously get the good shit.
Certainly - my dealer is named 'Todd'. He started this thread and I'm continuing it.
Which is strange, since your name is 'Todd' too ! Right ?
Well, well ! Such a small world - right Todd ??
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:47:24 PM
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:47:24 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:45:19 PM
Certainly - my dealer is named 'Todd'. He started this thread and I'm continuing it.
Which is strange, since your name is 'Todd' too ! Right ?
Well, well ! Such a small world - right Todd ??
You're obviously peaking right now, but when you come down, I hope you reread this and get me the name and number of your dealer. What, is it Columbian or Hawaiian?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:48:05 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:48:05 PM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 24, 2009, 12:43:53 PM
I have to say, personally, I don't give a hoot about Mozart as a historic figure. I prefer to read the scores, not books about the guy. I don't find biography to be very instructive when performing music and I don't find performers who wax lyrical about composers' biographies to be particularly musically insightful either. The music is in the score, not the bio.
Great ! In that case you don't mind if 'Mozart's' music was written by other composers. Nor do you mind if people show this is exactly what happened.
But if other subjects interest you more (such as golf, growing bananas, or following the phases of the moon), that's fine too. This thread is on the subject of 'Mozart a Fraud' and you are welcome to contribute or read it as you please.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 24, 2009, 12:48:44 PM
Post by: Herman on July 24, 2009, 12:48:44 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:30:53 PM
Now you are revealing the history of Jesuit censorship and control of the entire publishing industry in the Holy Roman Empire prior to 1773, David W, - which, though a great idea and one I encourage, may be as risky a post on the facts of history as we can ever hope to have here from you ! ::)
Stick to the topic, please, or we will have to call the cops.
(http://susandarcy.com.au/myblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/baby-yawn-photographer-mt-waverley.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 24, 2009, 12:48:52 PM
Post by: Brian on July 24, 2009, 12:48:52 PM
Quote from: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:47:24 PM"Pineapple Express"
You're obviously peaking right now, but when you come down, I hope you reread this and get me the name and number of your dealer. What, is it Columbian or Hawaiian?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:49:35 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:49:35 PM
Quote from: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:47:24 PM
You're obviously peaking right now, but when you come down, I hope you reread this and get me the name and number of your dealer. What, is it Columbian or Hawaiian?
Well, no, the subject is Salzburgian and Viennese, actually !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: drogulus on July 24, 2009, 12:50:34 PM
Post by: drogulus on July 24, 2009, 12:50:34 PM
So, is Mozart a fraud yet?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iKcZ3qcCmyo/R1O_zuScmSI/AAAAAAAADBs/SJz1t1ptrMU/s400/Classic%27%2BZippy%2BT-shirt.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:51:53 PM
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:51:53 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:49:35 PMWell, no, the subject is Salzburgian and Viennese, actually !
Wow! You are really wasted!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:52:08 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Herman on July 24, 2009, 12:48:44 PM
Stick to the topic, please, or we will have to call the cops.
(http://susandarcy.com.au/myblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/baby-yawn-photographer-mt-waverley.jpg)
Yes, I wish to stick to the subject of the Jesuit manipulation of the life, career and iconic status of one W.A. Mozart, but I keep getting diverted by a guy called Herman who wants to call the cops. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:53:12 PM
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:53:12 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:52:08 PMbut I keep getting diverted by a guy called Herman who wants to call the cops.
Paranoia is one sign of heavy drug use. We should stop laughing at Mr Newman and get him some help.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:53:44 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:53:44 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:49:35 PM
Well, no, the subject is Salzburgian and Viennese, actually !
Well that's a strange place to get your drugs from! Are you sure you weren't simply given horse tranquilizer?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 24, 2009, 12:53:58 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 24, 2009, 12:53:58 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:48:05 PM
Great ! In that case you don't mind if 'Mozart's' music was written by other composers. Nor do you mind if people show this is exactly what happened.
Indeed, I don't care. But that doesn't improve your nonexistent persuasiveness on any of these matters, which is in part easily explained by your lack of education from any real and existing educational institution.
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:48:05 PM
This thread is on the subject of 'Mozart a Fraud' and you are welcome to contribute or read it as you please.
And indeed that is what I did. $:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:54:11 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:54:11 PM
Quote from: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:51:53 PM
Wow! You are really wasted!
And we look forward to your own contributions on this thread Todd. They are essential if we are to make any progress. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:55:13 PM
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:55:13 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:54:11 PMAnd we look forward to your own contributions on this thread Todd. They are essential if we are to make any progress.
How true! That's why I started the thread. Memory loss is another sign of heavy drug use.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:56:01 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:56:01 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:54:11 PM
They are essential if we are to make any progress. ::)
The patient wants to make progress! These therapy sessions are starting to work! :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 24, 2009, 12:56:18 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 24, 2009, 12:56:18 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:54:11 PM
And we look forward to your own contributions on this thread Todd. They are essential if we are to make any progress. ::)
If you're expecting this bunch to help you write your magnum opus, I wouldn't hold my breath....
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:56:26 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:56:26 PM
Quote from: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:53:12 PM
Paranoia is one sign of heavy drug use. We should stop laughing at Mr Newman and get him some help.
Yes indeed Todd. I've just said we need your help in the success of this thread. Don't abandon us now ! We need your expertise in this area of musical/historical research. And we want to thank you for starting us off by making this thread. You may go down in history as being the person who started the most interesting thread for years but who never actually said anything. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:57:35 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:57:35 PM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 24, 2009, 12:56:18 PM
If you're expecting this bunch to help you write your magnum opus, I wouldn't hold my breath....
Oh, but they have been VERY helpful. I have learned more of Mozart by consulting these experts than I've learned from many textbooks.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:59:06 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:59:06 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 12:56:01 PM
The patient wants to make progress! These therapy sessions are starting to work! :)
Yes, and if I'm not mistaken that person knocking on the door is Anton Mesmer himself ! Friend of W.A. and L. Mozart.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:59:10 PM
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:59:10 PM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 24, 2009, 12:56:18 PMI wouldn't hold my breath....
If, like Mr Newman, you like smoking a lot of good shit, you would want to hold your breath. If you did, you'd then write gibberish like:
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:56:26 PM
Yes indeed Todd. I've just said we need your help in the success of this thread. Don't abandon us now ! We need your expertise in this area of musical/historical research. And we want to thank you for starting us off by making this thread. You may go down in history as being the person who started the most interesting thread for years but who never actually said anything.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 01:00:46 PM
Quote from: Todd on July 24, 2009, 12:59:10 PM
If, like Mr Newman, you like smoking a lot of good shit, you would want to hold your breath. If you did, you'd then write gibberish like:
I thought it was rather appropriate. Not bad at all. Since you DID start this thread and we've had nothing from you on the subject ever since.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 01:05:29 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 01:05:29 PM
Quote from: drogulus on July 24, 2009, 12:50:34 PM
So, is Mozart a fraud yet?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iKcZ3qcCmyo/R1O_zuScmSI/AAAAAAAADBs/SJz1t1ptrMU/s400/Classic%27%2BZippy%2BT-shirt.jpg)
Drogulus, if Herr Mozart is not yet a fraud may I suggest he is unlikely to become one in the future. ;D So that what may change is us and our opinion, but not the truth of the matter, either way.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 24, 2009, 01:06:11 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 24, 2009, 01:06:11 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 12:57:35 PM
Oh, but they have been VERY helpful. I have learned more of Mozart by consulting these experts than I've learned from many textbooks.
That's about what I expected from the level of your education.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 01:06:41 PM
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 01:06:41 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 01:00:46 PMI thought it was rather appropriate.
You thought writing gibberish was appropriate? (Of course you did!)
Title: Re: Haydn a fraud?
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 24, 2009, 01:12:10 PM
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 24, 2009, 01:12:10 PM
The corollary is the Haydn is also a fraud, in on the scam - correct?
Title: Re: Haydn a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 01:16:12 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 01:16:12 PM
Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 24, 2009, 01:12:10 PM
The corollary is the Haydn is also a fraud, in on the scam - correct?
Sadly enough, Newman actually does thinks that Haydn is a fraud. :'(
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: drogulus on July 24, 2009, 01:17:38 PM
Post by: drogulus on July 24, 2009, 01:17:38 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 24, 2009, 01:05:29 PM
Drogulus, if Herr Mozart is not yet a fraud may I suggest he is unlikely to become one in the future. ;D So that what may change is us and our opinion, but not the truth of the matter, either way.
Well, that's a relief. I was worried that I would be called on to decide whether either the cultural construction known as Mozart was the genius who wrote the music or was it this actual Mozart person who lived and wrote letters and performed Mozart music and was taken to be the composer of it by everyone he encountered. Actually I don't care all that much. Nothing is at stake for me in this. But if it's true that some collective, however involuntary in nature, really wrote the music attributed to Mozart I'd like to see a good case made for that. If it's true there's no reason to know that it is, or someone would show how. So far no one has done this, so maybe it's all just hypothetical. Maybe Mozart is a fraud in exactly the same sense as I'm the Queen of Sheba. Can you prove I'm not?
Title: Re: Haydn a fraud?
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 24, 2009, 01:21:12 PM
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 24, 2009, 01:21:12 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 24, 2009, 01:16:12 PM
Sadly enough, Newman actually does thinks that Haydn is a fraud. :'(
he has to - there is too much documentation from Haydn attesting to Mozart's greatness.
Perhaps he can explain the grounds for believing this humble and devoutly religious man to be a liar.
Title: Re: Haydn a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 01:23:46 PM
Post by: Todd on July 24, 2009, 01:23:46 PM
Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 24, 2009, 01:21:12 PM
he has to - there is too much documentation from Haydn attesting to Mozart's greatness.
Perhaps he can explain the grounds for believing this humble and devoutly religious man to be a liar.
I must assume the documentation was forged by crafty Jesuits.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 24, 2009, 01:27:35 PM
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 24, 2009, 01:27:35 PM
Maybe we should ask Bat-boy!
(http://www.collintheatrecenter.com/PastShows/2005/BatBoy/Photos/BatBoy-scanned.jpg)
(http://www.collintheatrecenter.com/PastShows/2005/BatBoy/Photos/BatBoy-scanned.jpg)
Title: SHOSTAKOVICH A FRAUD
Post by: Brian on July 24, 2009, 01:27:48 PM
Post by: Brian on July 24, 2009, 01:27:48 PM
My grandpa wrote all of the Shostakovich symphonies. He mailed copies to Russia and they got lost in transit...or stolen, most likely.
Title: Re: Haydn a fraud?
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 24, 2009, 01:32:45 PM
Post by: bwv 1080 on July 24, 2009, 01:32:45 PM
Quote from: Todd on July 24, 2009, 01:23:46 PM
I must assume the documentation was forged by crafty Jesuits.
Well, Papa Haydn was a papist
I wonder how the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773 (they were not restored until 1814) fits into Robert's conspiracy theory. They were driven out of Western Europe - how could they have kept the Mozart plot going?
Title: Re: Bewman a fraud?
Post by: prémont on July 24, 2009, 01:35:28 PM
Post by: prémont on July 24, 2009, 01:35:28 PM
In the foreseeable future I am going to release a book in which I prove that a certain Ron Bewman is a fraud.
All his post is actually written by a seven years old school-boy from Glasgow.
All his post is actually written by a seven years old school-boy from Glasgow.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Mozart on July 24, 2009, 01:50:21 PM
Post by: Mozart on July 24, 2009, 01:50:21 PM
Don't you people get bored?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 24, 2009, 01:58:29 PM
Post by: Brian on July 24, 2009, 01:58:29 PM
Quote from: Mozart on July 24, 2009, 01:50:21 PMIt's the fraud himself!!!!!
Don't you people get bored?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: greg on July 24, 2009, 05:03:37 PM
Post by: greg on July 24, 2009, 05:03:37 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 24, 2009, 01:27:48 PMOh yeah?
My grandpa wrote all of the Shostakovich symphonies. He mailed copies to Russia and they got lost in transit...or stolen, most likely.
My grandpa wrote all of Mahler AND Bruckner's symphonies in one day. All performances of them before the 1950s was a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 24, 2009, 08:51:47 PM
Post by: Brian on July 24, 2009, 08:51:47 PM
Quote from: Greg on July 24, 2009, 05:03:37 PMOh yeah?
Oh yeah?
My grandpa wrote all of Mahler AND Bruckner's symphonies in one day. All performances of them before the 1950s was a conspiracy.
Well, Andrea Bocelli is your mom!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 24, 2009, 11:21:58 PM
Post by: knight66 on July 24, 2009, 11:21:58 PM
He would make a better mother than classical singer.
Just for the pure intellectual thrill; Robert, might you list for us all the conspiracy theories to which you presently subscribe? I am losing count.
Mike
Just for the pure intellectual thrill; Robert, might you list for us all the conspiracy theories to which you presently subscribe? I am losing count.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 25, 2009, 12:38:01 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 25, 2009, 12:38:01 AM
It'll kill Rob, but it must be said,
Luchesi was a Jesuit oblate.
Luchesi was a Jesuit oblate.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:11:59 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:11:59 AM
Quote from: drogulus on July 24, 2009, 01:17:38 PM
Well, that's a relief. I was worried that I would be called on to decide whether either the cultural construction known as Mozart was the genius who wrote the music or was it this actual Mozart person who lived and wrote letters and performed Mozart music and was taken to be the composer of it by everyone he encountered. Actually I don't care all that much. Nothing is at stake for me in this. But if it's true that some collective, however involuntary in nature, really wrote the music attributed to Mozart I'd like to see a good case made for that. If it's true there's no reason to know that it is, or someone would show how. So far no one has done this, so maybe it's all just hypothetical. Maybe Mozart is a fraud in exactly the same sense as I'm the Queen of Sheba. Can you prove I'm not?
Dear Mr Drogulus,
THE CASE OF DROGULUS AND THE QUEEN OF SHEBA
Thank you for calling at the office of Sherlock Holmes to invite him to investigate whether you may not be the Queen of Sheba. He has replied to me that his workload is very great at the moment. So he cannot take on your case. But he wishes to inform you he does not get involved in cases where he is being asked to prove a negative. And your letter asked if he could prove you are NOT the Queen of Sheba.
Yours sincerely
Doctor Watson
Baker Street
London
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:14:01 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:14:01 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 25, 2009, 12:38:01 AM
It'll kill Rob, but it must be said,
Luchesi was a Jesuit oblate.
Yes, and Prof. Karl Henning is going to share with us this little known fact with some details of Luchesi being an 'oblate'. Which, by the way, I am aware of.
An oblate within the Roman Church is not first of all one of intellectual research or what one commonly calls "studies". The Jesuits it is true have the intellectual formation of their members as their main vocation in the Church. But oblates are not Jesuits. Sources say the oblate vocation orients them to evangelization of the poor and ordinary folk and not towards academic specialization.
So you may agree this 'oblate' period of Luchesi's life occurred while he was still in Italy and possibly during the years of 1771-4 when he came to Germany with a touring group. Is this also your view ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:27:50 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:27:50 AM
Quote from: knight on July 24, 2009, 11:21:58 PM
He would make a better mother than classical singer.
Just for the pure intellectual thrill; Robert, might you list for us all the conspiracy theories to which you presently subscribe? I am losing count.
Mike
Mike, I subscribe to only one conspiracy theory. That the civilization of this present world is constructed and sustained on degenerated mankind which is hopelessly corrupted and which seeks to perpetuate itself by means of actions which hide its true nature from view. Which is an opinion that has been subscribed to by members of the Christian church for almost 2000 years.
Regards
Title: Re: Mozart a Fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 03:02:43 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 03:02:43 AM
Quote from: bwv 1080 on July 24, 2009, 01:32:45 PM
Well, Papa Haydn was a papist
I wonder how the suppression of the Jesuits in 1773 (they were not restored until 1814) fits into Robert's conspiracy theory. They were driven out of Western Europe - how could they have kept the Mozart plot going?
This is a good question. Of course they appeared in other forms. In many cases they continued without censure. Their influence extended into Illuminatist and other fraternal areas. This is too well documented to be ignored. They infiltrated and often took over freemasonic lodges. And their control remained of publishing, as it existed for centuries before 1773. Their temporary ban was lifted at the time of the Congress of Vienna. But in this period (1773 to around 1806) their influence was truly enormous within the arts and it is impossible to study Mozart and his career in any detail without examining his associations with these fraternities. After all, from the very beginning, Mozart as a phenomeon was aided by the Jesuit Order. His own father Leopold was Jesuit educated for a start. Wolfgang's earliest tours were funded by Jesuit trained men. And this relationship was crucial before and after 1773. Although it forms almost no part of the standard biography and image we have of him and his life. It was of immense importance even after his death in his rise to 'superstar' status.
Title: Re: Try & Parse This Competition
Post by: Herman on July 25, 2009, 03:45:46 AM
Post by: Herman on July 25, 2009, 03:45:46 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:27:50 AM
Mike, I subscribe to only one conspiracy theory. That the civilization of this present world is constructed and sustained on degenerated mankind which is hopelessly corrupted and which seeks to perpetuate itself by means of actions which hide its true nature from view. Which is an opinion that has been subscribed to by members of the Christian church for almost 2000 years.
This piece of gibberish should be preserved, as ENTRY nr 1 in the TRY & PARSE THIS COMPETITION
Title: Re: Mozart a Fraud
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 04:11:34 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 04:11:34 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 25, 2009, 03:45:46 AM
This piece of gibberish should be preserved, as ENTRY nr 1 in the TRY & PARSE THIS COMPETITION
'Gibberish' ?
What is gibberish about a fundamental doctrine of the entire Christian church for almost 2000 years ?
You may not be a Christian. Fine. But don't claim that you do not understand what is being said. It's not 'gibberish' at all. It's so simple that even you can understand it.
'Gibberish' is defined as being 'a generic term in English for talking that sounds like speech, but has no actual meaning'.
And you perfectly well understand the meaning of what I have said, though you confuse yourself by calling it 'gibberish'.
Such is your state of education.
Title: Re: Try & Parse This Competition
Post by: Herman on July 25, 2009, 05:06:48 AM
Post by: Herman on July 25, 2009, 05:06:48 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 04:11:34 AM
'Gibberish' is defined as being 'a generic term in English for talking that sounds like speech, but has no actual meaning'.
That's why I used that word. A "degenerated mankind [...] which seeks to perpetuate itself by actions which hide its true nature from view" does not make any sense to me. Perhaps it does to you, but, you know, the thing with language as a communucative tool is it's supposed to make sense to other people, too. Otherwise it gets labeled as 'gibberish'.
'sustained on' is no beauty either.
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 04:11:34 AMAnd you perfectly well understand the meaning of what I have said, though you confuse yourself by calling it 'gibberish'.
Such is your state of education.
Thanks for the reminder. You were going to explain how come you spent years on a 'Royal School of Music' that doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Mozart a Fraud
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 05:10:35 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 05:10:35 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 25, 2009, 05:06:48 AM
That's why I used that word. A "degenerated mankind [...] which seeks to perpetuate itself by actions which hide its true nature from view" does not make any sense to me. Perhaps it does to you, but, you know, the thing with language as a communucative tool is it's supposed to make sense to other people, too. Otherwise it gets labeled as 'gibberish'.
'sustained on' is no beauty either.
Thanks for the reminder. You were going to explain how come you spent years on a 'Royal School of Music' that doesn't exist.
Herman,
You don't want to talk about 'Mozart a Fraud', do you ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 05:24:47 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 05:24:47 AM
I found Newman's book! There he is writing it on the walls of his cell, he was nice so he doesn't need the restraining jacket. :)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/comp1101/pisspants.jpg?t=1248528207)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/comp1101/pisspants.jpg?t=1248528207)
Title: Re: Try & Parse This Competition
Post by: Herman on July 25, 2009, 05:28:19 AM
Post by: Herman on July 25, 2009, 05:28:19 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 05:10:35 AM
You don't want to talk about 'Mozart a Fraud', do you ?
No I don't. I think Mozart is just fine. You have had tons of pages to adduce any evidence, and all you did was stall and prevaricate.
I don't know whether you noticed, but the subject of every topic you're on turns out to be the question whether you're a fraud, and how big.
The fact that your education history doesn't check out didn't help.
Title: Mozart a Fraud
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 05:47:18 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 05:47:18 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 25, 2009, 05:28:19 AM
No I don't. I think Mozart is just fine. You have had tons of pages to adduce any evidence, and all you did was stall and prevaricate.
I don't know whether you noticed, but the subject of every topic you're on turns out to be the question whether you're a fraud, and how big.
The fact that your education history doesn't check out didn't help.
Herman,
The truth is most posters to this thread and others like it are kids who have never read a Mozart biography and who act like a pack of juveniles. I have time and time again asked them to focus on the subject of the thread. As dozens and dozens of cases show. Readers see this fact for themselves.
The opposition are really a pack of idiots.
You don't want to talk about the subject of this thread, as you admit. Fine. Go somewhere else. Because as time passes it's becoming clear that something motivates you to wreck threads and to waste your time proving your ignorance. Which we already know. The 'something' is that you want to 'defend' the dogmas on Mozart you have learned. But you can't. And it shows.
So, just carry on. If the Moderators allow this nonsense to continue it's fine with me. Then the public can see what sort of opposition there is to a book which is critical of the dogmas of the Mozart industry.
Just keep posting. Let the record stand. Suits me just fine.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 06:20:32 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 06:20:32 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:27:50 AM
Mike, I subscribe to only one conspiracy theory. That the civilization of this present world is constructed and sustained on degenerated mankind which is hopelessly corrupted and which seeks to perpetuate itself by means of actions which hide its true nature from view. Which is an opinion that has been subscribed to by members of the Christian church for almost 2000 years.
Let's leave aside for the moment your megalomaniacal claim that you speak for "members of the Christian church" (whatever you may think that is). You're basically telling us that your fellow twits have spent two millennia fighting the dark side and have not made a dent. What makes you think you will make a difference?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 25, 2009, 07:13:00 AM
Post by: Brian on July 25, 2009, 07:13:00 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:27:50 AM
Mike, I subscribe to only one conspiracy theory. That the civilization of this present world is constructed and sustained on degenerated mankind which is hopelessly corrupted and which seeks to perpetuate itself by means of actions which hide its true nature from view. Which is an opinion that has been subscribed to by members of the Christian church for almost 2000 years.
Regards
I happen to believe that mankind has the capacity to do a nearly unlimited amount of both good and evil, and that it's all our choice. Maybe that's just me.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 25, 2009, 07:13:45 AM
Post by: Brian on July 25, 2009, 07:13:45 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 25, 2009, 06:20:32 AMYou know as well as I do that what he's really saying is Jesus will pluck him up and save him, maybe in the Rapture, before throttling us all.
Let's leave aside for the moment your megalomaniacal claim that you speak for "members of the Christian church" (whatever you may think that is). You're basically telling us that your fellow twits have spent two millennia fighting the dark side and have not made a dent. What makes you think you will make a difference?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 07:28:06 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 07:28:06 AM
Newman ruminating on his belief that Mozart is a fraud--
(http://meninhats.com/comics/20021106.gif)
:)
(http://meninhats.com/comics/20021106.gif)
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 08:27:01 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 08:27:01 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 25, 2009, 06:20:32 AM
Let's leave aside for the moment your megalomaniacal claim that you speak for "members of the Christian church" (whatever you may think that is). You're basically telling us that your fellow twits have spent two millennia fighting the dark side and have not made a dent. What makes you think you will make a difference?
Let's leave aside for the moment your amazing ignorance of what Christianity is. I am NOT 'basically telling you that Christians have spent 2 millenia fighting the dark side and have not made a dent'. Those are YOUR words, not mine. Aren't they ?
The 'dark side' (as you call it) is evil, plain and simple. Right ? It was not only dented but it was defeated 2 millenia ago. So that's fact number 1. Something you may not be aware of. But the bluffs of evil continue. The falsehood, lies and the deception. Now do you understand ?
So I won't misrepresent you and you don't misrepresent me. Sounds fair enough, right ?
Should you care to surprise us by posting on the subject of this thread 'Mozart a Fraud' please do so. This will be such a shock we won't know how to recover from the surprise.
Let others decide whether the Mozart myth deserves to be exposed. The one you and your gang claim to know. You are of course nothng but a rabble ruled over by dogmas.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 25, 2009, 08:29:29 AM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 25, 2009, 08:29:29 AM
No.
(In answer to the thread subject)
(In answer to the thread subject)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 25, 2009, 08:33:06 AM
Post by: snyprrr on July 25, 2009, 08:33:06 AM
I was looking at Grove's under "Cambini" and it states that Cambini's claime to fame was some hubub where something he did messed up a Mozart premiere, or he caused Mozart some kind of consternation...anyone?
At some point, Mozart was even forced to admit that he found Cambini's SQs "quite pretty."
At some point, Mozart was even forced to admit that he found Cambini's SQs "quite pretty."
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 08:51:37 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 08:51:37 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 08:27:01 AM
So I won't misrepresent you and you don't misrepresent me. Sounds fair enough, right ?
Yet you routinely do. For example:
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 08:27:01 AM
I am NOT 'basically telling you that Christians have spent 2 millenia fighting the dark side and have not made a dent'. Those are YOUR words, not mine. Aren't they ?
No, that is not what I said. I didn't say 'Christians spent two millennia fighting and not making a dent' (BTW millennia is spelled with two n - at least you could avoid typos by copying and pasting my text). I said 'you and your fellow twits spent two millennia fighting to no avail.' If you even had the most basic comprehension of Christianity, you would have had the humility not to claim to speak for all Christians, much less claim to know and judge what evil is and what God's designs for the world are! Your megalomaniacal hubris makes you no better than the Pope you so detest!
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 08:27:01 AM
You are of course nothng but a rabble ruled over by dogmas.
WTF does "Ruled over" mean? Why would you even need "over" in that sentence? That's not even English. You claim you're English? Yet you need someone whose *third* language is English to correct you all the time? You are an embarrassment to your culture!
Subjects in which robnewman has exhibited his profound ignorance:
- Musicology: check
- History: check
- Aeronautics: check
- Statics: check
- Optics: check
- Kinetics: check
- Physical chemistry: check
- Cosmology: check
- Christian theology: check
- English language: check
Anything else you'd like to add?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 09:05:39 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 09:05:39 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 25, 2009, 08:51:37 AM
Yet you routinely do. For example:
No, that is not what I said. I didn't say 'Christians spent two millennia fighting and not making a dent' (BTW millennia is spelled with two n - at least you could avoid typos by copying and pasting my text). I said 'you and your fellow twits spent two millennia fighting to no avail.' If you even had the most basic comprehension of Christianity, you would have had the humility not to claim to speak for all Christians, much less claim to know and judge what evil is and what God's designs for the world are! Your megalomaniacal hubris makes you no better than the Pope you so detest!
WTF does "Ruled over" mean? Why would you even need "over" in that sentence? That's not even English. You claim you're English? Yet you need someone whose *third* language is English to correct you all the time? You are an embarrassment to your culture!
Subjects in which robnewman has exhibited his profound ignorance:
- Musicology: check
- History: check
- Aeronautics: check
- Statics: check
- Optics: check
- Kinetics: check
- Physical chemistry: check
- Cosmology: check
- Christian theology: check
- English language: check
Anything else you'd like to add?
Well, I've tried here to have a conversation on the subject of this thread, but the dumbos don't want one. They are suffering from the 'Mozart Effect'. Professing themselves to be wise they became the fools of music history. Unable to name more than one or two composers of Mozart's own time and grossly ignorant of the contexts in which he lived and worked. They are married to their clay idol, the product of fairy tales.
The term, 'Ruled over', is a common term in the English language. As is confirmed by a word thesaurus. Here are examples -
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/ruled+over?qsrc=2446
The word 'millenia' is often used in the English language as are variant spellings of the same term.
I do not claim and never have to speak for 'all Christians' but, in terms of the Christian faith I claim to speak for the Christian faith. A distinction which may puzzle you. But don't worry about it.
Nor did I claim to be English. That is your statement, not mine.
Is there no end of your stupidity and incompetence ?
Finally, you once again fail to post anything on the subject of this thread, 'Mozart a Fraud'. Which shows to everyone who is ignorant and who is not.
Result of Examination - Failed (as usual)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 25, 2009, 09:13:52 AM
Post by: Brian on July 25, 2009, 09:13:52 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 09:05:39 AMAre you a real human being?
Finally, you once again fail to post anything on the subject of this thread, 'Mozart a Fraud'. Which shows to everyone who is ignorant and who is not.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 09:23:36 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 09:23:36 AM
Hey Rob,
How's this: unlike you, I admit when I'm wrong. "Ruled over' is an expression new to me. Thanks for explaining that. I may recall you saying you're Scottish. Was that it? Sorry about that. Either way, English should be your native language, and millennium still requires two n's.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/millennium
The rest you write is still bunk. And you have no more right to 'speak for the Christian faith' as the Pope.
Also, you still have too much of an ego to admit when you're wrong and when you have been proven wrong, whether it is on the bunk you write about Mozart, or 9-11, or the moon landings or your imaginary world conspiracies.
How's this: unlike you, I admit when I'm wrong. "Ruled over' is an expression new to me. Thanks for explaining that. I may recall you saying you're Scottish. Was that it? Sorry about that. Either way, English should be your native language, and millennium still requires two n's.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/millennium
The rest you write is still bunk. And you have no more right to 'speak for the Christian faith' as the Pope.
Also, you still have too much of an ego to admit when you're wrong and when you have been proven wrong, whether it is on the bunk you write about Mozart, or 9-11, or the moon landings or your imaginary world conspiracies.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 09:44:42 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 09:44:42 AM
Quote from: Brian on July 25, 2009, 09:13:52 AM
Are you a real human being?
I will answer this question Brian if you tell us its relevance to this thread on 'Mozart a Fraud'.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 09:51:23 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 09:51:23 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 25, 2009, 09:23:36 AM
Hey Rob,
How's this: unlike you, I admit when I'm wrong. "Ruled over' is an expression new to me. Thanks for explaining that. I may recall you saying you're Scottish. Was that it? Sorry about that. Either way, English should be your native language, and millennium still requires two n's.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/millennium
The rest you write is still bunk. And you have no more right to 'speak for the Christian faith' as the Pope.
Also, you still have too much of an ego to admit when you're wrong and when you have been proven wrong, whether it is on the bunk you write about Mozart, or 9-11, or the moon landings or your imaginary world conspiracies.
Well, thanks for the further posts on issues unrelated to this thread.
Of course I have every right to speak for the Christian faith as does any other Christian. You want a world where assertion of one's own identity and the basis for one's own belief is removed ? I have as much right as you do to assert what I believe. And, unlike the Pope, I know that right extends to anyone. Toleration is the context within which we assert what we believe and think and do. I speak for Christianity in the same way all others of the same faith do. If you don't like it you are free to assert as you please on something else. You may as well try to stop the sun shining or birds from singing.
As for 9/11, moon landings and other obvious conspiracies, these have no place here.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 25, 2009, 09:59:39 AM
Post by: Brian on July 25, 2009, 09:59:39 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 09:44:42 AMI can't stand the suspense. :D
I will answer this question Brian if you tell us its relevance to this thread on 'Mozart a Fraud'.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 10:02:07 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 10:02:07 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 09:44:42 AM
I will answer this question Brian if you tell us its relevance to this thread on 'Mozart a Fraud'.
If you read the opening post of the thread, you will find that the thread is not about Mozart, it's about you. :)
One can not judge a thread by it's title. Now it's time for you to answer Brian's question. $:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 10:08:22 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 10:08:22 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 10:02:07 AM
If you read the opening post of the thread, you will find that the thread is not about Mozart, it's about you. :)
One can not judge a thread by it's title. Now it's time for you to answer Brian's question. $:)
One cannot judge a thread by it's title ? So if I buy a book on Spanish Cooking it may be an edition of 'Popular Mechanics', right ? Or it may be a book on the Moon Landings ? And if the author insists that it is a book on Spanish Cooking will be he sued by NASA ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 25, 2009, 10:11:42 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 25, 2009, 10:11:42 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 10:08:22 AMIsn't that what conspiracies are all about, as you've told us zillions of times? That we shouldn't be deceived by the official cover?
One cannot judge a thread by it's title ? So if I buy a book on Spanish Cooking it may be an edition of 'Popular Mechanics', right ? Or it may be a book on the Moon Landings ? And if the author insists that it is a book on Spanish Cooking will be he sued by NASA ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 10:14:36 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 10:14:36 AM
Quote from: erato on July 25, 2009, 10:11:42 AM
Isn't that what conspiracies are all about, as you've told us zillions of times? That we shouldn't be deceived by the official cover?
Er, no, Erato.
You are confused again. We should not be deceived by the CONTENTS of a book which may be official.
That's very different from the title, isn't it ?
The title of this thread is 'Mozart a Fraud ?' and its contents should reflect that title. Unless, of course, you wish to discuss Spanish Cooking, 9/11, and the fake NASA moon landings, that is. At which point I will object.
Which part of this message do you not understand ? :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 10:37:38 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 10:37:38 AM
Newman do you actually think that Bach's Bungalo is about a Bungalo? That's funny because you didn't urge anyone to stay on topic about Johann's bungalo did you? How convenient of you to interpret a thread title literally for one thread, and figuratively for another. I smell a hypocrite. :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 10:46:44 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 10:46:44 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 10:37:38 AM
Newman do you actually think that Bach's Bungalo is about a Bungalo? That's funny because you didn't urge anyone to stay on topic about Johann's bungalo did you? How convenient of you to interpret a thread title literally for one thread, and figuratively for another. I smell a hypocrite. :D
The interpretation of the title of a thread or a book is provided by the author/s of its contents.
Which part of that message do you still not understand ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 25, 2009, 11:02:55 AM
Post by: Brian on July 25, 2009, 11:02:55 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 10:08:22 AMActual Conversation I Overheard at the Bookstore:
One cannot judge a thread by it's title ? So if I buy a book on Spanish Cooking it may be an edition of 'Popular Mechanics', right ? Or it may be a book on the Moon Landings ? And if the author insists that it is a book on Spanish Cooking will be he sued by NASA ?
GUY: Look at this, the "Gourmet Guide to Lovemaking."
GIRL: Oooh, is that a cookbook?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 11:06:21 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 11:06:21 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 10:46:44 AM
The interpretation of the title of a thread or a book is provided by the author/s of its contents.
Oh you do agree! You are not the author of this thread, Todd is. Reread his opening post and you see that it is about you, not Mozart. Now answer Brian's question. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 11:09:05 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 11:09:05 AM
Quote from: Brian on July 25, 2009, 11:02:55 AM
Actual Conversation I Overheard at the Bookstore:
GUY: Look at this, the "Gourmet Guide to Lovemaking."
GIRL: Oooh, is that a cookbook?
Peter Greenaway would think so. ;)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 11:09:54 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 11:09:54 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 09:51:23 AM
Well, thanks for the further posts on issues unrelated to this thread.
Wow! You don't even accept apologies. You're an even bigger jerk than I thought.
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 09:51:23 AM
Of course I have every right to speak for the Christian faith as does any other Christian. You want a world where assertion of one's own identity and the basis for one's own belief is removed ? I have as much right as you do to assert what I believe. And, unlike the Pope, I know that right extends to anyone.
Wrong again. You can speak for your personal understanding of the faith. But you have no right or divine authority that makes your word on that subject the last word.
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 09:51:23 AM
Toleration is the context within which we assert what we believe and think and do. I speak for Christianity in the same way all others of the same faith do. If you don't like it you are free to assert as you please on something else. You may as well try to stop the sun shining or birds from singing.
And wrong again. Toleration is noninterference in the private beliefs of others. You, on the other hand, do very much the opposite. You claim a lot of things on faith that are well outside any religious doctrine and insult anyone who disagrees, facts notwithstanding. Nobody should have to tolerate your nonsense.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 25, 2009, 11:35:55 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 25, 2009, 11:35:55 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 10:14:36 AMSo that's why we'll never see your book published? As publication automatically makes it invalid. I'm finally beginning to get it......
Er, no, Erato.
You are confused again. We should not be deceived by the CONTENTS of a book which may be official.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Ten thumbs on July 25, 2009, 11:38:21 AM
Post by: Ten thumbs on July 25, 2009, 11:38:21 AM
This seems to sum it all up:
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Haffner on July 25, 2009, 12:21:28 PM
Post by: Haffner on July 25, 2009, 12:21:28 PM
I'm positive that somebody else already thought of this, but doesn't this thread bear a striking resemblence the religious threads? Dozens of pages, plenty of malice, no real answer.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 25, 2009, 12:23:17 PM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 25, 2009, 12:23:17 PM
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 25, 2009, 11:38:21 AM
This seems to sum it all up:
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
And wonderfully well, I might add. :)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
The Classical Winds - 'Mozart' Divertimento #2 in Bb for 2 Clarinets & Bassoon K 439b #2 4th mvmt
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 12:49:20 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 12:49:20 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 11:06:21 AM
Oh you do agree! You are not the author of this thread, Todd is. Reread his opening post and you see that it is about you, not Mozart. Now answer Brian's question. :)
DavidW,
Here is the opening of Page 1 by Todd on this thread. Read it carefully. It says -
A person posting under the name Robert Newman on another forum is arguing that Mozart and even Haydn didn't write the majority (if any) of the music attributed to them. He's apparently got a book planned, so my guess everyone would have to wait until said book is published to read his argument. I've asked if he can provide any reputable documentary evidence to support his claims, and hopefully he will - outside of his book, of course. His titillating posts appear to be a slightly cynical early marketing ploy (Mozart is a fraud!), but I'm curious to see if this idea gains any traction.
So, any takers on this hypothesis?
That question still remains open today. We are still looking to see who will criticise this hypothesis.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 12:51:43 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 12:51:43 PM
That paragraph is about you Newman, do you have trouble reading? :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 12:55:02 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 25, 2009, 11:09:54 AM
Wow! You don't even accept apologies. You're an even bigger jerk than I thought.
Wrong again. You can speak for your personal understanding of the faith. But you have no right or divine authority that makes your word on that subject the last word.
And wrong again. Toleration is noninterference in the private beliefs of others. You, on the other hand, do very much the opposite. You claim a lot of things on faith that are well outside any religious doctrine and insult anyone who disagrees, facts notwithstanding. Nobody should have to tolerate your nonsense.
You seem destined to wrap yourself in knots on things you simply do not understand.
I don't say I have the 'last word'. When did I say this ? I said the very opposite. I said that each person has the freedom to believe and to assert as he pleases, according to his own conscience. That is so simple even you can understand it.
What do you mean by 'personal understanding of the faith' ? You have no idea what you are talking about. Faith is not my opinion or yours. It is a truth that is revealed to individuals. But the understanding of it is not your own. It is given to you personally. And not by reason or anything of your own. So, once again, you are badly misinformed.
Nobody should have to tolerate YOUR nonsense on subjects which you so obviously do not have a clue about. But we do. Because even fools can be tolerated.
Now, can you finally post on the subject of this thread, or are you so attracted to it that you will post more irrelevant errors ?
Soon I will be very busy. And you can have all the time you like to deny your own foolishness on Mozart. The truth is you don't know what you are talking about, do you ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 12:56:39 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 12:56:39 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 12:51:43 PM
That paragraph is about you Newman, do you have trouble reading? :D
DavidW,
Yet another error. This thread was started long before I joined this forum. It is asking if there are any takers to the hypothesis of mine that Mozart is a fraud. Directed by Todd to members of this forum at the time when it was posted. As absolutely anyone can see ! Except you of course ! ;D
This is hilarious ! :) :) :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 01:13:33 PM
Post by: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 01:13:33 PM
Are you a coward Newman? >:D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 01:16:27 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 01:16:27 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 12:49:20 PM
DavidW,
Here is the opening of Page 1 by Todd on this thread. Read it carefully. It says -
A person posting under the name Robert Newman on another forum is arguing that Mozart and even Haydn didn't write the majority (if any) of the music attributed to them. He's apparently got a book planned, so my guess everyone would have to wait until said book is published to read his argument. I've asked if he can provide any reputable documentary evidence to support his claims, and hopefully he will - outside of his book, of course. His titillating posts appear to be a slightly cynical early marketing ploy (Mozart is a fraud!), but I'm curious to see if this idea gains any traction.
So, any takers on this hypothesis?
That question still remains open today. We are still looking to see who will criticise this hypothesis.
Man, you're dense! He's challenging you to provide support for your boneheaded hypothesis and accusing you of a cynical marketing plot! Nobody else here made the claim that Mozart is a fraud, so nobody else here is going to write the book for you. It's you who has to step up to the plate and show some support for your allegations.
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 12:55:02 PM
Soon I will be very busy. And you can have all the time you like to deny your own foolishness on Mozart. The truth is you don't know what you are talking about, do you ?
Rob Newman, you can officially go f%#k yourself! It is you who is clueless. As DavidW suggests, you are a coward who weasels away whenever you're challenged. You've been disproven substantively on everything you have posted here. You are a troll and it is just a matter of time before you get banned here just like you have been on every other forum. It is just a question of how much longer the rest of us will find it entertaining enough to engage in this silly form of amusement.
Over and out.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 25, 2009, 01:20:55 PM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 25, 2009, 01:20:55 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 12:49:20 PMYou are an idiot. "We" are not looking to see who will criticize this hypothesis. This claim gives your theory the unfair attribute of having support, and not one poster on this message board has conceded ANY "points" you have tried to make.
DavidW,
Here is the opening of Page 1 by Todd on this thread. Read it carefully. It says -
A person posting under the name Robert Newman on another forum is arguing that Mozart and even Haydn didn't write the majority (if any) of the music attributed to them. He's apparently got a book planned, so my guess everyone would have to wait until said book is published to read his argument. I've asked if he can provide any reputable documentary evidence to support his claims, and hopefully he will - outside of his book, of course. His titillating posts appear to be a slightly cynical early marketing ploy (Mozart is a fraud!), but I'm curious to see if this idea gains any traction.
So, any takers on this hypothesis?
That question still remains open today. We are still looking to see who will criticize this hypothesis.
Besides, you still haven't responded to my on-topic (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10960.msg337304.html#msg337304) contribution, instead choosing to answer all these off topic allegations about whether or not you are the second coming and speak on behalf of Christianity.
Do everyone a favor: go and post your credentials in the appropriate thread (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13625.0.html) and give this digital toilet paper a rest.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:30:16 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:30:16 PM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 25, 2009, 01:20:55 PM
You are an idiot. "We" are not looking to see who will criticize this hypothesis. This claim gives your theory the unfair attribute of having support, and not one poster on this message board has conceded ANY "points" you have tried to make.
Besides, you still haven't responded to my on-topic (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10960.msg337304.html#msg337304) contribution, instead choosing to answer all these off topic allegations about whether or not you are the second coming and speak on behalf of Christianity.
Do everyone a favor: go and post your credentials in the appropriate thread (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,13625.0.html) and give this digital toilet paper a rest.
Don't talk to idiots. Take my advice.
I've made many points on this forum about Mozart. Which specific one do you have evidence is untrue ? I have posted (as said already 4 times) on such works as the Haffner Symphony, the Clarinet Concerto, the opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro', just to mention 3. I have shown that Mozart was NOT taught music by his father. I have shown example after example of works being falsey attributed to him during his childhood. I have indicated the same occurred at all stages of his life. I have posted accessible radio interviews on this subject that last several hours. So who is the idiot ? It is not me.
The awful truth is you don't know what you are talking about. And it shows. Your Mozartean education is little more than a fairy story that falls to pieces when it is critically examined. And you are not used to any studies which are critically examined, are you ?
The best advice I can give you is to return to your kindergarten and spread the news that YOUR views have defeated those of me and others who have criticised them. People will believe you. They will pat you on the back as being a learned and highly educated man. A man who has singlehandedly exposed error and who has defended the icon.
What a nonsense !!! Stay with your mythology. It would be safer for everyone. LOL !
;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:35:31 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:35:31 PM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 25, 2009, 01:16:27 PM
Man, you're dense! He's challenging you to provide support for your boneheaded hypothesis and accusing you of a cynical marketing plot! Nobody else here made the claim that Mozart is a fraud, so nobody else here is going to write the book for you. It's you who has to step up to the plate and show some support for your allegations.
Rob Newman, you can officially go f%#k yourself! It is you who is clueless. As DavidW suggests, you are a coward who weasels away whenever you're challenged. You've been disproven substantively on everything you have posted here. You are a troll and it is just a matter of time before you get banned here just like you have been on every other forum. It is just a question of how much longer the rest of us will find it entertaining enough to engage in this silly form of amusement.
Over and out.
Thank you for your final message. And still you can't defend the myth of Mozart.
You can officially go back to the kindergarten with your iconic doll of Mozart. Stay there. Never read a single work which criticises the icon. And pretend you are educated. Why, over time, you can even invent the idea that your critics were soundly beaten in open debate. :) :) :) - that the power of your documentary and other evidence won the day.
Mozart is a fairy story for musical under-achievers. Get used to it. The mythology cannot survive close examination and it shows.
Bye
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 01:47:13 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 01:47:13 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:35:31 PM
Thank you for your final message. And still you can't defend the myth of Mozart.
It's not mine to defend. I don't give a sh!t who wrote that stuff, as I said before. You dimwit still haven't grasped that the burden of proof is on *you* to defend your harebrained theories. Making a declaratory statement and adding in all caps the word "FACT" does not a proof make.
PS: It's still riotously funny that you impugn Mozart's home education when you claim a fake school as your alma mater. You, sir, are a fraud.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:54:31 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:54:31 PM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 25, 2009, 01:47:13 PM
It's not mine to defend. I don't give a sh!t who wrote that stuff, as I said before. You dimwit still haven't grasped that the burden of proof is on *you* to defend your harebrained theories. Making a declaratory statement and adding in all caps the word "FACT" does not a proof make.
PS: It's still riotously funny that you impugn Mozart's home education when you claim a fake school as your alma mater. You, sir, are a fraud.
No, no ! 200 years of fiction and fantasy in the name of a Mozartean based, Mozartean centred musicology are over. From now on Mozart and his myth are to be subjected to the same standards of criticism we give to any other academic study. Which is fatal to its entire ethos. We will have no icons dominating musicology and literally dominating studies of music and its history. And certainly none named Mozart. The undermining of all fair and reasonable standards will end. Get used to it. Poetic justice rules.
Period.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 02:40:23 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 02:40:23 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:54:31 PM
No, no ! 200 years of fiction and fantasy in the name of a Mozartean based, Mozartean centred musicology are over. From now on Mozart and his myth are to be subjected to the same standards of criticism we give to any other academic study. Which is fatal to its entire ethos. We will have no icons dominating musicology and literally dominating studies of music and its history. And certainly none named Mozart. The undermining of all fair and reasonable standards will end. Get used to it. Poetic justice rules.
Period.
(http://www.picpiggy.com/smile/happy/happy0007.gif) (http://www.picpiggy.com)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 02:45:00 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 25, 2009, 02:45:00 PM
BTW, mods, we need to add the above and this one:
(http://www.tvsa.co.za/forum/images/smilies/emot-tinfoil.gif)
to the smiley repertoire. It's urgently needed.
(http://www.tvsa.co.za/forum/images/smilies/emot-tinfoil.gif)
to the smiley repertoire. It's urgently needed.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 25, 2009, 03:43:46 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 25, 2009, 03:43:46 PM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 25, 2009, 08:29:29 AM
No.
(In answer to the thread subject)
QFT 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 25, 2009, 03:45:34 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 25, 2009, 03:45:34 PM
Quote from: DavidW on July 25, 2009, 12:51:43 PM
That paragraph is about you Newman, do you have trouble reading? :D
Answer there is a resounding yes.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 25, 2009, 10:49:52 PM
Post by: knight66 on July 25, 2009, 10:49:52 PM
Robert, I quote you:
"The truth is most posters to this thread and others like it are kids who have never read a Mozart biography and who act like a pack of juveniles."
It is not the first time you have made this point. Nor is it the first time that the following question has been asked.
As you have such a view of the writers here; why do you waste so much of your time on this site?
I get the impression that you squeezed the sac dry of juice on Mozart a long time ago. So, you are not lingering in order to provide information; rather you, a 'serious' writer, stick around to trade playground insults! To the extent that this thread becomes preserved, (Believe me I daily resist the strong temptation to bin it.) it will sit there waiting to undermine whatever academic credibility you might hope to build up; should you ever find enough money to pay for the publication of your Mozart opinions.
In case there is any doubt in your mind; you are regarded as a troll. You are restricted in your activity here. Any remotely dubious postings on music threads will continue to be deleted without explanation. New topics also will hit the dust. It is for the owner of the site to decide when enough is enough. I can only assume that he is allowing some kind of social experiment to run just now.
To all others, I commend the following link initially quoted above. It does show that we have a classic textbook case of the kind on our hands.
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Rough handling seems the order of the day here, but there are limits folks. Robert is the limit in one way; but please make sure no one else reaches limits in other ways. Remember the troll delights in pushing buttons. Are you wanting to delight Robert?
Knight
"The truth is most posters to this thread and others like it are kids who have never read a Mozart biography and who act like a pack of juveniles."
It is not the first time you have made this point. Nor is it the first time that the following question has been asked.
As you have such a view of the writers here; why do you waste so much of your time on this site?
I get the impression that you squeezed the sac dry of juice on Mozart a long time ago. So, you are not lingering in order to provide information; rather you, a 'serious' writer, stick around to trade playground insults! To the extent that this thread becomes preserved, (Believe me I daily resist the strong temptation to bin it.) it will sit there waiting to undermine whatever academic credibility you might hope to build up; should you ever find enough money to pay for the publication of your Mozart opinions.
In case there is any doubt in your mind; you are regarded as a troll. You are restricted in your activity here. Any remotely dubious postings on music threads will continue to be deleted without explanation. New topics also will hit the dust. It is for the owner of the site to decide when enough is enough. I can only assume that he is allowing some kind of social experiment to run just now.
To all others, I commend the following link initially quoted above. It does show that we have a classic textbook case of the kind on our hands.
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Rough handling seems the order of the day here, but there are limits folks. Robert is the limit in one way; but please make sure no one else reaches limits in other ways. Remember the troll delights in pushing buttons. Are you wanting to delight Robert?
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 26, 2009, 01:01:22 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 26, 2009, 01:01:22 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 25, 2009, 01:54:31 PMSo you declare yourself the winner when you're in fact the laughingstock? You see, robnewman, winners have to win in the real world and not inside your head. FACT. Get your book out and see if anybody of any repute avoids laughing their head off, and then we'll see.
No, no ! 200 years of fiction and fantasy in the name of a Mozartean based, Mozartean centred musicology are over.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:40:05 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:40:05 AM
Quote from: knight on July 25, 2009, 10:49:52 PM
Robert, I quote you:
"The truth is most posters to this thread and others like it are kids who have never read a Mozart biography and who act like a pack of juveniles."
It is not the first time you have made this point. Nor is it the first time that the following question has been asked.
As you have such a view of the writers here; why do you waste so much of your time on this site?
I get the impression that you squeezed the sac dry of juice on Mozart a long time ago. So, you are not lingering in order to provide information; rather you, a 'serious' writer, stick around to trade playground insults! To the extent that this thread becomes preserved, (Believe me I daily resist the strong temptation to bin it.) it will sit there waiting to undermine whatever academic credibility you might hope to build up; should you ever find enough money to pay for the publication of your Mozart opinions.
In case there is any doubt in your mind; you are regarded as a troll. You are restricted in your activity here. Any remotely dubious postings on music threads will continue to be deleted without explanation. New topics also will hit the dust. It is for the owner of the site to decide when enough is enough. I can only assume that he is allowing some kind of social experiment to run just now.
To all others, I commend the following link initially quoted above. It does show that we have a classic textbook case of the kind on our hands.
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Rough handling seems the order of the day here, but there are limits folks. Robert is the limit in one way; but please make sure no one else reaches limits in other ways. Remember the troll delights in pushing buttons. Are you wanting to delight Robert?
Knight
Knight,
Thank you for informing me that after asking posters to post only on the subject of this thread for no less than 30 times on this thread I (and not them) am now described as a 'troll' ! A new era in musical/historical research may have arrived - which we might call 'Surrealism' !
Nobody has read a book critical of the Mozart story. Nobody seems to have read a book which GIVES the Mozart story !
You may however be delighted to know some good has come of this.
In most areas of academic study there is a generally held opinion or 'consensus view'. It is based on facts and its exponents welcome criticism. But in the case of 'Mozart studies' this is not so. Its fraternal founders (armed with big bucks, theology and their own fairy story) soon infilitrated musicology, posthumously manufacturing their idol on stories made by them and their supporters and their musical superman soon began to dominate the entire musical landscape. Infiltrating musicology itself and doing so under the illusion of being interested in reality. So their dogmatic view of their own manufactured hero was steadily accepted as mainstream culture and it started to literally dominate musicology. And history. As planned. The size of their icon was already massive and it soon expanded further to grotesque size, dwarfing everything and anybody else. A form of cultural fascism emerged although nobody wrote about it. So the giggling genius of Burgsalz, almost entirely created posthumously by them and whose story has been subjected to minimal criticism over 200 years is today the proud member of an elite band of 'great' composers of a musical pantheon. The giant image has even been transported in the fog of confusion and misinformation and been re-erected for the adoring faithful on Easter Island, far from Vienna, where visiting pilgrims pay big sums to adore his image and where priestly tour guides preside over his myth and his secular cult. Those in control of musical history as corporate spin merchants also control his news.
The Mozart Effect, of course, guarantees larger crops to farmers and is even said to educate and improve our intelligence. Any attempt to examine/cross-examine the Mozart story is to be counteracted by action groups jamming the signal. With noise.
Thank you for your description of even further controls being placed on my posts. I am pleased the record of this thread and others is being preserved so readers can form their own judgement. I keep my own copies also.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 26, 2009, 01:47:34 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 26, 2009, 01:47:34 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:40:05 AMYou have repeatedly been invited to get your own book published. What other books are there?
Nobody has read a book which is critical of the Mozart story. Nobody seems to have read a book which GIVES the Mozart story !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 02:11:20 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 02:11:20 AM
Quote from: erato on July 26, 2009, 01:47:34 AM
You have repeatedly been invited to get your own book published. What other books are there?
Erato,
In 2008 a book was published by Prof. Luca Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta, two expert music teachers of Italy with huge experience in 18th century operatic manuscripts. (They have between them decades of experience in preparing operatic scores for performance and publication in Italy). Their book was on the 'Mozart' opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro'.
What was unusual about their book was that it examined the background to the opera. (A subject rarely discussed in 'Mozart studies') and also presents images of the actual music score used for the premiere and early performances of that work in Vienna in May of 1786. Believe it or not that score (which is today in the Austrian National Library) is rarely studied, by anyone, and nobody had actually examined its contents in detail. Till now.
To the amazement of those two researchers (who obtained and paid for the entire score to be produced for them on microfiche) it was discovered that this score is NOT the 'autograph' being sold widely of that work but another. (The so-called 'autograph' actually being created later than May 1786). And the music used in May 1786 was filled with strange and often clumsy features. On closer analysis it was found that this music was not original. That it was, in fact, an Italian language version of a musical work which already existed in the German language. A version that Mozart and Lorenzo da Ponte hastily made in their own name for Vienna. Detailed study of several early scores of the work were obtained to examine these points. There was no doubt about it, 'Le Nozze di Figaro' is not music by Mozart/da Ponte but is, instead, a Vienna arrangement which they made of music that already existed in the German language.
Over the next several months detailed study was made on the little known facts of Mozart's career leading up to the Vienna premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro', these published in the same book, together with many images from this Vienna score used at the premiere. (With which I assisted in its English version and supplied a number of other notes).
So, in answer to your question, there ARE other views. I invite you to send me an email address so that I can donate you with regards a copy of this publication by email. 'Figaro - L'Aria della Contessa' (2008).
Any music lover who reads this post and who would like a free copy of the same book please send me a PM and I will gladly do the same.
Thank You
R.E. Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 03:26:58 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 03:26:58 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:40:05 AM
Knight,
Thank you for informing me that after asking posters to post only on the subject of this thread for no less than 30 times on this thread I (and not them) am now described as a 'troll' ! A new era in musical/historical research may have arrived - which we might call 'Surrealism' !
It cannot come as a surprise to you that you be described as a troll. It has already been said openly and it is why the mods consolidated a number of your threads. We have no intention of allowing your behaviour to spread across the board and adversely affect it.
This thread is almost a catch-all topic and contains a number of discussions, including the question, oft asked, about your musical education. You continue to dodge this issue. It may not normally be an issue on which members here would hold your feet to the fire; but in this case, it is expected that someone who sets themselves up as an academic iconoclast will have an academic track record. That brings with it the possibility of a respectful hearing.
A lot of the flack you have attracted has been due to the cloak and dagger nature of your academic background. You hung yourself out to dry when claiming attendance at a non existant school of music. Such an obvious misstep was and will be stamped upon by the eagle eyed here and it further undermines the weight that your opinions can withstand.
I have been upfront about this, in part, to reassure some members here who have complained about your presence and activity.
Now, a timely reminder
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:40:05 AM
You may however be delighted to know some good has come of this.........
Well, I cannot find anything here that you have not expressed a number of times before. Would you like to put into bold print any new material I have missed?
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:40:05 AM
Thank you for your description of even further controls being placed on my posts.
No, these controlls have now been in place for some little time. If one of your permitted topics gets out of hand, it is locked. And normally as one door closes, another is opened.
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:40:05 AM
I am pleased the record of this thread and others is being preserved
I am pleased that you are pleased, but don't count on it.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 03:37:52 AM
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 03:37:52 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:40:05 AM
in the case of 'Mozart studies' this is not so. Its fraternal founders (armed with big bucks, theology and their own fairy story) soon infilitrated musicology, posthumously manufacturing their idol on stories made by them and their supporters and their musical superman soon began to dominate the entire musical landscape.
This is your strawman history. In real musicological history Mozart has never dominated the musical landscape the way you picture it. The big icons of 1850 - 2000 western music have always been JS Bach and Beethoven. However as the mderators have pointed out you're just spinning your wheels; you have said everything tens of times now, including the pathetic offer of mailing folks 'books' and all you do is further discredit to your bizarre cause.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/431841067_57e2febfda.jpg?v=0)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 03:45:28 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 03:45:28 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 26, 2009, 03:37:52 AM
This is your strawman history. In real musicological history Mozart has never dominated the musical landscape the way you picture it. The big icons of 1850 - 2000 western music have always been JS Bach and Beethoven. However as the mderators have pointed out you're just spinning your wheels; you have said everything tens of times now, including the pathetic offer of mailing folks 'books' and all you do is further discredit to your bizarre cause.
The offer made by me to mail a recently published book free of charge on the background to the 'Mozart' opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' has already been accepted by several readers of this thread and I have already posted it to them.
Now, will you please stop disrupting this thread ? You've been asked this so many times already.
Thank You
(Request Number 31 - and still counting)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 03:47:38 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 03:47:38 AM
Knight,
You say 'this thread is almost a catch-all topic and contains a number of discussions'.
Yes, and WHO has said for weeks this thread should focus on 'Mozart, a Fraud ?' more than I ? There are 30 examples of me taking my time to repeat this, and to repeat it again. YOU are the one who is still disrupting this thread on issues which have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. And you are STILL DOING IT !
You are interfering with this thread. You are just a source of noise. Please do not continue to do this or the Moderators will take action to ban you, to relieve you of your bogus status, and not only from this thread but from this forum.
It's my final notice to you. Grow up in Gloucestershire and stop disrupting this forum. Mozart is a fairy story and you don't want it to be criticised. Simple. And everyone can see it.
Thank You
You say 'this thread is almost a catch-all topic and contains a number of discussions'.
Yes, and WHO has said for weeks this thread should focus on 'Mozart, a Fraud ?' more than I ? There are 30 examples of me taking my time to repeat this, and to repeat it again. YOU are the one who is still disrupting this thread on issues which have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. And you are STILL DOING IT !
You are interfering with this thread. You are just a source of noise. Please do not continue to do this or the Moderators will take action to ban you, to relieve you of your bogus status, and not only from this thread but from this forum.
It's my final notice to you. Grow up in Gloucestershire and stop disrupting this forum. Mozart is a fairy story and you don't want it to be criticised. Simple. And everyone can see it.
Thank You
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Que on July 26, 2009, 03:53:10 AM
Post by: Que on July 26, 2009, 03:53:10 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 03:45:28 AM
The offer made by me to mail a recently published book free of charge on the background to the 'Mozart' opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro' has already been accepted by several readers of this thread and I have already posted it to them.
Now, will you please stop disrupting this thread ? You've been asked this so many times already.
Thank You
(Request Number 31 - and still counting)
Robert, it seems there is some confusion/discussion about the topic of this thread.
Let me offer my view: this thread is about your personal claim that Mozart is/was a fraud.
So, besides the origins of Mozart's music, the origins of the claim - being yourself - and your personal & academic credibility & authority and the way the claim is formulated and substantiated, is a legitimate subject of discussion as well.
Q
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 03:54:57 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 03:54:57 AM
I am starting to think that you are a bit off your head. Either that or your powers of observation and comprehension are rather lower than you try to convey.
As I am one of the moderators on this forum, when I post under the name, 'Knight'....basically you are being moderated. As I represent the views of the my co-moderators, I am unlikely to find either that my posts have been removed, or that I am banned....lucky me.
When I said that this was almost a catch-all thread for you, that meant that your various obsessions can all be discussed here. It is not really a Mozart thread, but is the only thread on which the topic of any Mozart conspiracy can be alluded to.
You should notice that the thread no longer sits in any Musical part of the board, an indication that we don't really regard what is being discussed here to be connected to music; sorry if that is a bit of a tough message. But we feel we have allowed you sufficient of a playpen and platform for you to muck about in and on. And, as you suggest, there has indeed been a lot of mucking about.
EDIT: While I was writing and posting this, it seems to have dawned on you that I am a mod...so you altered your rather perverse post; which still reads as one of your more bizarre contributions.
Knight
As I am one of the moderators on this forum, when I post under the name, 'Knight'....basically you are being moderated. As I represent the views of the my co-moderators, I am unlikely to find either that my posts have been removed, or that I am banned....lucky me.
When I said that this was almost a catch-all thread for you, that meant that your various obsessions can all be discussed here. It is not really a Mozart thread, but is the only thread on which the topic of any Mozart conspiracy can be alluded to.
You should notice that the thread no longer sits in any Musical part of the board, an indication that we don't really regard what is being discussed here to be connected to music; sorry if that is a bit of a tough message. But we feel we have allowed you sufficient of a playpen and platform for you to muck about in and on. And, as you suggest, there has indeed been a lot of mucking about.
EDIT: While I was writing and posting this, it seems to have dawned on you that I am a mod...so you altered your rather perverse post; which still reads as one of your more bizarre contributions.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Que on July 26, 2009, 03:58:28 AM
Post by: Que on July 26, 2009, 03:58:28 AM
Quote from: knight on July 26, 2009, 03:54:57 AM
When I said that this was almost a catch-all thread for you, that meant that your various obsessions can all be discussed here. It is not really a Mozart thread, but is the only thread on which the topic of any Mozart conspiracy can be alluded to.
You should notice that the thread no longer sits in any Musical part of the board, an indication that we don't really regard what is being discussed here to be connected to music;
Indeed. There you go, Robert. 8)
Q
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 04:04:51 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 04:04:51 AM
Quote from: Que on July 26, 2009, 03:53:10 AM
Robert, it seems there is some confusion/discussion about the topic of this thread.
Let me offer my view: this thread is about your personal claim that Mozart is/was a fraud.
So, besides the origins of Mozart's music, the origins of the claim - being yourself - and your personal & academic credibility & authority and the way the claim is formulated and substantiated, is a legitimate subject of discussion as well.
Q
Que,
I agree completely. And if you survey the contents of this thread we see hundreds of examples of stupid posts that have nothing to do with the subject under discussion. Don't you agree ? Against which I have complained, for weeks and weeks. As you see. But they continue. And they are being allowed to continue by Moderators of this forum. This is grossly unfair and it exposes the nature of this website as far as fair and reasonable discussion on the myth of Mozart is concerned. Since, as we both agree, this thread should be exchanging views on the subject given in its title. As you and I agree. I have posted here many examples of the fairy story which underpins the Mozart industry and now anyone can see the low standard of education of those who simply smear any discussion of the subject. This is typical. And it exposes these deceivers once and for all.
They are not interested in a fair discussion of different views. They are the equivalent of a radio signal whose aim is to jam fair and reasonable discussion. And I will not accept it without exposing it.
Here is the 'Mozart industry' in action. With these fools.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 04:06:45 AM
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 04:06:45 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 03:47:38 AM
You are interfering with this thread. You are just a source of noise. Please do not continue to do this or the Moderators will take action to ban you, to relieve you of your bogus status, and not only from this thread but from this forum.
It's my final notice to you.
My daddy is chief of the fire dept and he will whip your ass (if you have any)!
(http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1444/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1444R-260830.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 04:12:28 AM
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 04:12:28 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 04:08:26 AM
Herman,
You are a con-man, a deceiver, and a jesuitical shill. No clearer example exists than yours of the fairy story that is the Mozart industry.
(http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1444/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1444R-260830.jpg)
and pretty cute, too.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 04:13:50 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 04:13:50 AM
Dear oh dearie me Robert, it seems you are a mite upset. We can't be having these explosions of ill temper. I understand there was an even less temperate expression about my role here, but Que binned it very promptly. Again, your comprehension is at odds with reality, if you can clutch Que's post to your bosom as any form of either agreement with you or disagreement with me.
More self delusion.
Herman, If you wish the stunted tirade against yourself to be binned, just let us know.
Knight
More self delusion.
Herman, If you wish the stunted tirade against yourself to be binned, just let us know.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 04:17:31 AM
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 04:17:31 AM
Quote from: knight on July 26, 2009, 04:13:50 AM
Herman, If you wish the stunted tirade against yourself to be binned, just let us know.
Knight
well, any one-year old would be flattered at being called a jesuitical shill and (after a quick edit) a figure from a fairy tale. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 04:18:03 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 04:18:03 AM
Quote from: knight on July 26, 2009, 04:13:50 AM
Dear oh dearie me Robert, it seems you are a mite upset. We can't be having these explosions of ill temper. I understand there was an even less temperate expression about my role here, but Que binned it very promptly. Again, your comprehension is at odds with reality, if you can clutch Que's post to your bosom as any form of either agreement with you or disagreement with me.
More self delusion.
Herman, If you wish the stunted tirade against yourself to be binned, just let us know.
Knight
Feeling exposed, Knight ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 04:24:01 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 04:24:01 AM
I am sorry, but no. You will have to be a great deal wilier and actually put substance into your claims, as against, as Karl so succinctly puts it...a load of Blah!
That is not an invitation for you to embark on a virtual mud slinging. You are being moderated, so ought really to pay attention. Your bank balance with us is already in deficit.
Knight
That is not an invitation for you to embark on a virtual mud slinging. You are being moderated, so ought really to pay attention. Your bank balance with us is already in deficit.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 04:24:33 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 04:24:33 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 26, 2009, 04:06:45 AM
My daddy is chief of the fire dept and he will whip your ass (if you have any)!
(http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1444/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1444R-260830.jpg)
And my Daddy is bigger than your daddy and says you are a complete idiot. He predicts you will give us more proofs of this right here on this thread.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 04:39:10 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 04:39:10 AM
Clearly Herman is a patient man and forbaring. However Robert, any more negative personal remarks about members here, collective or individually targeted, that I notice today; I will bin the entire post.
Your ever patient and quietly amused Mod,
Knight
Your ever patient and quietly amused Mod,
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 04:51:57 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 04:51:57 AM
Quote from: knight on July 26, 2009, 04:39:10 AM
Clearly Herman is a patient man and forbaring. However Robert, any more negative personal remarks about members here, collective or individually targeted, that I notice today; I will bin the entire post.
Your ever patient and quietly amused Mod,
Knight
Knight,
Herman is no more patient etc. than myself. He should practice the Golden Rule, of 'doing unto others as he would have done unto himself'. Which is after all the basis of true civilization. Please ask him to stop making silly posts and threatening comments. And then we can all move on. You do not seem able to recognise his track record here.
Does this sound fair and reasonable to you ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 04:58:43 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 04:58:43 AM
I am very aware of Herman's distinguished track record over many years. it might be an enlightenment to you if you read the wider postings of quite a number of members that you find pesky on this thread and its sister. Many of them write seriously where they feel they can take the thread seriously.
Now, if you care to quote Herman's threats, I will certainly do something about them; as we don't like threats here that might make members feel insecure in their beds.
Knight
Now, if you care to quote Herman's threats, I will certainly do something about them; as we don't like threats here that might make members feel insecure in their beds.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Marc on July 26, 2009, 05:28:07 AM
Post by: Marc on July 26, 2009, 05:28:07 AM
I'm a bit surprised to find that this thread is still going on.
First:
There's someone, who claims to be a serious scholar, with a hypothesis that Mozart was a fraud which can't be discussed here, which leads to the circumstances that he keeps asking rhetorical questions.
How come these questions are rhetorical, and why can't his hypothesis be discussed?
Somehow, with the exceptions here & there of course, I have the feeling that this forum is mainly visited by music lovers and enthousiastic laymans. I for instance could never be able to contradict such a heavy scholastic hypothesis. I simply haven't got the real theoretical background and therefore no proof. Of course I could take a holiday and go to Italy and so forth, but I prefer the isle of Terschelling and I can't take that many holidays a year. And then again, I'm not a musicologist.
I truly believe this is a topic that should be discussed by scholars. Articles and books about the hypothesis Mozart is a fraud should be published. Scholars should read it, and then musicologists can travel to Modena or Australia to check the validity of this claim. Or, who knows, to find out if the good people who came up with this hypothesis are bad scholars, or maybe even frauds themselves, or maybe Luchesi was a fraud, or Sammartini, or the Modena librarian, or Milos Forman, or ....
Secondly, I have to admit that I'm also surprised about the lasting presence of some members. It's none of my business of course, but somehow I remember, when reading some 'discussions' about this hypothesis a couple of months ago, a rehearsed quotation called STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD. What happened to this this thread, I don't know. But it must have been something that kept it interesting enough to KEEP ON POSTING ON THIS THREAD.
Hmm, about to submit this, I realize that in a way I'm caught in the trap, too. But I won't CONTINUE POSTING ON THIS THREAD. IMHO, that should be the privilige of people who really know what they're talking and writing about.
First:
There's someone, who claims to be a serious scholar, with a hypothesis that Mozart was a fraud which can't be discussed here, which leads to the circumstances that he keeps asking rhetorical questions.
How come these questions are rhetorical, and why can't his hypothesis be discussed?
Somehow, with the exceptions here & there of course, I have the feeling that this forum is mainly visited by music lovers and enthousiastic laymans. I for instance could never be able to contradict such a heavy scholastic hypothesis. I simply haven't got the real theoretical background and therefore no proof. Of course I could take a holiday and go to Italy and so forth, but I prefer the isle of Terschelling and I can't take that many holidays a year. And then again, I'm not a musicologist.
I truly believe this is a topic that should be discussed by scholars. Articles and books about the hypothesis Mozart is a fraud should be published. Scholars should read it, and then musicologists can travel to Modena or Australia to check the validity of this claim. Or, who knows, to find out if the good people who came up with this hypothesis are bad scholars, or maybe even frauds themselves, or maybe Luchesi was a fraud, or Sammartini, or the Modena librarian, or Milos Forman, or ....
Secondly, I have to admit that I'm also surprised about the lasting presence of some members. It's none of my business of course, but somehow I remember, when reading some 'discussions' about this hypothesis a couple of months ago, a rehearsed quotation called STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD. What happened to this this thread, I don't know. But it must have been something that kept it interesting enough to KEEP ON POSTING ON THIS THREAD.
Hmm, about to submit this, I realize that in a way I'm caught in the trap, too. But I won't CONTINUE POSTING ON THIS THREAD. IMHO, that should be the privilige of people who really know what they're talking and writing about.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 05:29:47 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 05:29:47 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 26, 2009, 04:06:45 AM
My daddy is chief of the fire dept and he will whip your ass (if you have any)!
(http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1444/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1444R-260830.jpg)
How about this, Knight ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 05:44:55 AM
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 05:44:55 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 05:29:47 AM
How about this, Knight ?
like I said, pretty cute.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 05:53:59 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 05:53:59 AM
Quote from: Marc on July 26, 2009, 05:28:07 AM
I'm a bit surprised to find that this thread is still going on.
First:
There's someone, who claims to be a serious scholar, with a hypothesis that Mozart was a fraud which can't be discussed here, which leads to the circumstances that he keeps asking rhetorical questions.
How come these questions are rhetorical, and why can't his hypothesis be discussed?
Somehow, with the exceptions here & there of course, I have the feeling that this forum is mainly visited by music lovers and enthousiastic laymans. I for instance could never be able to contradict such a heavy scholastic hypothesis. I simply haven't got the real theoretical background and therefore no proof. Of course I could take a holiday and go to Italy and so forth, but I prefer the isle of Terschelling and I can't take that many holidays a year. And then again, I'm not a musicologist.
I truly believe this is a topic that should be discussed by scholars. Articles and books about the hypothesis Mozart is a fraud should be published. Scholars should read it, and then musicologists can travel to Modena or Australia to check the validity of this claim. Or, who knows, to find out if the good people who came up with this hypothesis are bad scholars, or maybe even frauds themselves, or maybe Luchesi was a fraud, or Sammartini, or the Modena librarian, or Milos Forman, or ....
Secondly, I have to admit that I'm also surprised about the lasting presence of some members. It's none of my business of course, but somehow I remember, when reading some 'discussions' about this hypothesis a couple of months ago, a rehearsed quotation called STOP POSTING ON THIS THREAD. What happened to this this thread, I don't know. But it must have been something that kept it interesting enough to KEEP ON POSTING ON THIS THREAD.
Hmm, about to submit this, I realize that in a way I'm caught in the trap, too. But I won't CONTINUE POSTING ON THIS THREAD. IMHO, that should be the privilige of people who really know what they're talking and writing about.
This is a helpful post.
The situation is rather simple. A huge industry exists (one which dominates the study of music and its history) and which goes by the name of the 'Mozart industry'. It's influence is so massive that Mozart, as a phenomenon, literally dominates musicology (along with a small number of other composers). And has done so for almost 200 years. The hugely funded Mozart industry (which produces lots of publications) seems, on the surface, to be one of the best, the most competent branches of musical research. But when we examine this issue more closely we find that its views are highly dogmatic.
Take for example the lack of books and publications which show the bias of those who first wrote about Mozart. (Mozart himself, his family members, his fraternal colleagues, publishers and propagandists). Now, this sort of material is of course, biased in favour of Mozart being a great musical genius. Nothing surprising about that, of course, except that it, and the contents of other early biographies can be shown to be filled with huge, often serious contradictions, paradoxes, and examples of downright fraud. In areas of genuine research criticism is welcomed and helps us to progress. But not in 'Mozart studies' where, decade after decade inconvenient facts are buried, suppressed, and even ignored. That's fact number 1.
The well known story of Mozart is itself riddled with contradictions. At each and every stage. So, from a biographical point of view the input of propagandists and vested interests is indisputable.
When we consider the musical manuscripts themselves the situation is no better. Entire piles of works once published in his name have been proved not to be his. And still we have only scratched the surface on this. Today, around 25 symphonies are attributed to Mozart before the age of 16, not one of which shows evidence of being composed by him. Literally dozens of other works are the same. And this continues in his youth. Not surprisingly, it even continues into his maturity, into the last (Vienna) decade of his life (1781-1791). And that's not all. After his death came publication of more than 500 more 'Mozart' works. These officially 'his'.
And that's not all. Instead of having a body of studies which accepts ALL the evidence for fair study what we have is an industry which will overlook entire manuscripts which call in to question the well known story of his life and career. 'Le Nozze di Figaro' is one such example. Imagine this ! For over 200 years that music score of that opera has been in the Austrian National Library. But has the 'Mozart industry' written in detail about its contents ? Has it examined it in detail ? No ! Why ? Because they want you to believe ANOTHER score is his 'autograph' though it was made years AFTER the version actually used for the premiere performances in Vienna. And so the actual score is never refered to or studied in detail. This sort of activity has gone on for decades.
The same is true of the concertos, of many, many other works. And in all of this the plan is to remove from view the contemporaries of Mozart himself. So that the average music lover today knows very little of the music of others of his own time. What they have, in fact, is a highly 'sanitised' version of a musical 'genius' whose story is almost never examined in the same way we would study any composer. And what we have now is the domination of music history by vested interests, by elitist commercial companies, who continue to profit from this misinformation.
I can assure you (and it's a view shared by several other researchers) that this story of Mozart is hugely falsified and exaggerated and that it's true cost is massive. I base this on having studied the subject for over 15 years. The story is really one of CONTROL of culture and of the teaching of music. So that vested interests CONTROL what is taught and believed. Its cost including the suppression of the careers and music of MANY composers whose names are today virtually unknown. At the very least, these grounds justify a modern critical book on Mozart using the actual evidence. So that people can form their own fair judgement.
Here is a radio interview I gave to Sweden a few months ago on the subject of Mozart. If you haven't already heard it perhaps it might be of some help -
http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2009/04/robert-newman-mozart-myth.html
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 06:09:43 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 06:09:43 AM
The reason why the "hypothesis" hasn't been discussed much is that because when it was, several reasonable posters raised questions about the veracity of the claims and lack of evidence, and Newman instead of answering to them accused them of being part of the conspiracy, being close minded, and being all around idiots! :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 06:19:55 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 06:19:55 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 06:09:43 AM
The reason why the "hypothesis" hasn't been discussed much is that because when it was, several reasonable posters raised questions about the veracity of the claims and lack of evidence, and Newman instead of answering to them accused them of being part of the conspiracy, being close minded, and being all around idiots! :D
Really ? OK, DavidW, that's what you say. Can you show us when questions were being made by other members of the veracity of the claims in this hypothesis ? And can you show us examples of me having a 'lack of evidence' ?
I will immediately reply to your own reply.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 06:33:50 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 06:33:50 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 05:29:47 AM
How about this, Knight ?
Quote from Herman: My daddy is chief of the fire dept and he will whip your ass (if you have any)!
I will treat you as being serious, though I find it difficult to credit.
1) I don't think that was actually a photo of Herman, rather it was of an infant well into training for driving his fire engine and flying jumbo jets, which will be child's play for him by his third birthday.
2) I don't think Herman's father is or was in the fire brigade.
3) Even if he was, I hardly think he would be likely to keep his job if he came across the English Channel to chastise you.
4) How would his father know where to find you to whip your ass should he feel so inclined? In sum, you remain safe in your bed, but I would like to remove sharp objects from within your reach.
5) Do get a grip.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 07:00:47 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 07:00:47 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 06:19:55 AM
Really ? OK, DavidW, that's what you say. Can you show us when questions were being made by other members of the veracity of the claims in this hypothesis ? And can you show us examples of me having a 'lack of evidence' ?
I'm afraid that if I ask who "we" are, you'll say "we are legion!" and scare me half to death! :-X
Why is that you shift the burden away from you even for unanswered questions about you shifting the burden of proof? And why am I surprised? It is delightfully consistent of you! :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 26, 2009, 07:07:47 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 26, 2009, 07:07:47 AM
Quote from: knight on July 26, 2009, 06:33:50 AMIn sum, you remain safe in your bed, but I would like to remove sharp objects from within your reach.
I doubt the inmates are allowed sharp objects in the facility where Newman resides. If you do manage a visit, Mike, you might suggest to staff that they re-evaluate the dosage of his meds.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 07:31:03 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 07:31:03 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 07:00:47 AM
I'm afraid that if I ask who "we" are, you'll say "we are legion!" and scare me half to death! :-X
Why is that you shift the burden away from you even for unanswered questions about you shifting the burden of proof? And why am I surprised? It is delightfully consistent of you! :D
I am asking for supposed 'unanswered questions' and for examples of me having a lack of evidence and you still haven't given any examples, have you ? Try Better ? You made the accusation and we want your evidence in support of it. So I am asking you again.
Any evidence David ? Or is it another of your inventions ?
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 07:33:34 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 07:33:34 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 26, 2009, 07:07:47 AM
I doubt the inmates are allowed sharp objects in the facility where Newman resides. If you do manage a visit, Mike, you might suggest to staff that they re-evaluate the dosage of his meds.
David Ross,
You can't post on Mozart, can you ? So you have to show us examples of your life experience. We really aren't interested in them. Try posting on the subject of this thread since it gets awfully boring to repeat the same request time after time. People are starting to think you are simply not able to talk about this subject. Are they wrong ?
http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2009/04/robert-newman-mozart-myth.html
Thank You
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on July 26, 2009, 07:44:17 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on July 26, 2009, 07:44:17 AM
People will only ever take you seriously Rob if you show concrete evidence supporting your claims. That's just how it goes. Otherwise, you may as just come out and say that "the sky is falling" or "pigs are flying".
I just think you like all the attention you are getting.
I just think you like all the attention you are getting.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 07:49:15 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 07:49:15 AM
I'll tell you what Rob, I can help you out with that, but first I would like to know the reason why you put so much white space around your question marks. For dramatic effect? Or is the syntax used by Martians? You're a martian, come here to infiltrate us humans, disguising yourself as one of us. There is a conspiracy from the media that there are no Martians, but you are one aren't you? Should I believe the conspiracy theory that there are no martians? All I have to say is check the olive oil. It is certainly the medium in which you Martians travel, that is why it's so important to this whole discussion.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 26, 2009, 07:52:34 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 26, 2009, 07:52:34 AM
Here's a completely on-topic post:
rob,
How come the *only* reference to this dynamic duo that turns up is on the same wanker echo-chamber webpage that features your hideous mug?: http://www.italianopera.org/aboutE.html
Those two seem to have an even more tenuous grasp on orthography than you. And they have both "taught in [sic] an Academy of Music"? WTF does that mean? If you're gonna fake credentials, at least fake them a little more convincingly. Teaching "in" an academy means you gave private lessons in a building belonging to an academy but you weren't actually employed by the academy. Wankers! If you can show some peer reviewed work of theirs somewhere credible maybe we'll listen.
BTW, your whole preposterous thesis still has two major gaping holes. No.1 is the fact that the whole "Mozart industry" of which you speak is a distinct late-20th century phenomenon. The mass-marketing of Mozart did not begin in earnest until the invention of the LP. Most of his works apart from key warhorses were not even performed on a regular basis before then. His entire early opera output was virtually unknown to most music lovers and musicians alike. So the claim that this was a 200-year Jesuit conspiracy collapses right there because between the time Mozart was buried in a pauper's grave and his resurrection as a cultural icon in the second half of the 20th century there was simply no conspiratorial continuity.
No.2, the whole nonsense you write about these myriad other composers from whom Mozart allegedly 'stole' his works is pure idiocy as anyone with a pair of ears can tell you. There is a stylistic unity among all of Mozart's works. Even if you have never heard a particular work before, you can immediately tell Mozart's style. The known works of the other composers you cite, while superficially similar since they share the same period of origin, are nothing like Mozart's music. You also simply list too many different composers with too many different personal styles. If Mozart's works were all pilfered, there would be a stylistic disunity among his works, reflecting the diverse provenance of the individual pieces. Yet that is not the case at all. You would have had more luck with your theory had you picked a composer with noticeable stylistic breaks (e.g. Beethoven with his widely divergent three compositional periods), in which case it would have been somewhat easier to convince the gullible that different composers were actually at work. (...oh, no, I'm giving him ideas...)
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 02:11:20 AM
In 2008 a book was published by Prof. Luca Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta, bla bla bla...
rob,
How come the *only* reference to this dynamic duo that turns up is on the same wanker echo-chamber webpage that features your hideous mug?: http://www.italianopera.org/aboutE.html
Those two seem to have an even more tenuous grasp on orthography than you. And they have both "taught in [sic] an Academy of Music"? WTF does that mean? If you're gonna fake credentials, at least fake them a little more convincingly. Teaching "in" an academy means you gave private lessons in a building belonging to an academy but you weren't actually employed by the academy. Wankers! If you can show some peer reviewed work of theirs somewhere credible maybe we'll listen.
BTW, your whole preposterous thesis still has two major gaping holes. No.1 is the fact that the whole "Mozart industry" of which you speak is a distinct late-20th century phenomenon. The mass-marketing of Mozart did not begin in earnest until the invention of the LP. Most of his works apart from key warhorses were not even performed on a regular basis before then. His entire early opera output was virtually unknown to most music lovers and musicians alike. So the claim that this was a 200-year Jesuit conspiracy collapses right there because between the time Mozart was buried in a pauper's grave and his resurrection as a cultural icon in the second half of the 20th century there was simply no conspiratorial continuity.
No.2, the whole nonsense you write about these myriad other composers from whom Mozart allegedly 'stole' his works is pure idiocy as anyone with a pair of ears can tell you. There is a stylistic unity among all of Mozart's works. Even if you have never heard a particular work before, you can immediately tell Mozart's style. The known works of the other composers you cite, while superficially similar since they share the same period of origin, are nothing like Mozart's music. You also simply list too many different composers with too many different personal styles. If Mozart's works were all pilfered, there would be a stylistic disunity among his works, reflecting the diverse provenance of the individual pieces. Yet that is not the case at all. You would have had more luck with your theory had you picked a composer with noticeable stylistic breaks (e.g. Beethoven with his widely divergent three compositional periods), in which case it would have been somewhat easier to convince the gullible that different composers were actually at work. (...oh, no, I'm giving him ideas...)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 07:54:48 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 07:54:48 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 07:49:15 AM
I'll tell you what Rob, I can help you out with that, but first I would like to know the reason why you put so much white space around your question marks. For dramatic effect? Or is the syntax used by Martians? You're a martian, come here to infiltrate us humans, disguising yourself as one of us. There is a conspiracy from the media that there are no Martians, but you are one aren't you? Should I believe the conspiracy theory that there are no martians? All I have to say is check the olive oil. It is certainly the medium in which you Martians travel, that is why it's so important to this whole discussion.
- Rubbish - Please post on topic (request number 35)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 07:55:20 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 26, 2009, 07:55:20 AM
Robert,
I will be charitable and assume your reply to each of the Davids was disingenuous.
There are pages and pages here where you were asked questions, but you adopted, what for the experiment here was, an inappropriate Socratic method of answering those questions with questions.
Also, few here claim to be qualified to pronounce about Mozart, but there are plenty of sharp cookies on the board who know how to get to the root of a matter and ask pertinent questions. They did, you prevaricated or gave them insubstantial answers that you both claimed to be fact and to be self evident to sensible people.
So step by predictable step you lead yourself to this place where you sit in your corner and the rest of the room takes pot shots. We assume that as you pop back into that corner so often, that you quite like the adversity.
I am pretty much disinterested in the topic. I asked you some questions, but the answers did not stack up. I therefore made up my mind and don't have the hunger to keep prompting you to get a move on and show us the money. I sense it is Monopoly money and not good in any shop.
But I thought I would let you know how things appear to stand through my observations. I am used to taking the temperature of the board. It is very cool on accepting your allegations about Mozart, but warm for exposing humbug and hot to detect any chinks in your chain mail, which looks to unravel in front of our eyes.
Mike....NB Mike not Knight for the present. I know it can be confusing to those who may be dazzled by a couple of bright lights being shone into their face.
I will be charitable and assume your reply to each of the Davids was disingenuous.
There are pages and pages here where you were asked questions, but you adopted, what for the experiment here was, an inappropriate Socratic method of answering those questions with questions.
Also, few here claim to be qualified to pronounce about Mozart, but there are plenty of sharp cookies on the board who know how to get to the root of a matter and ask pertinent questions. They did, you prevaricated or gave them insubstantial answers that you both claimed to be fact and to be self evident to sensible people.
So step by predictable step you lead yourself to this place where you sit in your corner and the rest of the room takes pot shots. We assume that as you pop back into that corner so often, that you quite like the adversity.
I am pretty much disinterested in the topic. I asked you some questions, but the answers did not stack up. I therefore made up my mind and don't have the hunger to keep prompting you to get a move on and show us the money. I sense it is Monopoly money and not good in any shop.
But I thought I would let you know how things appear to stand through my observations. I am used to taking the temperature of the board. It is very cool on accepting your allegations about Mozart, but warm for exposing humbug and hot to detect any chinks in your chain mail, which looks to unravel in front of our eyes.
Mike....NB Mike not Knight for the present. I know it can be confusing to those who may be dazzled by a couple of bright lights being shone into their face.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Haffner on July 26, 2009, 07:56:24 AM
Post by: Haffner on July 26, 2009, 07:56:24 AM
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 26, 2009, 07:44:17 AM
People will only ever take you seriously Rob if you show concrete evidence supporting your claims. That's just how it goes. Otherwise, you may as just come out and say that "the sky is falling" or "pigs are flying".
I just think you like all the attention you are getting.
I'm completely astounded that this has gone on for 75+ pages. Somebody must be getting something out of this. I just come on and look and wonder.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 07:58:15 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 26, 2009, 07:58:15 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 07:54:48 AM
- Rubbish - Please post on topic (request number 35)
So you have no evidence to offer that you are NOT a martian? How convenient! Why I know why we have not heard of your music school... it is because... it is on... MARS! You can't trick us now, we know the TRUTH! :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 08:10:49 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 08:10:49 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 26, 2009, 07:52:34 AM
Here's a completely on-topic post:
rob,
How come the *only* reference to this dynamic duo that turns up is on the same wanker echo-chamber webpage that features your hideous mug?: http://www.italianopera.org/aboutE.html
Those two seem to have an even more tenuous grasp on orthography than you. And they have both "taught in [sic] an Academy of Music"? WTF does that mean? If you're gonna fake credentials, at least fake them a little more convincingly. Teaching "in" an academy means you gave private lessons in a building belonging to an academy but you weren't actually employed by the academy. Wankers! If you can show some peer reviewed work of theirs somewhere credible maybe we'll listen.
BTW, your whole preposterous thesis still has two major gaping holes. No.1 is the fact that the whole "Mozart industry" of which you speak is a distinct late-20th century phenomenon. The mass-marketing of Mozart did not begin in earnest until the invention of the LP. Most of his works apart from key warhorses were not even performed on a regular basis before then. His entire early opera output was virtually unknown to most music lovers and musicians alike. So the claim that this was a 200-year Jesuit conspiracy collapses right there because between the time Mozart was buried in a pauper's grave and his resurrection as a cultural icon in the second half of the 20th century there was simply no conspiratorial continuity.
No.2, the whole nonsense you write about these myriad other composers from whom Mozart allegedly 'stole' his works is pure idiocy as anyone with a pair of ears can tell you. There is a stylistic unity among all of Mozart's works. Even if you have never heard a particular work before, you can immediately tell Mozart's style. The known works of the other composers you cite, while superficially similar since they share the same period of origin, are nothing like Mozart's music. You also simply list too many different composers with too many different personal styles. If Mozart's works were all pilfered, there would be a stylistic disunity among his works, reflecting the diverse provenance of the individual pieces. Yet that is not the case at all. You would have had more luck with your theory had you picked a composer with noticeable stylistic breaks (e.g. Beethoven with his widely divergent three compositional periods), in which case it would have been somewhat easier to convince the gullible that different composers were actually at work. (...oh, no, I'm giving him ideas...)
/
O Mensch,
You are not very well informed, are you ? About the history of music, I mean.
1. You say '' the whole "Mozart industry" of which you speak is a distinct late-20th century phenomenon. The mass-marketing of Mozart did not begin in earnest until the invention of the LP.''
In reply, this is simply untrue. Works being published in the name of Mozart were hugely popular during the 19th century. Don't you know this ? The earliest concerts of the London Philharmonic in the early 19th century were dominated by 'Mozart'. He was the most frequently performed composer of orchestral music in England from around 1813 to around 1840. I have the actual programmes of those concerts in London. And the advent of the recording industry massively revived his myth. The publication of the Koechel catalogue in the late 19th century and of various biographies, the founding of the Mozarteum, etc. etc. are all other examples. 'Mozart' was a myth long, long before the arrival of the LP. As it proved in music libraries all across Europe.
2. You say there is a 'stylistic unity among all of Mozart's works'.
This is fiction. Do you know the music of Josef Myslivececk ? Or the mature music of Vanhal ? Or Righini ? Or Luchesi ? Or dozens of others whose names are today virtually suppressed ? The list is very long. There is a 'stylistic unity' in Myslivececk's music which just happens to correspond closely to the one you allege in the mature Mozart. But the public know next to nothing of Mozart's musical contemporaries and even less of their own music. So your arguments are spurious. Since they have nothing to compare them with.
Secondly, the plagiarisation found in 'Mozart' is massive. There are HUNDREDS of examples. And you cannot serious claim that the early operas of 'Mozart' are distinctively 'Mozartean' in their musical content, can you ? Nor the content of 'his' earliest sonatas, masses and symphonies. Nor even of 'his' earliest concertos, no less than 7 of which were fraudulently performed in 'Mozart's' name, 4 of them in to the 20th century, though they are actually by other composers ! The nonsense you are peddling falls apart.
The Mozart industry has robbed music lovers of any appreciation of the musical achievements of Mozart's own contemporaries. So, once again, you are hugely misinformed. There are countless pop groups today whose music sounds similar. There are countless composers of Mozart's time whose music is remarkably 'Mozartean'. The entire history of Koechel testifies to this plain fact.
And finally, the scale of musical misattribution and fakery is greater with Mozart than that of virtually any other composer. So great that it is the dominant feature of his childhood, youth and maturity.
These and a thousand other reasons justify a critical examination of 'Mozart' and the dogmatic industry which pushes his myth to the exclusion of fair and reasonable criticism.
Mozart was a manufactured myth of the late Holy Roman Empire whose story has hardly been told.
Grow out of it ! Listen to the music of his contemporaries. And this will be a valid part of your musical education. You have not been informed until you hear both sides. Unless, of course, you consider yourself to be a 'Mozartean'. In which case nothing will ever persuade you differently.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 26, 2009, 08:42:43 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 26, 2009, 08:42:43 AM
Boy, you love beating up straw men, don't you?
I didn't say there wasn't stylistic unity within the oeuvre of the various composers from which you allege Mozart's music was stolen. That's precisely my point. *Each* of those composers has *his own* style. It cannot be that a heterogeneous group of composers is responsible for a homogeneous body of works wrongly attributed to Mozart.
BTW, I note that you once again evade any questions regarding the credentials of the sources you cite. (Actually you didn't even cite your source, you just claim that there is one.)
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 08:10:49 AM
There is a 'stylistic unity' in Myslivececk's music which just happens to correspond closely to the one you allege in the mature Mozart.
I didn't say there wasn't stylistic unity within the oeuvre of the various composers from which you allege Mozart's music was stolen. That's precisely my point. *Each* of those composers has *his own* style. It cannot be that a heterogeneous group of composers is responsible for a homogeneous body of works wrongly attributed to Mozart.
BTW, I note that you once again evade any questions regarding the credentials of the sources you cite. (Actually you didn't even cite your source, you just claim that there is one.)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 08:50:32 AM
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 08:50:32 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 26, 2009, 07:52:34 AMTwo more things about that website.
Here's a completely on-topic post:
rob,
How come the *only* reference to this dynamic duo that turns up is on the same wanker echo-chamber webpage that features your hideous mug?: http://www.italianopera.org/aboutE.html
1. That's the only photo of Rob Newman I've been able to find - all the others are photoshopped versions of the same portrait. Rob, if that's really you, what was stocked in the vending machine behind you?
2. One of the Italian gentlemen bears a striking resemblance to Sean.
(http://www.italianopera.org/img/luca.JPG) (http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m71/SeanMcHugh02/Bee%20swarm/Beeswarm007.jpg)
I guess the noses are different, and the Italian guy's got more hair.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: The new erato on July 26, 2009, 09:03:00 AM
Post by: The new erato on July 26, 2009, 09:03:00 AM
Quote from: Brian on July 26, 2009, 08:50:32 AMIs that because he is more hairbrained?
I guess the noses are different, and the Italian guy's got more hair.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 09:10:41 AM
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 09:10:41 AM
Quote from: erato on July 26, 2009, 09:03:00 AM;D ;D
Is that because he is more hairbrained?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 09:19:51 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 09:19:51 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 26, 2009, 08:42:43 AM
Boy, you love beating up straw men, don't you?
I didn't say there wasn't stylistic unity within the oeuvre of the various composers from which you allege Mozart's music was stolen. That's precisely my point. *Each* of those composers has *his own* style. It cannot be that a heterogeneous group of composers is responsible for a homogeneous body of works wrongly attributed to Mozart.
BTW, I note that you once again evade any questions regarding the credentials of the sources you cite. (Actually you didn't even cite your source, you just claim that there is one.)
Well, you were plain wrong about Mozart only becoming a very popular composer around the time of the gramophone record, weren't you ? Never mind, let's hope your sympathetic readers forget about this clumsy and very basic error of yours.
No, YOU didn't say there is a stylistic unity within the oeuvre of various composers of Mozart's own time. I didn't say you did ! Since I was the one who said there is, not you ! (Let's go round and round in circles, shall we) ? The fact is the mature works of Myslivececk, of Vanhal, of Righini and various other composers that are today little known (let alone their music) are strikingly similar to the style of 'Mozart', the style which you falsely want us to believe was his even in his childhood and youth. But the truth is that the style of 'Mozart' is absent from many, many works of 'his' childhood and youth.
Do you want to start again ? :)
And even 'his' mature works (those attributed to, say, his Vienna years) which include KV444, a symphony which was 'mature Mozart' up until the 20th century, is not, in fact, by Mozart. How did that huge error occur ? Stylistically, it was accepted as Mozart's own work. By who ? By the editors of the Koechel catalogue, by the Mozarteum, and by music publishers, that's who !! ::)
In England, the most popular of all church works of 'Mozart' during the whole 19th century was his so-called '12th Mass'. But this work is NOT by Mozart at all. And so it goes on. The 'Requiem' itself was hugely popular although as early as 1825 it was argued in a detailed journal article by musicologist Gottfried Weber in Vienna that it was not by Mozart at all - a view shared by various other composers of the 19th century including Robert Schumann and others. Time after time the truth is different from the fairy story. Even in mature works. Then we have the case of Le Nozze di Figaro, the piano concertos, the mature symphonies, the quintets, and many, many others. Until you have heard both sides of this story you are really working with one hand tied behind your back. As for your other supporters here, really, they applaud you all the same. It's very funny. Isn't that called 'the blind leading the blind' ?
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 26, 2009, 11:08:16 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 26, 2009, 11:08:16 AM
I will repeat a very simple question. Please answer it for a change:
How come a heterogeneous group of composers is responsible for a homogeneous body of works wrongly attributed to Mozart.
How come a heterogeneous group of composers is responsible for a homogeneous body of works wrongly attributed to Mozart.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 26, 2009, 11:25:03 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 26, 2009, 11:25:03 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 07:33:34 AMTry posting on the subject of this thread....
Duh. Mr Newman--given your constant display of willfully limited mental capacity no one here is surprised by your inability to grasp even the simplest concepts, but if you get your meds adjusted properly you might discover that your delusional trolling is the subject of this thread and has been from the start. I think everyone here wishes you well, but we cannot do anything for you nor can the doctors if you will not cooperate with their treatment. Best wishes for your recovery from what is obviously a tragically crippling illness.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 11:53:38 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 11:53:38 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 26, 2009, 11:08:16 AM
I will repeat a very simple question. Please answer it for a change:
How come a heterogeneous group of composers is responsible for a homogeneous body of works wrongly attributed to Mozart.
Well, one of the first rules of a fair conversation is for you to acknowledge the posts of the person you are talking to. And now twice you see you are wrong, in saying that the popularity of Mozart began only at the time of gramophone records. It did not. As I have already said. In fact 'Mozart' was (as said already) hugely published and performed across Europe in the 19th century. And since you are really interested in facts (aren't you ?) more than 500 works were first published posthumously (i.e. after Mozart's death) and less than 150 in 'Mozart's' name DURING his life. Of which more than 100 of these are works from his childhood and youth. In Mozart's lifetime only 3 symphonies were published in his name, and only 5 concertos. None are by Mozart. In addition, not a single operatic score of 'Mozart' was published in his entire lifetime. Nor a single mass. Shall I continue ?
So let's continue with our discussion of facts, instead of fictions. The truth is that the works of 'Mozart' and the manufacture of his posthumous status is a subject you know almost nothing of. Since, as said now 3 times, you believe it to be a modern affair when, in fact, it is not. Such is your opening argument and it's fiction.
As to you asking whether composers can produce a work in Mozartean style, it is by far the easiest musical style to produce. Consisting of no special harmonic invention. Whose chief feature, of course is chromaticism, as everyone knows. Add chromaticism to a symphony or concerto of the late 18th century and, 'voila' you have a 'Mozartean' type work.
Now, if you don't believe me on this why not consult a Mozart scholar who has worked in this area of research Professor Eisen ? He has made special study of 'Mozart's style' and is in full agreement on this point. You do not know the style of Vanhal during the period of Mozart's life in Vienna, do you ? I have several masses of his (with orchestral accompaniment) which I guarantee you could not tell the difference between those of 'Mozart' and them. I have numerous works by Righini, and by Myslivececk and various others. And even concertos written after the time of Mozart's death in a style you could not distinguish from 'Mozart'. These are plain facts.
Again, I say, that stylistically, you are not able to compare like with like, for the simple reason that your Mozartean education sees 'his' music as stylistically distinct, when, in fact, it was nothing of the kind. Besides, there are numerous works by 'Mozart' which lack the very style you claim is 'Mozartean'. Many symphonies, for example. Sonatas, masses, operas etc.
Why do you invent the idea that Mozart, stylistically, wrote the same throughout his career when, in plain fact, he did nothing of the kind ? You are refering only to works that are attributed to Mozart, for the most part, in Vienna. And not to the 400 or so which are credited to him before Vienna. This is highly selective stuff, isn't it ?
Once again, the trick is to remove from our appreciation the style of that time (1780-1791) and to call it 'Mozart' when, in fact, there are literally hundreds of evidences against you. And so the Mozart myth requires you to be in ignorance of the music and musicians of that time.
Why, Myslivececk (who died in 1781) was a 'Mozart' before Mozart ever came to Vienna. He is the most frequently mentioned composer in the entire Mozart family correspondence and many, many works of his has falsely been attributed to W.A. Mozart. That's just a start !
The 'Paris' Symphony K297 is NOT in 'Mozart's' style, is it ? Nor is the 'Jeunhomme' Concerto. There are many, many works which are NOT in the style you believe is distinctively Mozartean. And, as already said, there are MANY works by OTHER composers which I guarantee you would attribute to Mozart. Of which late Vanhal is just one of MANY examples.
When we examine the actual manuscripts of this music we find the very same. That these works today being attributed to Mozart, in case after case, are NOT by Mozart at all. For lots of different reasons. Some of which cases I've already mentioned and others which would take much time to explain. Including, as said 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. And the piano concertos themselves. To say nothing of the symphonies attributed to him between 35 and 41, etc etc etc.
Now, each work requires to be considered fairly. But I hope that at least you appreciate your need not to accept dogma for its own sake. To have available (at last) both sides of the story. Which is all I (and others) are trying to provide.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: ChamberNut on July 26, 2009, 11:59:03 AM
Post by: ChamberNut on July 26, 2009, 11:59:03 AM
Robert, you must seriously have the largest colon of any human being, as you continually pull these rabbits out of your ass. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 12:02:11 PM
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 12:02:11 PM
Mozart ... Moooooooozaaarrttt ... nice, woody word! Moooooozaarrrtt.
Myslivecek ... ugh, tinny word!
http://www.youtube.com/v/-gwXJsWHupg
Myslivecek ... ugh, tinny word!
http://www.youtube.com/v/-gwXJsWHupg
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:02:33 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:02:33 PM
Quote from: ChamberNut on July 26, 2009, 11:59:03 AM
Robert, you must seriously have the largest colon of any human being, as you continually pull these rabbits out of your ass. ::)
ChamberNut,
Your posts are increasing in frequency. Let us hope they will soon reach the perfect balance of being matched by their content.
:)
p.s. On second thoughts, there are so many weeds and thistles on this thread that your ignorance will soon be forgotten, as a single tree is disguised by the forest in which it stands.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Haffner on July 26, 2009, 12:13:16 PM
Post by: Haffner on July 26, 2009, 12:13:16 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 11:53:38 AM
As to you asking whether composers can produce a work in Mozartean style, it is by far the easiest musical style to produce. Consisting of no special harmonic invention. Whose chief feature, of course is chromaticism, as everyone knows. Add chromaticism to a symphony or concerto of the late 18th century and, 'voila' you have a 'Mozartean' type work.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 26, 2009, 12:19:31 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 26, 2009, 12:19:31 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 11:53:38 AM
As to you asking whether composers can produce a work in Mozartean style, it is by far the easiest musical style to produce. Consisting of no special harmonic invention. Whose chief feature, of course is chromaticism, as everyone knows. Add chromaticism to a symphony or concerto of the late 18th century and, 'voila' you have a 'Mozartean' type work.
That is by far the funniest thing you have posted ever! Why don't you produce such an 'easy' Mozartean piece and declare yourself to have discovered a forgotten work of the great master. You'd make far more money with that 'discovery' than with the bunk you're peddling here.
BTW, I'm aware of some of Eisen's writings and have never come across anything even remotely substantiating your nonsense here. If you know of any supporting material in his texts, please quote it here and provide a proper page citation. That's how we do it in real world academia.
PS: The only reason why I'm sticking to this subject is because it is easier to debate one topic at a time. I disagree with all the bunk you write about the "Mozart industry'. A few concerts here, a Mozarteum there do not an 'industry' make. There was never sufficient economic incentive for the kind of conspiracy you allege until the second half of the 20th century. You can give up arguing that point.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 26, 2009, 12:25:04 PM
Post by: bhodges on July 26, 2009, 12:25:04 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 11:53:38 AM
Well, one of the first rules of a fair conversation is for you to acknowledge the posts of the person you are talking to. And now twice you see you are wrong, in saying that the popularity of Mozart began only at the time of gramophone records. It did not. As I have already said. In fact 'Mozart' was (as said already) hugely published and performed across Europe in the 19th century. And since you are really interested in facts (aren't you ?) more than 500 works were first published posthumously (i.e. after Mozart's death) and less than 150 in 'Mozart's' name DURING his life. Of which more than 100 of these are works from his childhood and youth. In Mozart's lifetime only 3 symphonies were published in his name, and only 5 concertos. None are by Mozart. In addition, not a single operatic score of 'Mozart' was published in his entire lifetime. Nor a single mass. Shall I continue ?
So let's continue with our discussion of facts, instead of fictions. The truth is that the works of 'Mozart' and the manufacture of his posthumous status is a subject you know almost nothing of. Since, as said now 3 times, you believe it to be a modern affair when, in fact, it is not. Such is your opening argument and it's fiction.
As to you asking whether composers can produce a work in Mozartean style, it is by far the easiest musical style to produce. Consisting of no special harmonic invention. Whose chief feature, of course is chromaticism, as everyone knows. Add chromaticism to a symphony or concerto of the late 18th century and, 'voila' you have a 'Mozartean' type work.
Now, if you don't believe me on this why not consult a Mozart scholar who has worked in this area of research Professor Eisen ? He has made special study of 'Mozart's style' and is in full agreement on this point. You do not know the style of Vanhal during the period of Mozart's life in Vienna, do you ? I have several masses of his (with orchestral accompaniment) which I guarantee you could not tell the difference between those of 'Mozart' and them. I have numerous works by Righini, and by Myslivececk and various others. And even concertos written after the time of Mozart's death in a style you could not distinguish from 'Mozart'. These are plain facts.
Again, I say, that stylistically, you are not able to compare like with like, for the simple reason that your Mozartean education sees 'his' music as stylistically distinct, when, in fact, it was nothing of the kind. Besides, there are numerous works by 'Mozart' which lack the very style you claim is 'Mozartean'. Many symphonies, for example. Sonatas, masses, operas etc.
Why do you invent the idea that Mozart, stylistically, wrote the same throughout his career when, in plain fact, he did nothing of the kind ? You are refering only to works that are attributed to Mozart, for the most part, in Vienna. And not to the 400 or so which are credited to him before Vienna. This is highly selective stuff, isn't it ?
Once again, the trick is to remove from our appreciation the style of that time (1780-1791) and to call it 'Mozart' when, in fact, there are literally hundreds of evidences against you. And so the Mozart myth requires you to be in ignorance of the music and musicians of that time.
Why, Myslivececk (who died in 1781) was a 'Mozart' before Mozart ever came to Vienna. He is the most frequently mentioned composer in the entire Mozart family correspondence and many, many works of his has falsely been attributed to W.A. Mozart. That's just a start !
The 'Paris' Symphony K297 is NOT in 'Mozart's' style, is it ? Nor is the 'Jeunhomme' Concerto. There are many, many works which are NOT in the style you believe is distinctively Mozartean. And, as already said, there are MANY works by OTHER composers which I guarantee you would attribute to Mozart. Of which late Vanhal is just one of MANY examples.
When we examine the actual manuscripts of this music we find the very same. That these works today being attributed to Mozart, in case after case, are NOT by Mozart at all. For lots of different reasons. Some of which cases I've already mentioned and others which would take much time to explain. Including, as said 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. And the piano concertos themselves. To say nothing of the symphonies attributed to him between 35 and 41, etc etc etc.
Now, each work requires to be considered fairly. But I hope that at least you appreciate your need not to accept dogma for its own sake. To have available (at last) both sides of the story. Which is all I (and others) are trying to provide.
Wow, long post.
Shouldn't you be working on your book?
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 12:26:13 PM
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 12:26:13 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 08:10:49 AM
1. You say '' the whole "Mozart industry" of which you speak is a distinct late-20th century phenomenon. The mass-marketing of Mozart did not begin in earnest until the invention of the LP.''
In reply, this is simply untrue. Works being published in the name of Mozart were hugely popular during the 19th century. Don't you know this ? The earliest concerts of the London Philharmonic in the early 19th century were dominated by 'Mozart'. He was the most frequently performed composer of orchestral music in England from around 1813 to around 1840. I have the actual programmes of those concerts in London. And the advent of the recording industry massively revived his myth. The publication of the Koechel catalogue in the late 19th century and of various biographies, the founding of the Mozarteum, etc. etc. are all other examples. 'Mozart' was a myth long, long before the arrival of the LP. As it proved in music libraries all across Europe.
The 911 conspiracy topic was good for one thing. We now know for sure your evidentiary reasoning is pretty crummy. As a consequence there's no reason to believe you own copies of the Lodnon Philharmonic concert programmes, I'm sorry. There's also no reason to believe Mozart was the dominant composer in London concert life in the 19th C, just because you say so, and, as an aside, I'd like to remind you that London is not the world (and by the way: what's the story with that Royal School of Music? Where exactly was this institute located?).
The publication of the Köchel Verzeichnis is no indication of Mozart's domination of all musicology. It's a sign 19th Century musicology was developing itself in a dependable, systematic branch of the humanities. If you look at early 78 discographies, Mozart is clearly not the dominant composer. Arthur Schnabel's set of Beethoven sonatas were a legend. And still are. I can think of of no similar recording project of Mozart's music until after WWII.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:26:55 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:26:55 PM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 26, 2009, 12:19:31 PM
That is by far the funniest thing you have posted ever! Why don't you produce such an 'easy' Mozartean piece and declare yourself to have discovered a forgotten work of the great master. You'd make far more money with that 'discovery' than with the bunk you're peddling here.
BTW, I'm aware of some of Eisen's writings and have never come across anything even remotely substantiating your nonsense here. If you know of any supporting material in his texts, please quote it here and provide a proper page citation. That's how we do it in real world academia.
PS: The only reason why I'm sticking to this subject is because it is easier to debate one topic at a time. I disagree with all the bunk you write about the "Mozart industry'. A few concerts here, a Mozarteum there do not an 'industry' make. There was never sufficient economic incentive for the kind of conspiracy you allege until the second half of the 20th century. You can give up arguing that point.
You have suddenly become interested in the 'real world academia' ? Great ! That's very risky for you, isn't it, as a supporter of a dogma that is 200 years old ?
The incentive to make a bogus career of Mozart was not 'economic' and I have never said otherwise. You have invented this, once again ! Is this an example of your 'real world academia' ??
Honestly, you are in poor form today O Mensch ! It can only get better, right ?
Cliff Eisen (in London) has been working on 'Mozart's style' for some time. Why not write to him ? I was in contact with him several times in the last few weeks. But hey, why let facts get in the way, right ? :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 12:32:54 PM
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 12:32:54 PM
Today's newman's attention binge
guy's posting like a madman
(http://www.mission68.org/build/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/baby-yawn.jpg)
guy's posting like a madman
(http://www.mission68.org/build/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/baby-yawn.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:33:13 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Herman on July 26, 2009, 12:26:13 PM
The 911 conspiracy topic was good for one thing. We now know for sure your evidentiary reasoning is pretty crummy. As a consequence there's no reason to believe you own copies of the Lodnon Philharmonic concert programmes, I'm sorry. There's also no reason to believe Mozart was the dominant composer in London concert life in the 19th C, just because you say so, and, as an aside, I'd like to remind you that London is not the world (and by the way: what's the story with that Royal School of Music? Where exactly was this institute located?).
The publication of the Köchel Verzeichnis is no indication of Mozart's domination of all musicology. It's a sign 19th Century musicology was developing itself in a dependable, systematic branch of the humanities. If you look at early 78 discographies, Mozart is clearly not the dominant composer. Arthur Schnabel's set of Beethoven sonatas were a legend. And still are. I can think of of no similar recording project of Mozart's music until after WWII.
Oh, but I promise you I have here the details of orchestral concerts given in London between the years of 1813 and, say 1830. Just name a date between these and I will post the music programme contents of several years of your choice right here. OK ? Can't get better than that, can you ?
You are talking about music recording. But in the century before music recording (when piano playing and singing was common) don't you know 'Mozart's' works were widely published and performed ? Or is this news to you ?
The same is true of Paris, and again, of Madrid, and elsewhere. And in Germany and Austria.
Where have you been reading your stuff ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 26, 2009, 12:35:48 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 26, 2009, 12:35:48 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:26:55 PM
You have suddenly become interested in the 'real world academia' ? Great ! That's very risky for you, isn't it, as a supporter of a dogma that is 200 years old ?
It's not the least but risky for me seeing that I have a number of degrees from real world academia and my wife works in real world academia while you claim only one degree from make-believe-academia.
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:26:55 PM
Cliff Eisen (in London) has been working on 'Mozart's style' for some time. Why not write to him ? I was in contact with him several times in the last few weeks. But hey, why let facts get in the way, right ? :)
YOU claim he supports your argument. The burden of proof is on YOU not on me! You're such a dimwit it's not even funny anymore. You can't just throw out a name and say that guy supports you and then not provide anything to back it up. I would say you're intellectually bankrupt, but that would require you having had an intellect first. As it is, you just remain a fraud and a wanker.
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:33:13 PM
Oh, but I promise you ... bla bla bla
Your promises aren't worth the bandwidth you consume to make them. You never back anything up. And anyone can write anything here and claim he got it from a 19th century London concert program. It's pretty useless without viewing the original, never mind that one program doesn't cut it, we'd need a survey of all programming to make it scientific. But it doesn't surprise me that you would consider that 'evidence'.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 12:37:40 PM
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 12:37:40 PM
Quote from: Herman on July 26, 2009, 12:32:54 PMWell, we COULD all ignore him. :)
Today's newman's attention binge
guy's posting like a madman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 12:39:16 PM
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 12:39:16 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:33:13 PM
Oh, but I promise you I have here the details of orchestral concerts given in London between the years of 1813 and, say 1830. Just name a date between these and I will post the music programme contents of several years of your choice right here. OK ? Can't get better than that, can you ?
You are talking about music recording. But in the century before music recording (when piano playing and singing was common) don't you know 'Mozart's' works were widely published and performed ? Or is this news to you ?
The same is true of Paris, and again, of Madrid, and elsewhere. And in Germany and Austria.
Where have you been reading your stuff ?
I have no doubt Mozart's music was "widely published and performed" in the 19th century, cinluding works misattributed to WAM. However you were saying Mozart was more performed than any other composer, to such a degree his music dominated concert life. This in the century that literally lived in Beethoven's long shadow. And btw a couple hours ago (and dozens of your posts) you were talking about concert programs from from "around 1813 to around 1840". I cannot help but notice you're narrowing the window already.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:42:02 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:42:02 PM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 26, 2009, 12:35:48 PM
It's not the least but risky for me seeing that I have a number of degrees from real world academia and my wife works in real world academia while you claim only one degree from make-believe-academia.
YOU claim he supports your argument. The burden of proof is on YOU not on me! You're such a dimwit it's not even funny anymore. You can't just throw out a name and say that guy supports you and then not provide anything to back it up. I would say you're intellectually bankrupt, but that would require you having had an intellect first. As it is, you just remain a fraud and a wanker.
Your promises aren't worth the bandwidth you consume to make them. You never back anything up. And anyone can write anything here and claim he got it from a 19th century London concert program. It's pretty useless without viewing the original, never mind that one program doesn't cut it, we'd need a survey of all programming to make it scientific. But it doesn't surprise me that you would consider that 'evidence'.
But what has your 'education' done for you ? You've made a massive error and can't even accept it. Mozart did NOT become hugely famous in the 20th century. He was being massively propagandised in the early 19th century and was MASSIVELY popular throughout the 19th century. So says the published record. So say the records of orchestras and of performances. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good Mozartean fairy story ?
Again, give us some dates and I will supply the programme details of orchestral performances in London between, say 1813 and 1830. Unless of course things like facts don't matter to an academic like your goodself, of course ! ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:43:55 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:43:55 PM
Quote from: Herman on July 26, 2009, 12:39:16 PM
I have no doubt Mozart's music was "widely published and performed" in the 19th century, cinluding works misattributed to WAM. However you were saying Mozart was more performed than any other composer, to such a degree his music dominated concert life. This in the century that literally lived in Beethoven's long shadow. And btw a couple hours ago (and dozens of your posts) you were talking about concert programs from from "around 1813 to around 1840". I cannot help but notice you're narrowing the window already.
I am simply making a feasible suggestion of dates. Choose dates between, say, 1813 and 1830 and I will search out the data and post it here. Can't get better than that, can it ? Of London orchestral concerts, that is. Together with dates etc. I repeat that in this period (for which I have records of orchestral performances) 'Mozart' was the most popularly performed music of that time.
But I've now made the offer three times and it's up to you.
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:50:55 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:50:55 PM
Quote from: Herman on July 26, 2009, 12:26:13 PM
The 911 conspiracy topic was good for one thing. We now know for sure your evidentiary reasoning is pretty crummy. As a consequence there's no reason to believe you own copies of the Lodnon Philharmonic concert programmes, I'm sorry. There's also no reason to believe Mozart was the dominant composer in London concert life in the 19th C, just because you say so, and, as an aside, I'd like to remind you that London is not the world (and by the way: what's the story with that Royal School of Music? Where exactly was this institute located?).
The publication of the Köchel Verzeichnis is no indication of Mozart's domination of all musicology. It's a sign 19th Century musicology was developing itself in a dependable, systematic branch of the humanities. If you look at early 78 discographies, Mozart is clearly not the dominant composer. Arthur Schnabel's set of Beethoven sonatas were a legend. And still are. I can think of of no similar recording project of Mozart's music until after WWII.
Yes Herman,
It's so crummy that I don't believe an Arab in a cave with a cell phone masterminded the hijacking of 4 planes and destruction of 3 giant towers in New York on 9/11/2001 within hours of each other. I confess that this official 'conspiracy theory' is one too many to accept from official sources. But you do accept it. Great. Sounds crummy to me.
Meanwhile, back at the subject of Mozart............! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 26, 2009, 01:03:46 PM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 26, 2009, 01:03:46 PM
How about, say, September 24, 1827?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 01:05:13 PM
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 01:05:13 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 12:50:55 PMThat's funny, because Arab guys in caves with cell phones mastermind your gasoline prices, too!
Yes Herman,
It's so crummy that I don't believe an Arab in a cave with a cell phone masterminded the hijacking of 4 planes and destruction of 3 giant towers in New York on 9/11/2001
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:08:09 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:08:09 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 26, 2009, 01:05:13 PM
That's funny, because Arab guys in caves with cell phones mastermind your gasoline prices, too!
Really, and here I was under the impression that it was OPEC. !!! :P
We learn something new every day, right, Brian ? ::)
Must be all that modified kerosene !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:10:20 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:10:20 PM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 26, 2009, 01:03:46 PM
How about, say, September 24, 1827?
OK, around 1827. I will see what I can do.
Give me 15 minutes. London orchestral concerts around that date, right ? OK, here goes.
(Clock ticking)..................
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 01:13:22 PM
Post by: Herman on July 26, 2009, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:10:20 PM
OK, around 1827. I will see what I can do.
and make that a scan of the original document rather than a transcription, please.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:28:51 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:28:51 PM
THE PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY [1826 - SECOND CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 13
Act I
Symphony (No. 11), " Clock," in D .... Haydn
Aria, " II mio tesoro " (Don Giovanni) . . . Mozart
Mb. L. Sapio.
CoNCEKTANTE for Clarinet, Horn and Bassoon . . CrusseU
Messbs. Willman, Platt and Mebcke.
Duet, " Ti veggo " (11 Ratto di Proserpina) . . Winter
Miss Goodall and Mme Cobnega.
Overture, " Anacreon " . . . . . . Cherubini
Act II
Symphony in B ^ (No. 4) ..... Beethoven
Trig, " O dolce e caro istante
" .... Cimarosa
Miss Goodall, Mme Cobnega and Mb. Sapid.
Aria, " Una voce poco fa " (II Barbiere di Seviglia) . Rossini
Mme Cobnega.
Leader, Mr. Spagnoletti. Conductor, Mb. H. R. Bishop.
THIRD CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 3
Act I
Symphony in E [7 . . . . . . .A. Romberg
Duet, " Graceful Consort " (The Creation) . . Haydn
Mme Cabadobi-Allan and Mr. Phillips.
Concerto for Pianoforte . . . . . (t) L. Schuncke
Mr. Ludwio Schuncke.
Scena, " Thro' the Forests " (Der Freischiitz) . . Weber
Mr. L. Sapio.
Overture, " Euryanthe " . . . . . Weber
Act II
Symphony in A (No. 7) ..... . Beethoven
Scena, " La dolce speranza " . . . . , Weber
Mme Caradobi-Allan.
Quabtett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
Messrs. Mobi, Oury, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Ah taci, ingiusto core " (Don Giovanni) . . Mozart
Mme Caradobi-Allan ; Messbs. Sapio and Phillips.
Overture, " Der Freischiitz " . . . . . Weber
Leader, Mr. Kiesewetter. Conductor, Mr. C. M. von Weber.
1826 - FOURTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 17
Act I
Symphony in F (No. 6), " Pastoral
" ...
Aria, " Ecco pietosa " .
Mme Vigo.
CoNCEBTANTE for two Violoncellos . . . ,
Messrs. R. and W. B. Lindley.
Duet, " O gracious Heaven ! " (The Mount of Olives) .
Mme Cabadori-Allan and Mr. Begrez.
Overture, " Jessonda " .
Beethoven
Rossini
R. Lindley
Beethoven
Spohr
Act II
Symphony in G minor ...... Mozart
Aria, " Parto " (La Clemenza di Tito) . . . Mozart
1826
SECOND CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 13
Act I
Symphony (No. 11), " Clock," in D .... Haydn
Aria, " II mio tesoro " (Don Giovanni) . . . Mozart
Mb. L. Sapio.
CoNCEKTANTE for Clarinet, Horn and Bassoon . . CrusseU
Messbs. Willman, Platt and Mebcke.
Duet, " Ti veggo " (11 Ratto di Proserpina) . . Winter
Miss Goodall and Mme Cobnega.
Overture, " Anacreon " . . . . . . Cherubini
Act II
Symphony in B ^ (No. 4) ..... Beethoven
Trig, " O dolce e caro istante
" .... Cimarosa
Miss Goodall, Mme Cobnega and Mb. Sapid.
Aria, " Una voce poco fa " (II Barbiere di Seviglia) . Rossini
Mme Cobnega.
Leader, Mr. Spagnoletti. Conductor, Mb. H. R. Bishop.
THIRD CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 3
Act I
Symphony in E [7 . . . . . . .A. Romberg
Duet, " Graceful Consort " (The Creation) . . Haydn
Mme Cabadobi-Allan and Mr. Phillips.
Concerto for Pianoforte . . . . . (t) L. Schuncke
Mr. Ludwio Schuncke.
Scena, " Thro' the Forests " (Der Freischiitz) . . Weber
Mr. L. Sapio.
Overture, " Euryanthe " . . . . . Weber
Act II
Symphony in A (No. 7) ..... . Beethoven
Scena, " La dolce speranza " . . . . , Weber
Mme Caradobi-Allan.
Quabtett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
Messrs. Mobi, Oury, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Ah taci, ingiusto core " (Don Giovanni) . . Mozart
Mme Caradobi-Allan ; Messbs. Sapio and Phillips.
Overture, " Der Freischiitz " . . . . . Weber
Leader, Mr. Kiesewetter. Conductor, Mr. C. M. von Weber.
1826 - FOURTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 17
Act I
Symphony in F (No. 6), " Pastoral
" ...
Aria, " Ecco pietosa " .
Mme Vigo.
CoNCEBTANTE for two Violoncellos . . . ,
Messrs. R. and W. B. Lindley.
Duet, " O gracious Heaven ! " (The Mount of Olives) .
Mme Cabadori-Allan and Mr. Begrez.
Overture, " Jessonda " .
Beethoven
Rossini
R. Lindley
Beethoven
Spohr
Act II
1827
London Philharmonia
FOURTH CONCERT
Symphony in G minor ...... Mozart
Aria, " Parto " (La Clemenza di Tito) . . . Mozart
Mme Caradori-Allan.
Clarinet obbligato, Mr. Willman.
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Spohr
Messrs. Spagnoletti, Oury, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Pria di partir " (Idomeneo) .... Mozart
Mmes Caradori-Allan and Vigo, and Mr. Begrez.
Overture, " Prometheus " . . . . . Beethoven
Leader, Mr. Mori. Conductor, Mr. Attwood.
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 1
Symphony in E I? (Letter T) . . . . . Haydn
Quartett, " Stupefatto "
. . . . . Weigl^
Mme Pasta ; Messrs. Curioni, Phillips and De Begnis.
Concerto for Flute ...... Fiirstenau
Mr. a. B. Furstenau.
Trio, " O nume benefico " (La Gazza Ladra) . . Rossini
Mme Pasta ; Messrs. Phillips and De Begnis.
Overture, " Oberon " . . . . . . Weber
Act II
Symphony in C minor (No. 5) . . . . . Beethoven
Regit., " Tranquillo io son "
; Aria, " Ombra adorata "
(Romeo e Giuletta) ...... Zingarelli
Mme Pasta.
Rode and De Beriot
Mozart
Concerto for Violin .... Mr. C. a. De Beriot.
Duet, " O Statua gentilissima " (Don Giovanni)
Messrs. Curioni and De Begnis.
Overture in D . . . . . . .A. Romberg
Mme Caradori-Allan.
Clarinet obbligato, Mr. Willman.
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Spohr
Messrs. Spagnoletti, Oury, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Pria di partir " (Idomeneo) .... Mozart
Mmes Caradori-Allan and Vigo, and Mr. Begrez.
Overture, " Prometheus " . . . . . Beethoven
Leader, Mr. Mori. Conductor, Mr. Attwood.
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 1
Act I
Symphony in E I? (Letter T) . . . . . Haydn
Quartett, " Stupefatto "
. . . . . Weigl^
Mme Pasta ; Messrs. Curioni, Phillips and De Begnis.
Concerto for Flute ...... Fiirstenau
Mr. a. B. Furstenau.
Trio, " O nume benefico " (La Gazza Ladra) . . Rossini
Mme Pasta ; Messrs. Phillips and De Begnis.
Overture, " Oberon " . . . . . . Weber
Act II
Symphony in C minor (No. 5) . . . . . Beethoven
Regit., " Tranquillo io son "
; Aria, " Ombra adorata "
(Romeo e Giuletta) ...... Zingarelli
Mme Pasta.
Rode and De Beriot
Mozart
Concerto for Violin .... Mr. C. a. De Beriot.
Duet, " O Statua gentilissima " (Don Giovanni)
Messrs. Curioni and De Begnis.
Overture in D . . . . . . .A. Romberg
Leader, Mr. J. D. Loder. Conductor, Sir George Smart.
//
THE PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY
SIXTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 15
Act I
Symphony in D (No. 2) ..... . Beethoven
Song, " In native worth " (The Creation) . . . Haydn
Mr. L. Sapio.
Concerto for Harp (MS.) ..... Dizi
Mr. F. J. Dizi.
Duet, " Ainor ! possente nome " (Armida) . . Rossini
Miss M. A. Paton and Mr. Sapio.
Overture, " The Ruler of the Spirits " ^ . . . Weber
Act II
Symphony in E t>
. . . . . . . Mozart
Recit., " Le notte fuggi "
; Air, " Si lo sento " (Faust) Spohr
Miss M. A. Paton.
QuARTETT for two Viohns, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
Messrs. Bellon, Oury, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Trio, " My soul with rage " (Mount of Olives) . . Beethoven
Miss Paton ; Messrs. Sapio and Phillips.
Overture, " Lodoiska " . . . . . . Cherubim
Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Conductor, Mr. J. B. Cramer.
SEVENTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 29
Act I
Symphony (MS.) ...... Cipriani Potter
(First performance.)
Duet, " Sei gia Sposa " (La Donna del Lago) . . Rossini
Mme Caradori-Allan and Mr. A. Curioni.
Concerto for Pianoforte in G minor .... Moscheles
Mr. Ignaz Moscheles.
Trio, " Mandina amabile " (La Villanella rapita) . Mozart
Mme Caradori-Allan ; Messrs. Curioni and Pellegrini.
Overture, " Der Berg-geist " . . . . . Spohr
Act II
Symphony in F ..... . Beethoven
Scena, " Deh, parlate " (II Sacrifizio d' Abramo) . Cimarosa
Mme Caradori-Allan.
Quintett for two Violins, two Violas and 'Cello . Beethoven
Messrs. Kjesewetter, Oury, Moralt, R. Ashley and
R. Lindley.
Duet, " Son io desto " (Nina) ..... Paesiello
Messrs. Curioni and Pellegrini.
Overture, " Jubilee " . . . . . . Weber
Leader, Mr. Spagnoletti. Conductor, Mr. Cipriani Potter.
^ " Der Beherrscher der Geister."
1827
EIGHTH CONCERT. MONDAY, JUNE 12
Act I
Dead March in " Saul " ...... Handel
(As a tribute to Departed Genius.^)
Symphony in G . . . . . . . Haydn
Aria, " Lascia amor " (Orlando) .... Handel
Mr. Henry Phillips.
Concerto for Flute ...... Nicholson
Mr. Charles Nicholson.
Aria, " All ! che non serve " . . . {Manfroggi) Manfroce
Mme Canzi.
Violin obbligato, Mr. Kiesewetter.
Overture, " Egmont " . . . . . . Beethoven
Act II
Symphony in C, " Jupiter " . . . . . Mozart
Aria, " Frenar vorrei " . . . . . . Cimarosa
Miss Bacon.
QuiNTETT for two Violins, two Violas and 'Cello . Beethoven
Messrs. De Beriot, Oury, Moralt, Lyon and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Cosa sento " (Le Nozze di Figaro) . . . Mozart
Mme Canzi ; Messrs. Curioni and Phillips.
Overture, " Die Zauberflote
"
. . . . Mozart
Leader, Mr. Kiesewetter. Conductor, Sir George Smart.
(In this year, the Directors were informed by Moscheles
that Beethoven was ill and in poverty, suffering
from dropsy : the Master reminded Moscheles that, some years
before, the Society handsomely offered to give a concert for
his benefit. At that time he did not require the help, but now
he begged the Directors to renew their offer. He also signed
a letter, written (on his behalf) by Schindler to Sir George
Smart (Sir Smart he calls liim), most pathetically appeahng
for this same assistance.
After reading these letters, a General Meeting was immediately
summoned on February 28, William Dance in the chair,
when it was moved by Charles Neate, seconded by Jean
Latour and unanimously carried, " That this Society do lend
the sum of One Hundred Pounds to its own Members, to be
sent, through the hands of Mr. Moscheles, to some confidential
friend of Beethoven, to be applied to his comforts and necessities
during his illness).
/
1828 FEBRUARY 19
Act I
Symphony in E j? (No. 3), " Eroica " ... Beethoven
Aria, " A rispettarmi apprenda " (Mose in Egitto) . Rossini
Mr. Zuchelm.
Concerto for Pianoforte ...... Hummel
Mr. Schlesinger.
ScENA, "Si lo sento " (Faust) ..... Spohr
Miss Paton.
Overture, " Der Freischiitz " . . . .CM. von Weber
Act II
Symphony in C Haydn
Scena, " Yes ! even love " (Oberon) . . C. M. von Weber
Mr. Braham.
QuARTETT, " Brillante," for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello Mayseder
Messrs. Mori, Oury, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Cosa sento " (Le Nozze di Figaro) . . Mozart
Miss Paton ; Messrs. Braham and Zuchelli.
OVERTURE " Idoineneo " - . . . . Mozart
//
THE PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY
SECOND CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 5
Act I
Symphony in E [7 . , . . . . . • Mozart
ScENA, " Ah, perfido"...... Beethoven
Mb, Sapio.
Fantasia, Clarinet Obbligato ..... Baermann
Mr. Willman.
Air, " Now heaven in fullest glory shone " (Creation) Haydn
SiGNOR ZUCHELLI.
OvEBTURE, " Oberon " . . . . .CM. von Weber
Haydn
Mozart
Maurer
Act II
Symphony (No. 5) ...... .
Air, " Parto, ma tu ben mio " (La Clemenza di Tito)
Miss Stephens (Clarinet obblig., Mb. Willman.)
Concerto (MS.) for Violin (never performed in this
country) ........ Mr. Kiesewetter.
{Regit, and Air, " Oh, ruddier than the cherry ")(Acis and
j^andel
and Trio, " The flocks shall leave "
J Galatea)
Miss Stephens ; Mr. Sapio and Signor Zuchelli.
" Egmont " . . . . . . Beethoven
Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Conductor, Mb. J. B. Cramer.
THIRD CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 19
Act I
Symphony in C minor (No. 5) . . . . . Beethoven
Trio, " Benedictus
"
. . . . . . Cherubini
Miss Stephens ; Mb. Braham and Mr. Phillips.
Quintett for two Violins, two Violas and Violoncello . Mozart
Messrs. F. Cramer, Oury, Moralt, Lyon and R. Lindley.
ScENA, " Qual nume " (II Ritratto)
Mr. Braham.
OvEBTUBE, " Euryanthe "
Zingarelli
C. M. von Weber
Act II '
Symphony in D . . . . . . . Mozart
Air, " De se piacer " (La Clemenza di Tito) . . Mozart
Miss Stephens.
Septett for Pfte., Flute, Oboe, Horn, Viola, Violoncello
and Double-Bass ...... Hummel
Mrs. Anderson ; Messrs. Nicholson, Ling, Platt, Moralt,
R. Lindley and Dragonetti.
Trio, " Mandina amabile " (La Villanella) . . . Mozart
Miss Stephens ; Me. Bbaham and Mb. Phillips.
Overtube, " Tamerlane
"
. . . . . Winter
Leader, Mr. Kiesewetteb. Conductor, Sib G. Smabt.
1827] THE SECOND DECADE 85
FOURTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 2
Act I
Symphony in B [> .
Duet, " Ebbene a te ferisci " (Semiramide)
Mesdames Caradori-Allan and Cornega.
Duet Concertante for two Violoncellos
Messrs, R. and W. Lindley
Trio, " Tremate, empi, tremate "
Beethoven
Rossini
B. Romberg
Beethoven
Mme Caradori-Allan ; Signor Curioni and Mr. Phillips.
Overture, " Anacreon "
Cheruhini
Act II
Symphony, " Jupiter " . . . . . . Mozart
ScENA, " Sento mancarmi I'anima " . . , . Crescentini
Mme Caradori-Allan.
Septett for Violin, Viola, Violoncello, Double-Bass,
Clarinet, Horn and Bassoon .... Beethoven
Messrs. Spagnoletti, Moralt, R. Lindley, Dragonetti,
WiLLMAN, Platt and Mackintosh.
Quartett, " Benedictus " (Requiem) . . . Mozart
Mmes Caradori-Allan and Cornega ; Signor Curioni
and Mr. Phillips.
Overture, " Jessonda " . . . . . . Spohr
Leader, Mr. Mori. Conductor, Mr. Attwood.
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 23
Act I
Symphony (No. 1) . . . . • . . Haydn
Trio, " L' usato ardir " (Semiramide) . . . Rossini
Mmes Caradori-Allan and Cornega ; Signor Galli.
Concerto for Violin ...... Mayseder
Mr. Kiesewetter.
Air, " Non piu andrai " (Le Nozze di Figaro) . . Mozart
Signor Galli.
Overture (MS.) ....... J. Goss
Act II
Symphony (No. 7) . . . . • . . Beethoven
Air, " Ah ! che forse " . . . . . . Bonfichi
Mme Caradori-Allan.
Concerto for Pianoforte in E [7
. . . . Moscheles
Mr. Moscheles.
Quartett, " L' Inverno
"
. . . . . Comia
Mmes Caradori-Allan and Cornega ; Mr. Begrez,
Signor Galli.
Overture, " Jubilee " . . . . .CM. von Weber
THE PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY
SIXTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 7
Act I
Symphony in G minor ......
ScENA, " Through the forests " (Der Freischiitz)
Mr. Sapio.
Fantasia (MS.) for Flute, " Au clair de la lune "
Mr. Nicholson,
Trio, " Se al volto " (La Clemenza di Tito)
Miss Paton ; Mr. Sapio and Mb. Taylor
Overture (MS.) (never performed before) .
Mozart
C. M. von Weber
G. Nicholson
Mozart
Schloesser
Act II
Symphony in D (No. 2) . . . . . . Beethoven
Scena, " Per pietd, " (Cosi fan tutte) . . . Mozart
Miss Paton.
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Beethoven
Messrs. Mori, Oury, Moralt and W. Lindley.
Duet, " Crudel perche " (Le Nozze di Figaro) . . Mozart
Miss Paton and Mb. Sapio.
Overture, " Zauberflote"..... Mozart
Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Conductor, Mr. J. B. Cramer.
SEVENTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 21
Act I
Symphony (No. 10) ...... Haydn
Regit, and Air, " Deeper and deeper still " (Jephtha) Handel
Mr. Braham.
Concerto for Pianoforte ...... Hummel
Mb. Liszt.
Trio, " Quel sembiante " (L' Inganno Felice) . . Rossini
Mme Caradori, Mr. Begrez and Signor Galli.
Overture, " Les Deux Journees " . . . . Chervbini
Act II
Symphony, " The Pastoral " (No. 6) .
Duet, " Claudio, Claudio ! " (Eliza e Claudio)
Mr. Begrez and Signor Galli.
Concertino for Violin .....
Scena
Mb. De Bebiot.
Mme Caradori.
Ovebtube, " Zaire
"
Leader, Mb. Kiesewetteb. Conductor, Mb. Bishop
Beethoven
Mercadante
De Beriot
Quglielmi - Winter
/
EIGHTH CONCERT. MONDAY, JUNE 4
Act I
Symphony. . . . . . . Beethoven
Trio, " Pria di partir " (Idomeneo) .... Mozart
Mme Caradori-Allan, Mme Stockhausen and Signor Curioni.
QUARTETT for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Mozart
Act 2
Symphony in D - Mozart
//
etc.
Act I
Symphony (No. 11), " Clock," in D .... Haydn
Aria, " II mio tesoro " (Don Giovanni) . . . Mozart
Mb. L. Sapio.
CoNCEKTANTE for Clarinet, Horn and Bassoon . . CrusseU
Messbs. Willman, Platt and Mebcke.
Duet, " Ti veggo " (11 Ratto di Proserpina) . . Winter
Miss Goodall and Mme Cobnega.
Overture, " Anacreon " . . . . . . Cherubini
Act II
Symphony in B ^ (No. 4) ..... Beethoven
Trig, " O dolce e caro istante
" .... Cimarosa
Miss Goodall, Mme Cobnega and Mb. Sapid.
Aria, " Una voce poco fa " (II Barbiere di Seviglia) . Rossini
Mme Cobnega.
Leader, Mr. Spagnoletti. Conductor, Mb. H. R. Bishop.
THIRD CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 3
Act I
Symphony in E [7 . . . . . . .A. Romberg
Duet, " Graceful Consort " (The Creation) . . Haydn
Mme Cabadobi-Allan and Mr. Phillips.
Concerto for Pianoforte . . . . . (t) L. Schuncke
Mr. Ludwio Schuncke.
Scena, " Thro' the Forests " (Der Freischiitz) . . Weber
Mr. L. Sapio.
Overture, " Euryanthe " . . . . . Weber
Act II
Symphony in A (No. 7) ..... . Beethoven
Scena, " La dolce speranza " . . . . , Weber
Mme Caradobi-Allan.
Quabtett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
Messrs. Mobi, Oury, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Ah taci, ingiusto core " (Don Giovanni) . . Mozart
Mme Caradobi-Allan ; Messbs. Sapio and Phillips.
Overture, " Der Freischiitz " . . . . . Weber
Leader, Mr. Kiesewetter. Conductor, Mr. C. M. von Weber.
1826 - FOURTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 17
Act I
Symphony in F (No. 6), " Pastoral
" ...
Aria, " Ecco pietosa " .
Mme Vigo.
CoNCEBTANTE for two Violoncellos . . . ,
Messrs. R. and W. B. Lindley.
Duet, " O gracious Heaven ! " (The Mount of Olives) .
Mme Cabadori-Allan and Mr. Begrez.
Overture, " Jessonda " .
Beethoven
Rossini
R. Lindley
Beethoven
Spohr
Act II
Symphony in G minor ...... Mozart
Aria, " Parto " (La Clemenza di Tito) . . . Mozart
1826
SECOND CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 13
Act I
Symphony (No. 11), " Clock," in D .... Haydn
Aria, " II mio tesoro " (Don Giovanni) . . . Mozart
Mb. L. Sapio.
CoNCEKTANTE for Clarinet, Horn and Bassoon . . CrusseU
Messbs. Willman, Platt and Mebcke.
Duet, " Ti veggo " (11 Ratto di Proserpina) . . Winter
Miss Goodall and Mme Cobnega.
Overture, " Anacreon " . . . . . . Cherubini
Act II
Symphony in B ^ (No. 4) ..... Beethoven
Trig, " O dolce e caro istante
" .... Cimarosa
Miss Goodall, Mme Cobnega and Mb. Sapid.
Aria, " Una voce poco fa " (II Barbiere di Seviglia) . Rossini
Mme Cobnega.
Leader, Mr. Spagnoletti. Conductor, Mb. H. R. Bishop.
THIRD CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 3
Act I
Symphony in E [7 . . . . . . .A. Romberg
Duet, " Graceful Consort " (The Creation) . . Haydn
Mme Cabadobi-Allan and Mr. Phillips.
Concerto for Pianoforte . . . . . (t) L. Schuncke
Mr. Ludwio Schuncke.
Scena, " Thro' the Forests " (Der Freischiitz) . . Weber
Mr. L. Sapio.
Overture, " Euryanthe " . . . . . Weber
Act II
Symphony in A (No. 7) ..... . Beethoven
Scena, " La dolce speranza " . . . . , Weber
Mme Caradobi-Allan.
Quabtett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
Messrs. Mobi, Oury, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Ah taci, ingiusto core " (Don Giovanni) . . Mozart
Mme Caradobi-Allan ; Messbs. Sapio and Phillips.
Overture, " Der Freischiitz " . . . . . Weber
Leader, Mr. Kiesewetter. Conductor, Mr. C. M. von Weber.
1826 - FOURTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 17
Act I
Symphony in F (No. 6), " Pastoral
" ...
Aria, " Ecco pietosa " .
Mme Vigo.
CoNCEBTANTE for two Violoncellos . . . ,
Messrs. R. and W. B. Lindley.
Duet, " O gracious Heaven ! " (The Mount of Olives) .
Mme Cabadori-Allan and Mr. Begrez.
Overture, " Jessonda " .
Beethoven
Rossini
R. Lindley
Beethoven
Spohr
Act II
1827
London Philharmonia
FOURTH CONCERT
Symphony in G minor ...... Mozart
Aria, " Parto " (La Clemenza di Tito) . . . Mozart
Mme Caradori-Allan.
Clarinet obbligato, Mr. Willman.
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Spohr
Messrs. Spagnoletti, Oury, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Pria di partir " (Idomeneo) .... Mozart
Mmes Caradori-Allan and Vigo, and Mr. Begrez.
Overture, " Prometheus " . . . . . Beethoven
Leader, Mr. Mori. Conductor, Mr. Attwood.
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 1
Symphony in E I? (Letter T) . . . . . Haydn
Quartett, " Stupefatto "
. . . . . Weigl^
Mme Pasta ; Messrs. Curioni, Phillips and De Begnis.
Concerto for Flute ...... Fiirstenau
Mr. a. B. Furstenau.
Trio, " O nume benefico " (La Gazza Ladra) . . Rossini
Mme Pasta ; Messrs. Phillips and De Begnis.
Overture, " Oberon " . . . . . . Weber
Act II
Symphony in C minor (No. 5) . . . . . Beethoven
Regit., " Tranquillo io son "
; Aria, " Ombra adorata "
(Romeo e Giuletta) ...... Zingarelli
Mme Pasta.
Rode and De Beriot
Mozart
Concerto for Violin .... Mr. C. a. De Beriot.
Duet, " O Statua gentilissima " (Don Giovanni)
Messrs. Curioni and De Begnis.
Overture in D . . . . . . .A. Romberg
Mme Caradori-Allan.
Clarinet obbligato, Mr. Willman.
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Spohr
Messrs. Spagnoletti, Oury, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Pria di partir " (Idomeneo) .... Mozart
Mmes Caradori-Allan and Vigo, and Mr. Begrez.
Overture, " Prometheus " . . . . . Beethoven
Leader, Mr. Mori. Conductor, Mr. Attwood.
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 1
Act I
Symphony in E I? (Letter T) . . . . . Haydn
Quartett, " Stupefatto "
. . . . . Weigl^
Mme Pasta ; Messrs. Curioni, Phillips and De Begnis.
Concerto for Flute ...... Fiirstenau
Mr. a. B. Furstenau.
Trio, " O nume benefico " (La Gazza Ladra) . . Rossini
Mme Pasta ; Messrs. Phillips and De Begnis.
Overture, " Oberon " . . . . . . Weber
Act II
Symphony in C minor (No. 5) . . . . . Beethoven
Regit., " Tranquillo io son "
; Aria, " Ombra adorata "
(Romeo e Giuletta) ...... Zingarelli
Mme Pasta.
Rode and De Beriot
Mozart
Concerto for Violin .... Mr. C. a. De Beriot.
Duet, " O Statua gentilissima " (Don Giovanni)
Messrs. Curioni and De Begnis.
Overture in D . . . . . . .A. Romberg
Leader, Mr. J. D. Loder. Conductor, Sir George Smart.
//
THE PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY
SIXTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 15
Act I
Symphony in D (No. 2) ..... . Beethoven
Song, " In native worth " (The Creation) . . . Haydn
Mr. L. Sapio.
Concerto for Harp (MS.) ..... Dizi
Mr. F. J. Dizi.
Duet, " Ainor ! possente nome " (Armida) . . Rossini
Miss M. A. Paton and Mr. Sapio.
Overture, " The Ruler of the Spirits " ^ . . . Weber
Act II
Symphony in E t>
. . . . . . . Mozart
Recit., " Le notte fuggi "
; Air, " Si lo sento " (Faust) Spohr
Miss M. A. Paton.
QuARTETT for two Viohns, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
Messrs. Bellon, Oury, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Trio, " My soul with rage " (Mount of Olives) . . Beethoven
Miss Paton ; Messrs. Sapio and Phillips.
Overture, " Lodoiska " . . . . . . Cherubim
Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Conductor, Mr. J. B. Cramer.
SEVENTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 29
Act I
Symphony (MS.) ...... Cipriani Potter
(First performance.)
Duet, " Sei gia Sposa " (La Donna del Lago) . . Rossini
Mme Caradori-Allan and Mr. A. Curioni.
Concerto for Pianoforte in G minor .... Moscheles
Mr. Ignaz Moscheles.
Trio, " Mandina amabile " (La Villanella rapita) . Mozart
Mme Caradori-Allan ; Messrs. Curioni and Pellegrini.
Overture, " Der Berg-geist " . . . . . Spohr
Act II
Symphony in F ..... . Beethoven
Scena, " Deh, parlate " (II Sacrifizio d' Abramo) . Cimarosa
Mme Caradori-Allan.
Quintett for two Violins, two Violas and 'Cello . Beethoven
Messrs. Kjesewetter, Oury, Moralt, R. Ashley and
R. Lindley.
Duet, " Son io desto " (Nina) ..... Paesiello
Messrs. Curioni and Pellegrini.
Overture, " Jubilee " . . . . . . Weber
Leader, Mr. Spagnoletti. Conductor, Mr. Cipriani Potter.
^ " Der Beherrscher der Geister."
1827
EIGHTH CONCERT. MONDAY, JUNE 12
Act I
Dead March in " Saul " ...... Handel
(As a tribute to Departed Genius.^)
Symphony in G . . . . . . . Haydn
Aria, " Lascia amor " (Orlando) .... Handel
Mr. Henry Phillips.
Concerto for Flute ...... Nicholson
Mr. Charles Nicholson.
Aria, " All ! che non serve " . . . {Manfroggi) Manfroce
Mme Canzi.
Violin obbligato, Mr. Kiesewetter.
Overture, " Egmont " . . . . . . Beethoven
Act II
Symphony in C, " Jupiter " . . . . . Mozart
Aria, " Frenar vorrei " . . . . . . Cimarosa
Miss Bacon.
QuiNTETT for two Violins, two Violas and 'Cello . Beethoven
Messrs. De Beriot, Oury, Moralt, Lyon and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Cosa sento " (Le Nozze di Figaro) . . . Mozart
Mme Canzi ; Messrs. Curioni and Phillips.
Overture, " Die Zauberflote
"
. . . . Mozart
Leader, Mr. Kiesewetter. Conductor, Sir George Smart.
(In this year, the Directors were informed by Moscheles
that Beethoven was ill and in poverty, suffering
from dropsy : the Master reminded Moscheles that, some years
before, the Society handsomely offered to give a concert for
his benefit. At that time he did not require the help, but now
he begged the Directors to renew their offer. He also signed
a letter, written (on his behalf) by Schindler to Sir George
Smart (Sir Smart he calls liim), most pathetically appeahng
for this same assistance.
After reading these letters, a General Meeting was immediately
summoned on February 28, William Dance in the chair,
when it was moved by Charles Neate, seconded by Jean
Latour and unanimously carried, " That this Society do lend
the sum of One Hundred Pounds to its own Members, to be
sent, through the hands of Mr. Moscheles, to some confidential
friend of Beethoven, to be applied to his comforts and necessities
during his illness).
/
1828 FEBRUARY 19
Act I
Symphony in E j? (No. 3), " Eroica " ... Beethoven
Aria, " A rispettarmi apprenda " (Mose in Egitto) . Rossini
Mr. Zuchelm.
Concerto for Pianoforte ...... Hummel
Mr. Schlesinger.
ScENA, "Si lo sento " (Faust) ..... Spohr
Miss Paton.
Overture, " Der Freischiitz " . . . .CM. von Weber
Act II
Symphony in C Haydn
Scena, " Yes ! even love " (Oberon) . . C. M. von Weber
Mr. Braham.
QuARTETT, " Brillante," for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello Mayseder
Messrs. Mori, Oury, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Cosa sento " (Le Nozze di Figaro) . . Mozart
Miss Paton ; Messrs. Braham and Zuchelli.
OVERTURE " Idoineneo " - . . . . Mozart
//
THE PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY
SECOND CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 5
Act I
Symphony in E [7 . , . . . . . • Mozart
ScENA, " Ah, perfido"...... Beethoven
Mb, Sapio.
Fantasia, Clarinet Obbligato ..... Baermann
Mr. Willman.
Air, " Now heaven in fullest glory shone " (Creation) Haydn
SiGNOR ZUCHELLI.
OvEBTURE, " Oberon " . . . . .CM. von Weber
Haydn
Mozart
Maurer
Act II
Symphony (No. 5) ...... .
Air, " Parto, ma tu ben mio " (La Clemenza di Tito)
Miss Stephens (Clarinet obblig., Mb. Willman.)
Concerto (MS.) for Violin (never performed in this
country) ........ Mr. Kiesewetter.
{Regit, and Air, " Oh, ruddier than the cherry ")(Acis and
j^andel
and Trio, " The flocks shall leave "
J Galatea)
Miss Stephens ; Mr. Sapio and Signor Zuchelli.
" Egmont " . . . . . . Beethoven
Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Conductor, Mb. J. B. Cramer.
THIRD CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 19
Act I
Symphony in C minor (No. 5) . . . . . Beethoven
Trio, " Benedictus
"
. . . . . . Cherubini
Miss Stephens ; Mb. Braham and Mr. Phillips.
Quintett for two Violins, two Violas and Violoncello . Mozart
Messrs. F. Cramer, Oury, Moralt, Lyon and R. Lindley.
ScENA, " Qual nume " (II Ritratto)
Mr. Braham.
OvEBTUBE, " Euryanthe "
Zingarelli
C. M. von Weber
Act II '
Symphony in D . . . . . . . Mozart
Air, " De se piacer " (La Clemenza di Tito) . . Mozart
Miss Stephens.
Septett for Pfte., Flute, Oboe, Horn, Viola, Violoncello
and Double-Bass ...... Hummel
Mrs. Anderson ; Messrs. Nicholson, Ling, Platt, Moralt,
R. Lindley and Dragonetti.
Trio, " Mandina amabile " (La Villanella) . . . Mozart
Miss Stephens ; Me. Bbaham and Mb. Phillips.
Overtube, " Tamerlane
"
. . . . . Winter
Leader, Mr. Kiesewetteb. Conductor, Sib G. Smabt.
1827] THE SECOND DECADE 85
FOURTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 2
Act I
Symphony in B [> .
Duet, " Ebbene a te ferisci " (Semiramide)
Mesdames Caradori-Allan and Cornega.
Duet Concertante for two Violoncellos
Messrs, R. and W. Lindley
Trio, " Tremate, empi, tremate "
Beethoven
Rossini
B. Romberg
Beethoven
Mme Caradori-Allan ; Signor Curioni and Mr. Phillips.
Overture, " Anacreon "
Cheruhini
Act II
Symphony, " Jupiter " . . . . . . Mozart
ScENA, " Sento mancarmi I'anima " . . , . Crescentini
Mme Caradori-Allan.
Septett for Violin, Viola, Violoncello, Double-Bass,
Clarinet, Horn and Bassoon .... Beethoven
Messrs. Spagnoletti, Moralt, R. Lindley, Dragonetti,
WiLLMAN, Platt and Mackintosh.
Quartett, " Benedictus " (Requiem) . . . Mozart
Mmes Caradori-Allan and Cornega ; Signor Curioni
and Mr. Phillips.
Overture, " Jessonda " . . . . . . Spohr
Leader, Mr. Mori. Conductor, Mr. Attwood.
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 23
Act I
Symphony (No. 1) . . . . • . . Haydn
Trio, " L' usato ardir " (Semiramide) . . . Rossini
Mmes Caradori-Allan and Cornega ; Signor Galli.
Concerto for Violin ...... Mayseder
Mr. Kiesewetter.
Air, " Non piu andrai " (Le Nozze di Figaro) . . Mozart
Signor Galli.
Overture (MS.) ....... J. Goss
Act II
Symphony (No. 7) . . . . • . . Beethoven
Air, " Ah ! che forse " . . . . . . Bonfichi
Mme Caradori-Allan.
Concerto for Pianoforte in E [7
. . . . Moscheles
Mr. Moscheles.
Quartett, " L' Inverno
"
. . . . . Comia
Mmes Caradori-Allan and Cornega ; Mr. Begrez,
Signor Galli.
Overture, " Jubilee " . . . . .CM. von Weber
THE PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY
SIXTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 7
Act I
Symphony in G minor ......
ScENA, " Through the forests " (Der Freischiitz)
Mr. Sapio.
Fantasia (MS.) for Flute, " Au clair de la lune "
Mr. Nicholson,
Trio, " Se al volto " (La Clemenza di Tito)
Miss Paton ; Mr. Sapio and Mb. Taylor
Overture (MS.) (never performed before) .
Mozart
C. M. von Weber
G. Nicholson
Mozart
Schloesser
Act II
Symphony in D (No. 2) . . . . . . Beethoven
Scena, " Per pietd, " (Cosi fan tutte) . . . Mozart
Miss Paton.
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Beethoven
Messrs. Mori, Oury, Moralt and W. Lindley.
Duet, " Crudel perche " (Le Nozze di Figaro) . . Mozart
Miss Paton and Mb. Sapio.
Overture, " Zauberflote"..... Mozart
Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Conductor, Mr. J. B. Cramer.
SEVENTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 21
Act I
Symphony (No. 10) ...... Haydn
Regit, and Air, " Deeper and deeper still " (Jephtha) Handel
Mr. Braham.
Concerto for Pianoforte ...... Hummel
Mb. Liszt.
Trio, " Quel sembiante " (L' Inganno Felice) . . Rossini
Mme Caradori, Mr. Begrez and Signor Galli.
Overture, " Les Deux Journees " . . . . Chervbini
Act II
Symphony, " The Pastoral " (No. 6) .
Duet, " Claudio, Claudio ! " (Eliza e Claudio)
Mr. Begrez and Signor Galli.
Concertino for Violin .....
Scena
Mb. De Bebiot.
Mme Caradori.
Ovebtube, " Zaire
"
Leader, Mb. Kiesewetteb. Conductor, Mb. Bishop
Beethoven
Mercadante
De Beriot
Quglielmi - Winter
/
EIGHTH CONCERT. MONDAY, JUNE 4
Act I
Symphony. . . . . . . Beethoven
Trio, " Pria di partir " (Idomeneo) .... Mozart
Mme Caradori-Allan, Mme Stockhausen and Signor Curioni.
QUARTETT for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Mozart
Act 2
Symphony in D - Mozart
//
etc.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:31:40 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:31:40 PM
Quote from: Herman on July 26, 2009, 01:13:22 PM
and make that a scan of the original document rather than a transcription, please.
I will give you what is convenient for me.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 26, 2009, 01:33:10 PM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 26, 2009, 01:33:10 PM
I don't want to sound like a dick, by my scan of that list indicates to me that concert programming was quite varied. I also note several concerts where there was not a single work by Mozart performed. It doesn't seem to me like the data supports your allegations...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:43:58 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:43:58 PM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 26, 2009, 01:33:10 PM
I don't want to sound like a dick, by my scan of that list indicates to me that concert programming was quite varied. I also note several concerts where there was not a single work by Mozart performed. It doesn't seem to me like the data supports your allegations...
Well, I didn't choose the dates (as you know) and they are a snapshot. At this time (around 1826/7) Beethoven was ill and the concert programmes reflect this fact.
I have decades of such information and the most commonly performed composer in those DECADES was a certain W.A. Mozart.
I realise (appreciate) that you don't want to sound like a dick and hope that this sample (selected by others and which certainly shows the popularity of Mozart at this time) at least shows this to some degree. A complete set of programme notes would confirm as said.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 01:46:08 PM
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 01:46:08 PM
That is such awesome info! I'm bookmarking it.
I notice in the second concert listed, the conductor is Carl Maria von Weber and the leader is "Mr. Kiesewetter," who's got a Stradivarius named after him!
EDIT: The first three concerts are listed twice, Rob...
I notice in the second concert listed, the conductor is Carl Maria von Weber and the leader is "Mr. Kiesewetter," who's got a Stradivarius named after him!
EDIT: The first three concerts are listed twice, Rob...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 01:51:17 PM
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 01:51:17 PM
I noticed Mme Stockhausen appeared in the very last concert you posted ... do you suppose she knew what her descendant would be up to?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 26, 2009, 02:38:47 PM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 26, 2009, 02:38:47 PM
For everyone else's convenience, I simplified this list to show the amount of programmed works by specific well known (to most) composers.
Amount of times in program betweeen the dates March 13, 1826 and June 4, 1826
Mozart - 36
Beethoven - 32
Haydn - 16
Rossini - 12
Weber - 20
Handel - 3
etc...
Note: this doesn't include the instances I saw where the name was given without the composer (i.e. Symphony #6 "Pastorale"), so it can hardly be considered definitive. Based on this snapshot, I certainly don't see a monopoly by Mozart. And if Beethoven was ill during this time, wouldn't it fair to think that his works would have been programmed even more if his health were better. thereby allowing him to surpass Mozart's performance frequency?
Amount of times in program betweeen the dates March 13, 1826 and June 4, 1826
Mozart - 36
Beethoven - 32
Haydn - 16
Rossini - 12
Weber - 20
Handel - 3
etc...
Note: this doesn't include the instances I saw where the name was given without the composer (i.e. Symphony #6 "Pastorale"), so it can hardly be considered definitive. Based on this snapshot, I certainly don't see a monopoly by Mozart. And if Beethoven was ill during this time, wouldn't it fair to think that his works would have been programmed even more if his health were better. thereby allowing him to surpass Mozart's performance frequency?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 06:05:39 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 06:05:39 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:40:05 AM
. . . I (and not them) am now described as a 'troll' !
Yes !
Not without reason !
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 06:08:38 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 06:08:38 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 05:29:47 AM
How about this, Knight ?
Gosh ! That was a threat ! ? ! ! ? ? ? ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 06:09:55 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 06:09:55 PM
Quote from: Marc on July 26, 2009, 05:28:07 AM
I'm a bit surprised to find that this thread is still going on.
First:
There's someone, who claims to be a serious scholar, with a hypothesis that Mozart was a fraud which can't be discussed here, which leads to the circumstances that he keeps asking rhetorical questions.
How come these questions are rhetorical, and why can't his hypothesis be discussed?
The hypothesis was discussed. There is absolutely no substance behind the hypothesis, and it was trashed withal. The hpothesizer is in shrill denial.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 06:13:33 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 06:13:33 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 07:31:03 AM
Or is it another of your inventions ?
This is why I keep coming back to this thread! Its unique entertainment value. There is no flavor quite like the irony of this remark, coming from you!
As, for instance: "Royal School of Music" is only one of your inventions LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 06:14:09 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 06:14:09 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 07:33:34 AM
You can't post on Mozart, can you ?
More than you can ! ! ! !
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 06:15:39 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 06:15:39 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 08:10:49 AM
You are not very well informed, are you ? About the history of music, I mean.
Another side-splitter ! ! !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 26, 2009, 06:45:46 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 26, 2009, 06:45:46 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 01:31:40 PM
I will give you what is convenient for me.
How convenient that it cannot be independently authenticated. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 07:22:16 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 26, 2009, 07:22:16 PM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 26, 2009, 06:45:46 PM
How convenient that it cannot be independently authenticated. ::)
Yes; to arrive at Newman, you apply the same method outlined by Melvin in As Good As It Gets: you take away reason, and accountability ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 26, 2009, 07:42:11 PM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 26, 2009, 07:42:11 PM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 26, 2009, 06:45:46 PMJudging from what I deduced (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10960.msg337866.html#msg337866), I don't think there's any reason to suspect his records, given that they don't even indicate what he suggests they do.
How convenient that it cannot be independently authenticated. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 26, 2009, 08:04:43 PM
Post by: snyprrr on July 26, 2009, 08:04:43 PM
I was still interested in the squabble between Cambini and Mozart.
Anyone?
Anyone?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 26, 2009, 08:05:06 PM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 26, 2009, 08:05:06 PM
Hoping for amusement (that is the point of this thread, obviously) I returned to the first page, where I found this astonishing statement regarding Newman's activities at Corkin's virtual funny farm:
"The discussion ran for a long time" until "it became obvious he didn't have a leg to stand on" does not compute. Even Corkin & company should have been able to figure out that Newman's a dingbat with no credence whatsover in a matter of minutes.
Quote from: Holly on February 08, 2009, 08:24:15 AMAfter leaving T-C, he moved to CMM where he enjoyed the protection of Corkin. There Newman decided to concentrate on one main aspect which was some weird theory that Le Nozze was not composed by WAM, as an earlier version had allegedly been discovered by some Italian researchers. A few Mozart experts from the Mozart Forum turned up to dispute all this, and the discussion ran for a long time but fizzled out last Autumn when it became obvious he didn't have a leg to stand on.
"The discussion ran for a long time" until "it became obvious he didn't have a leg to stand on" does not compute. Even Corkin & company should have been able to figure out that Newman's a dingbat with no credence whatsover in a matter of minutes.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 09:20:58 PM
Post by: Brian on July 26, 2009, 09:20:58 PM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 26, 2009, 08:05:06 PMHe doesn't have a leg to stand on here. We know he's a dingbat with no credence here. But the discussion here has run for a long time.
"The discussion ran for a long time" until "it became obvious he didn't have a leg to stand on" does not compute. Even Corkin & company should have been able to figure out that Newman's a dingbat with no credence whatsover in a matter of minutes.
The only way to get him to leave is to ignore him. :(
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:18:50 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:18:50 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 26, 2009, 08:04:43 PM
I was still interested in the squabble between Cambini and Mozart.
Anyone?
In answer to your question - (on Giuseppe Maria Cambini) - student of Padre Martini in Italy -
Mozart was hostile to this same Cambini (falsely accusing him of responsibility for cancellation of a concert in Paris in 1778). At least, that's the 'official' story. In fact Mozart's trip to Paris was a fiasco, a musical and commercial disaster.
P.S. I am now starting to get very busy so can post much less here.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 27, 2009, 12:26:20 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 27, 2009, 12:26:20 AM
Well bon voyage Robert. We will no doubt observe the crumbs from your table now and then.
Mike
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 12:37:40 AM
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 12:37:40 AM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 26, 2009, 02:38:47 PM
For everyone else's convenience, I simplified this list to show the amount of programmed works by specific well known (to most) composers.
Amount of times in program betweeen the dates March 13, 1826 and June 4, 1826
Mozart - 36
Beethoven - 32
Haydn - 16
Rossini - 12
Weber - 20
Handel - 3
Yeah, but that's not the way to go. All those composers not known to you, like Crusell or Moscheles, were at that time well-known if not hot. The latter was living in London at the time and at the height of his fame. It's not like the audiences went to hear a 5 minute aria from Don Giovanni and dutifully sat out the rest of the concert.
What this record shows, assuming it is faithfully recorded, is that the London Philharmonic presented mixed programs with new stuff and a steady supply of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven material - and the latter composer was still alive (though barely). If you account for the length of the works presented I would not be surprised if Beethoven was the dominant composer of the classical three. We do not know what programs at other places looked like.
However, the conclusion is this record clearly does not bear out the newman theory (dare I say "myth"?) that Mozart was the all-dominant composer at the time. So: thank you! Don't call us, we'll call you!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 27, 2009, 12:55:07 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 27, 2009, 12:55:07 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 26, 2009, 08:05:06 PM
"The discussion ran for a long time" until "it became obvious he didn't have a leg to stand on" does not compute. Even Corkin & company should have been able to figure out that Newman's a dingbat with no credence whatsover in a matter of minutes.
David you seem to be living in denial that Newman is a GMG boy now, and welcomed by the management. It is you guys that are providing harbour for both himself and his innumerable conspiracy theories, so don't mock any other forum that has done the same previously. Be assured the views of the membership at my site do not necessarily reflect that of the management!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 02:20:32 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 02:20:32 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 27, 2009, 12:37:40 AM
Yeah, but that's not the way to go. All those composers not known to you, like Crusell or Moscheles, were at that time well-known if not hot. The latter was living in London at the time and at the height of his fame. It's not like the audiences went to hear a 5 minute aria from Don Giovanni and dutifully sat out the rest of the concert.
What this record shows, assuming it is faithfully recorded, is that the London Philharmonic presented mixed programs with new stuff and a steady supply of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven material - and the latter composer was still alive (though barely). If you account for the length of the works presented I would not be surprised if Beethoven was the dominant composer of the classical three. We do not know what programs at other places looked like.
However, the conclusion is this record clearly does not bear out the newman theory (dare I say "myth"?) that Mozart was the all-dominant composer at the time. So: thank you! Don't call us, we'll call you!
Herman,
It's a sign of incompetence for you to misquote those you criticise. I never said Mozart 'was the all-dominant composer at the time', did I ? You are inventing again (like so many of your colleagues). I actually said Mozart (in terms of orchestral performances) was by far the most popular composer in the orchestral concerts performed in London during the period of 1813 to around 1830 (and beyond). And that's a FACT. So stop making a fool of yourself. Mozart did NOT become a hugely popular composer in the 20th century. He was hugely popular even from the early 19th century onwards as this little known data clearly proves. Which is a demonstratable fact proved by the records of the time and by the publications of music sellers. No argument ! 'His' works far outnumber those of any others in these records from London.
You will not thank me but I will end my contribution here by posting a series of programme contents for these London concerts here from 1813 onwards (slowly) to share this information in some detail with others. This obtained from research made in London. Since it's not a matter of debate but of facts clearly unknown by you and your colleagues. From which you might just learn. But, apart from that, I am now starting to get very busy.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 02:29:57 AM
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 02:29:57 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 02:20:32 AM
Herman,
It's a sign of incompetence for you to misquote those you criticise. I never said Mozart 'was the all-dominant composer at the time', did I ? You are inventing again (like so many of your colleagues).
(http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2008/02/08-15/baby-yawn.jpg)
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 05:53:59 AM
The situation is rather simple. A huge industry exists (one which dominates the study of music and its history) and which goes by the name of the 'Mozart industry'. It's influence is so massive that Mozart, as a phenomenon, literally dominates musicology (along with a small number of other composers). And has done so for almost 200 years.
Quote from: robnewman on July 26, 2009, 08:10:49 AM
Don't you know this ? The earliest concerts of the London Philharmonic in the early 19th century were dominated by 'Mozart'.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 02:40:27 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 02:40:27 AM
ORCHESTRAL CONCERT PROGRAMMES - LONDON 1813 TO AROUND 1830
UNDER THE IMMEDIATE PATRONAGE OF
H.R.H. GEORGE, PRINCE REGENT
LONDON PHILHARMONIA ORCHESTRA
FIRST CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 8, 1813 - LONDON
Part I
Overture, "Anacreon" ..... Cherubini
Quartett, for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello - Mozart
(F. Cramer, Moralt, Sherrington and R. Lindley).
Vocal Quartett and Chorus, " Nell' orror " . . Sacchini
(Mrs. Moralt, Wm. Hawes, P. A. Corri and Kellner).
Serenade for Wind Instruments . . . Mozart
(Mahon, Oliver, Holmes, J. Tully and the two Petrides).
Symphony ........ Beethoven
Part II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Chorus, " Placido e' il mar " (Idomeneo) . . Mozart
Mrs. Moralt, Miss Hughes, P. A. Corri, C. Smith, &c.
Quintett for two Violins, Viola and two Violoncellos . Boccherini
(Salomon, Cudmore, Sherrington, R. Lindley and C. Ashley)
Chaconne, Jomelle and March .... Haydn
(Leader, Mr. Salomon. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi)
SECOND CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1813
Part I
Overture, " Die Zauberflote " - . . . . Mozart
Trio, " Venite, O Donne, meco " . . . . Salieri
(Miss Hughes, Mrs. Moralt and Mr. Kellner).
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Haydn
(Salomon, Mori, H. Gattie and R. Lindley).
Notturno for Wind Instruments .... Mozart
(Mahon, Oliver, F. Griesbach, M. Sharp, Petrides, Holmes and J. Tully)
Symphony ........ Haydn
Part II
Symphony ....... Beethoven
Sestetto, " Sola, sola " (Don Giovanni) . . Mozart
(Miss Hughes, Mrs, Moralt, Miss Bolton ; P. A. Corri, C. Smith and Naldi.
Concertante for Violin, Tenor, Oboe and Violoncello - Bach
(F. Cramer, Sherrington, F. Griesbach and R. Lindley)
Finale,* " Zaira - Winter
(Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer).
THIRD CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1813
Part I
Overture, " Les Deux Joxarnes' - Cherubini
Septuor for Strings, Horn, Clarinet and Bassoon - Beethoven
(Spagnoletti, Vaccari, R. Lindley, H. Hill, Petrides, C. Kramer and Holmes).
Quartett, " Benedictus " - . . . . . Haydn
(Miss Hughes ; Wm. Hawes, Hobbes and Kellner)
Symphony ........ Pleyel
Part II
A Symphony ........ Mozart
Quartett, " Dorina, mia Carina " (Le Nozze de Dorina) - Sarti
(Mrs. Moralt ; P. A. Corri, Hobbes and C. Smith).
Quintett for two Violins, two Violas and Violoncello - Romberg
Vaccari, Watts, Spagnoletti, Mountain and R. Lindley.
Finale, " Tamerlane " . . , . . . Winter
(Leader, Mr, Spagnoletti, Pianoforte, Mr, Clementi.
//
To Be Continued
UNDER THE IMMEDIATE PATRONAGE OF
H.R.H. GEORGE, PRINCE REGENT
LONDON PHILHARMONIA ORCHESTRA
FIRST CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 8, 1813 - LONDON
Part I
Overture, "Anacreon" ..... Cherubini
Quartett, for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello - Mozart
(F. Cramer, Moralt, Sherrington and R. Lindley).
Vocal Quartett and Chorus, " Nell' orror " . . Sacchini
(Mrs. Moralt, Wm. Hawes, P. A. Corri and Kellner).
Serenade for Wind Instruments . . . Mozart
(Mahon, Oliver, Holmes, J. Tully and the two Petrides).
Symphony ........ Beethoven
Part II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Chorus, " Placido e' il mar " (Idomeneo) . . Mozart
Mrs. Moralt, Miss Hughes, P. A. Corri, C. Smith, &c.
Quintett for two Violins, Viola and two Violoncellos . Boccherini
(Salomon, Cudmore, Sherrington, R. Lindley and C. Ashley)
Chaconne, Jomelle and March .... Haydn
(Leader, Mr. Salomon. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi)
SECOND CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1813
Part I
Overture, " Die Zauberflote " - . . . . Mozart
Trio, " Venite, O Donne, meco " . . . . Salieri
(Miss Hughes, Mrs. Moralt and Mr. Kellner).
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Haydn
(Salomon, Mori, H. Gattie and R. Lindley).
Notturno for Wind Instruments .... Mozart
(Mahon, Oliver, F. Griesbach, M. Sharp, Petrides, Holmes and J. Tully)
Symphony ........ Haydn
Part II
Symphony ....... Beethoven
Sestetto, " Sola, sola " (Don Giovanni) . . Mozart
(Miss Hughes, Mrs, Moralt, Miss Bolton ; P. A. Corri, C. Smith and Naldi.
Concertante for Violin, Tenor, Oboe and Violoncello - Bach
(F. Cramer, Sherrington, F. Griesbach and R. Lindley)
Finale,* " Zaira - Winter
(Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer).
THIRD CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1813
Part I
Overture, " Les Deux Joxarnes' - Cherubini
Septuor for Strings, Horn, Clarinet and Bassoon - Beethoven
(Spagnoletti, Vaccari, R. Lindley, H. Hill, Petrides, C. Kramer and Holmes).
Quartett, " Benedictus " - . . . . . Haydn
(Miss Hughes ; Wm. Hawes, Hobbes and Kellner)
Symphony ........ Pleyel
Part II
A Symphony ........ Mozart
Quartett, " Dorina, mia Carina " (Le Nozze de Dorina) - Sarti
(Mrs. Moralt ; P. A. Corri, Hobbes and C. Smith).
Quintett for two Violins, two Violas and Violoncello - Romberg
Vaccari, Watts, Spagnoletti, Mountain and R. Lindley.
Finale, " Tamerlane " . . , . . . Winter
(Leader, Mr, Spagnoletti, Pianoforte, Mr, Clementi.
//
To Be Continued
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 02:44:43 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 02:44:43 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 27, 2009, 02:29:57 AM
(http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/2008/02/08-15/baby-yawn.jpg)
We were told on this thread that Mozart's popularity began with the gramophone record. In plain fact he was hugely popular in the early 19th century. His orchestral works alone were by far the most popularly performed at these concerts. His works were being published in Germany, Austria, France, Portugal, Scandinavia, the UK, Italy, Belgium, Holland and all of Europe. The documentary record is clear. Mozart was easily the most performed and published composer of the early 19th century. In this series of performances in London he is easily the most dominant, the most frequently performed composer of them all. And I will produce the documentary evidence of this here on this thread.
End of story.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 02:56:58 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 02:56:58 AM
FOURTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 3
Part I
Overture, " Numa Pompilius "
QuiNTETT for two Violins, two Violas and Violoncello
Bbidgetower, F. Cramer, Moralt, H. Gattie and
Trio, " Che ascoltai " .
Mrs. Moralt ; Braham and Naldi.
QtriNTETT for Pianoforte and Strings .
C. Neate, Salomon, Watts, R. Lindley and H. Hill, senr.
Symphony
Paer
Beethoven
R. Lindley.
Chervbini
Dussek
Mozart
Part II
Symphony ........ dementi
Trio, " Tu mi dividi " Bach
Mrs, Moralt, Miss Rovedino and Ledesma.
Concertante for Violin, Violoncello, Oboe and Bassoon Haydn
Salomon, R. Lindley, F. Griesbach and Holmes.
Finale, " Anacreon " . . . . . . Chervbini
Leader, Mb. Salomon. Pianoforte, Mb. J. B. Cramer.
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 17
Part I
Overture,- " Demophoon " . . . . . Cherubini
Quartet, " Benedictus " - . . . . . Mozart
(Mrs. Moralt ; C. Evans, Ledesma and C. Smith).
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . . Viotti
(Viotti, Vaccari, Spagnoletti and Crouch).
Overture for Double Orchestra .... Bach
Part II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Quartett, " Caro da voi' - . . . . . Cherubini
(Mrs, Moralt ; Ledesma, C. Smith and Naldi)
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello - Beethoven
(Spagnoletti, Mori, Vaccari and C. Neate).
Finale, " Iphigenia in Aulide'' - Gluck
Leader, Mr. Viotti. Pianoforte, Mb. Clementi.
SIXTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 31 (1813)
Part I
Overture, " Ladoiska " . . . . , . Cherubini
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello - Mozart
(F. Cramer, Bridgetower, Moralt and R, Lindley).
Trio, " Parte vanne " . . . . . . Caruso, Mrs. Ashe ; Rosquellas and C. Smith.
Full Piece for Pianoforte, Wood Wind and Horns Cramer—Mozart
(J. B. Cramer, Ashe, F. Griesbach, M. Sharp, Mahon, Oliver,J. and P. Petrides, Holmes and J. Tully.
Symphony ........ A. Romberg
Part II
Symphony ........ Joseph Woelfl
Quartett, '* Lo ! Star-led Chiefs " (Palestine) . . W. Crotch
(Mrs, Vaughan ; Evans, Vaughan and Kellner).
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Haydn,
Yaniewicz, Watts, Spagnoletti and R. Lindley,
Finale, " Prometheus " . . . . . . Beethoven
(Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer).
SEVENTH CONCERT. MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1813
Part I
Overture, " The Creation " . . . . . Haydn
Introduction and Chorus, " The Heavens are telling
"
(Creation) ....... Haydn
Quartett for Pianoforte and Strings . . . Beethoven
L. Berger, Yaniewicz, Watts and Neate.
Symphony ........ Clementi
Part II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Trio, " O dolce, o caro istante " (Gli Orazzi) . . Cimarosa
(The singers not named.)
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Beethoven
(Yaniewicz, Gattie, Moralt and R. Lindley).
Finale, " L'Hotellerie Portugaise " . . . . Cherubini
(Leader, Mr. Yaniewicz. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi)
/
cont'd
Part I
Overture, " Numa Pompilius "
QuiNTETT for two Violins, two Violas and Violoncello
Bbidgetower, F. Cramer, Moralt, H. Gattie and
Trio, " Che ascoltai " .
Mrs. Moralt ; Braham and Naldi.
QtriNTETT for Pianoforte and Strings .
C. Neate, Salomon, Watts, R. Lindley and H. Hill, senr.
Symphony
Paer
Beethoven
R. Lindley.
Chervbini
Dussek
Mozart
Part II
Symphony ........ dementi
Trio, " Tu mi dividi " Bach
Mrs, Moralt, Miss Rovedino and Ledesma.
Concertante for Violin, Violoncello, Oboe and Bassoon Haydn
Salomon, R. Lindley, F. Griesbach and Holmes.
Finale, " Anacreon " . . . . . . Chervbini
Leader, Mb. Salomon. Pianoforte, Mb. J. B. Cramer.
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 17
Part I
Overture,- " Demophoon " . . . . . Cherubini
Quartet, " Benedictus " - . . . . . Mozart
(Mrs. Moralt ; C. Evans, Ledesma and C. Smith).
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . . Viotti
(Viotti, Vaccari, Spagnoletti and Crouch).
Overture for Double Orchestra .... Bach
Part II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Quartett, " Caro da voi' - . . . . . Cherubini
(Mrs, Moralt ; Ledesma, C. Smith and Naldi)
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello - Beethoven
(Spagnoletti, Mori, Vaccari and C. Neate).
Finale, " Iphigenia in Aulide'' - Gluck
Leader, Mr. Viotti. Pianoforte, Mb. Clementi.
SIXTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 31 (1813)
Part I
Overture, " Ladoiska " . . . . , . Cherubini
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello - Mozart
(F. Cramer, Bridgetower, Moralt and R, Lindley).
Trio, " Parte vanne " . . . . . . Caruso, Mrs. Ashe ; Rosquellas and C. Smith.
Full Piece for Pianoforte, Wood Wind and Horns Cramer—Mozart
(J. B. Cramer, Ashe, F. Griesbach, M. Sharp, Mahon, Oliver,J. and P. Petrides, Holmes and J. Tully.
Symphony ........ A. Romberg
Part II
Symphony ........ Joseph Woelfl
Quartett, '* Lo ! Star-led Chiefs " (Palestine) . . W. Crotch
(Mrs, Vaughan ; Evans, Vaughan and Kellner).
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Haydn,
Yaniewicz, Watts, Spagnoletti and R. Lindley,
Finale, " Prometheus " . . . . . . Beethoven
(Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer).
SEVENTH CONCERT. MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1813
Part I
Overture, " The Creation " . . . . . Haydn
Introduction and Chorus, " The Heavens are telling
"
(Creation) ....... Haydn
Quartett for Pianoforte and Strings . . . Beethoven
L. Berger, Yaniewicz, Watts and Neate.
Symphony ........ Clementi
Part II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Trio, " O dolce, o caro istante " (Gli Orazzi) . . Cimarosa
(The singers not named.)
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Beethoven
(Yaniewicz, Gattie, Moralt and R. Lindley).
Finale, " L'Hotellerie Portugaise " . . . . Cherubini
(Leader, Mr. Yaniewicz. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi)
/
cont'd
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 03:10:39 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 03:10:39 AM
EIGHTH CONCERT. MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1813
Part I
Overture, " Le Jeune Henri " (a la Chasse) . . Mehul
Quartett, " Andro ramingo " (Idomeneo) . . Mozart
(Mrs. Bianchi-Lacy, Miss Hughes, Mrs. Moralt ; Ledesma).
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Romberg
Vaccari, Watts, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Symphony........ Beethoven
PART 2
Symphony ........ Mozart
Trio, " Pria di partir " (Idomeneo) .... Mozart
Mrs. Moratt, Mrs, Bianchi-Lacy ; Ledesma.
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Haydn
(Salomon, Watts, W. Griesbach and R. Lindley).
Finale, " Eliza " ....... Cherubini
(Leader, Mr. Vaccari. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer).
PROGRAMMES FOR THE YEAR OF 1814
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14
Act 1
1
Overture, " Don Giovanni " . . . . . Mozart
Quartet, " Recordare " (Requiem) . . . Mozart
(Mmes Vaughan and Catalani ; Messrs. Vatjqhan and Naldi)
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
(Messrs. Salomon, Mori, Cxjdmore and R. Lindley).
Quartet, " Dove Sono - Cimarosa
(Mmes Lacy and Catalani ; Messrs, Ledesma and Naldi).
Symphony (MS.) ....... Ferd. Ries
(Composed for the Society : First performance.)
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Quintet, " Che tremore' - . . . . . Mozart
(Miss Naldi, Mmb Catalani ; Messrs. Ledesma, C. Smith and Naldi)
Concertante for Pianoforte, Flute, Oboe and Bassoon - Mozart
(Messrs. C. Neate, Ireland, F. Griesbach and Holmes)
Overture - " Prometheus " ..... Beethoven
(Leader, Mr. Salomon. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi)
SECOND CONCERT. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28
Act I
OvEBTUBE, " Les Deux Journees " 1 .... Chervbini
QuiNTETT for two Violins, two Violas and 'Cello . . Mozart
Messrs. F. Cbameb, Mobi, Mobalt, Gattie and R. Lindley.
QuARTETT, " Te Dianina
"
. . . . . Paesiello
Mmes Lacy and Mobalt ; Messrs. Lacy and Naldi.
Symphony, " Eroica " . . . . . . Beethoven
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Tbio, " Soave sia il vento " (Cosi fan tutte) . . Mozart
Mmes Mobalt and Lacy, and Mb. Naldi.
Quabtett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Griffin
Messrs. Vaccari, H. Gattie, R. H. Potter and Neate.
(First public performance.)
Overture, " Demophoon " . . . . . Vogel
Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer.
THIRD CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 14
Act I
Overture, " Idomeneo'' - . . . . . Mozart
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Romberg
(Messbs. Beeb, Watts, Shebbington and Neate)
Trio, " Ah taci ingiusto core " (Don Giovanni) . . Mozart
(Mbs. Dickons, Messbs. C. Smith and Naldi)
Symphony ........ Mozart
Act II
Symphony ........ Beethoven
Quartett, " Dite almen " (La Villanella rapita) . , Mozart
(Mrs. Dickons, Messrs. Hobbes, C. Smith and Naldi)
Sestett for Pfte., Harp, Oboe, Bassoon, Horn and Double-Bass ....... Ferd. Eies
(Messrs. F. Ries, C. Meyeb, F. Gbiesbach, Holmes, Schuncke and H. Hill, senr.
Overture, " Lodoiska " . . . . . . Cherubini
(Leader, Mr. Vaccabi. Pianoforte, Mb. Clementi)
FOURTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 28
Act I
Overture, " Anacreon " . . . . . . Cherubini
Notturno for Wind Instruments .... Mozart
Trio, " Se al volto " (La Clemenza di Tito) . . Mozart
(Miss Stephens, Messbs. Braham and Welsh).
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Viotti
Messrs. Viotti, Mori, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Symphony ........ Mozart
Act II
OvERTTTBE, " Faniska " . . . . . . Chervhini
Trio, " Lov'd Scene " T. Welsh
Miss Stephens, Messrs. Braham and Welsh.
QuiNTETT for two Violins, Violas and two 'Cellos . Boccherini
Messrs. Viotti, Mori, Moralt, R. Lindley and C. J. Ashley.
Sestetto, " Sacro Pugnal " . . . . . Chervhini
{Singers unnamed.)
Grand March ....... Haydn
Leader, Mr. Viotti. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi.
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 18
Act I
Overture (MS.) .......Ludwig Berger
(Composed expressly for this concert.)
Quartett, " Non ti fidar " (Don Giovanni) . . Mozart
Mmes Moralt and Lacy ; Messrs. Ledesma and Naldi.
Quintett for Pfte., Oboe, Vln., 'Cello and Horn - J. S. Bach
Messrs. R. Cudmore, F. Griesbach, Salomon, R. Lindley and Petrides.
Syiuphony (MS.) ....... Ferd, Ries
(First time of performance.)
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Quartett, " Perfido a quest' accesso " . . . Gttglielmi
Mmes Lacy and Moralt ; Messrs. Hobbes and Lacy.
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . . Haydn
Messrs. Salomon, Cudmore, Sherrington and R. Lindley.
Overture, " La Clemenza di Tito " . . . . Mozart
Leader, Mr. Salomon. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi.
SIXTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 2, 1814
Act I
Overture, " Die Zauberflote " . . . . . Mozart
Quartett, " Ah, grazie si rendano'' - . . Mozart
(Mrs. Dickons, Master Bradley, Messrs. Braham and Kellner)
Trio for Violin, Viola and 'Cello .... Beethoven
(Messrs. Spagnoletti, Vaccari and Crouch)
Symphony (MS.) ...... Bonifacio Asioli
(First Performance in England.)
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
cont'd
//
Part I
Overture, " Le Jeune Henri " (a la Chasse) . . Mehul
Quartett, " Andro ramingo " (Idomeneo) . . Mozart
(Mrs. Bianchi-Lacy, Miss Hughes, Mrs. Moralt ; Ledesma).
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Romberg
Vaccari, Watts, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Symphony........ Beethoven
PART 2
Symphony ........ Mozart
Trio, " Pria di partir " (Idomeneo) .... Mozart
Mrs. Moratt, Mrs, Bianchi-Lacy ; Ledesma.
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and Violoncello . Haydn
(Salomon, Watts, W. Griesbach and R. Lindley).
Finale, " Eliza " ....... Cherubini
(Leader, Mr. Vaccari. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer).
PROGRAMMES FOR THE YEAR OF 1814
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14
Act 1
1
Overture, " Don Giovanni " . . . . . Mozart
Quartet, " Recordare " (Requiem) . . . Mozart
(Mmes Vaughan and Catalani ; Messrs. Vatjqhan and Naldi)
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
(Messrs. Salomon, Mori, Cxjdmore and R. Lindley).
Quartet, " Dove Sono - Cimarosa
(Mmes Lacy and Catalani ; Messrs, Ledesma and Naldi).
Symphony (MS.) ....... Ferd. Ries
(Composed for the Society : First performance.)
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Quintet, " Che tremore' - . . . . . Mozart
(Miss Naldi, Mmb Catalani ; Messrs. Ledesma, C. Smith and Naldi)
Concertante for Pianoforte, Flute, Oboe and Bassoon - Mozart
(Messrs. C. Neate, Ireland, F. Griesbach and Holmes)
Overture - " Prometheus " ..... Beethoven
(Leader, Mr. Salomon. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi)
SECOND CONCERT. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28
Act I
OvEBTUBE, " Les Deux Journees " 1 .... Chervbini
QuiNTETT for two Violins, two Violas and 'Cello . . Mozart
Messrs. F. Cbameb, Mobi, Mobalt, Gattie and R. Lindley.
QuARTETT, " Te Dianina
"
. . . . . Paesiello
Mmes Lacy and Mobalt ; Messrs. Lacy and Naldi.
Symphony, " Eroica " . . . . . . Beethoven
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Tbio, " Soave sia il vento " (Cosi fan tutte) . . Mozart
Mmes Mobalt and Lacy, and Mb. Naldi.
Quabtett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Griffin
Messrs. Vaccari, H. Gattie, R. H. Potter and Neate.
(First public performance.)
Overture, " Demophoon " . . . . . Vogel
Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer.
THIRD CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 14
Act I
Overture, " Idomeneo'' - . . . . . Mozart
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Romberg
(Messbs. Beeb, Watts, Shebbington and Neate)
Trio, " Ah taci ingiusto core " (Don Giovanni) . . Mozart
(Mbs. Dickons, Messbs. C. Smith and Naldi)
Symphony ........ Mozart
Act II
Symphony ........ Beethoven
Quartett, " Dite almen " (La Villanella rapita) . , Mozart
(Mrs. Dickons, Messrs. Hobbes, C. Smith and Naldi)
Sestett for Pfte., Harp, Oboe, Bassoon, Horn and Double-Bass ....... Ferd. Eies
(Messrs. F. Ries, C. Meyeb, F. Gbiesbach, Holmes, Schuncke and H. Hill, senr.
Overture, " Lodoiska " . . . . . . Cherubini
(Leader, Mr. Vaccabi. Pianoforte, Mb. Clementi)
FOURTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 28
Act I
Overture, " Anacreon " . . . . . . Cherubini
Notturno for Wind Instruments .... Mozart
Trio, " Se al volto " (La Clemenza di Tito) . . Mozart
(Miss Stephens, Messbs. Braham and Welsh).
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Viotti
Messrs. Viotti, Mori, Moralt and R. Lindley.
Symphony ........ Mozart
Act II
OvERTTTBE, " Faniska " . . . . . . Chervhini
Trio, " Lov'd Scene " T. Welsh
Miss Stephens, Messrs. Braham and Welsh.
QuiNTETT for two Violins, Violas and two 'Cellos . Boccherini
Messrs. Viotti, Mori, Moralt, R. Lindley and C. J. Ashley.
Sestetto, " Sacro Pugnal " . . . . . Chervhini
{Singers unnamed.)
Grand March ....... Haydn
Leader, Mr. Viotti. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi.
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 18
Act I
Overture (MS.) .......Ludwig Berger
(Composed expressly for this concert.)
Quartett, " Non ti fidar " (Don Giovanni) . . Mozart
Mmes Moralt and Lacy ; Messrs. Ledesma and Naldi.
Quintett for Pfte., Oboe, Vln., 'Cello and Horn - J. S. Bach
Messrs. R. Cudmore, F. Griesbach, Salomon, R. Lindley and Petrides.
Syiuphony (MS.) ....... Ferd, Ries
(First time of performance.)
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Quartett, " Perfido a quest' accesso " . . . Gttglielmi
Mmes Lacy and Moralt ; Messrs. Hobbes and Lacy.
Quartett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . . Haydn
Messrs. Salomon, Cudmore, Sherrington and R. Lindley.
Overture, " La Clemenza di Tito " . . . . Mozart
Leader, Mr. Salomon. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi.
SIXTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 2, 1814
Act I
Overture, " Die Zauberflote " . . . . . Mozart
Quartett, " Ah, grazie si rendano'' - . . Mozart
(Mrs. Dickons, Master Bradley, Messrs. Braham and Kellner)
Trio for Violin, Viola and 'Cello .... Beethoven
(Messrs. Spagnoletti, Vaccari and Crouch)
Symphony (MS.) ...... Bonifacio Asioli
(First Performance in England.)
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
cont'd
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 03:15:56 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 03:15:56 AM
Warning tin foil hat area!
(http://smileydesign.net/smileys/cost10.gif)
(http://smileydesign.net/smileys/cost10.gif)
(http://smileydesign.net/smileys/cost10.gif)
(http://smileydesign.net/smileys/cost10.gif)
(http://smileydesign.net/smileys/cost10.gif)
(http://smileydesign.net/smileys/cost10.gif)
(http://smileydesign.net/smileys/cost10.gif)
(http://smileydesign.net/smileys/cost10.gif)
(http://smileydesign.net/smileys/cost10.gif)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 03:29:53 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 03:29:53 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 27, 2009, 12:55:07 AM
David you seem to be living in denial that Newman is a GMG boy now, and welcomed by the management. It is you guys that are providing harbour for both himself and his innumerable conspiracy theories, so don't mock any other forum that has done the same previously. Be assured the views of the membership at my site do not necessarily reflect that of the management!
Rod, what seems to be your problem ? I am not a 'GMG boy' now. In fact, the management of GMG have allowed me to post where you do not. That is the plain fact. I regret it. But it's a fact anyway. And although it is not easy to post here I do. Soon I will be very busy and will be unable to post anywhere for quite some time.
I do not have 'innumerable conspiracy theories'. Why do you exaggerate ? Do you ever stop exaggerating ? Nor do I live in denial of the corruption of our civilization by vested elites, by conspiracies at the highest levels of our society in banking, politics, culture, media, the industrial/military complex and many other areas. They are indisputably a major factor in human history and in current affairs as they have been throughout human history. Being dumbed down as you have been to ignore them and to deny their existence is exactly what suits you and it's really not my problem. It's yours. The number of conspiracy theories to which I subscribe is far smaller than their actual number. It's not 'innumerable'. Every day our courts deal with conspiracies as criminal cases. They are common. Ask any court judge.
And finally, my views do not represent those of the management here at GMG any more than your views represent the membership of your own forum. Which you already admit in your last post here Rod !! Wake up man ! To your forum, as you must surely agree, I made a more than fair contribution, until your own fear of conspiracy theories forced your hand in banning me. And why ? Because you have views so dogmatic on Beethoven and his official career you can't handle their criticism.
So, all things considered, the lesson seems to be, live and let live. Right Rod ? And always look on the bright side, even of a world riddled with corruption, misinformed people, and, yes, conspiracies that affect your education and even your attitude. The denial of which makes fools of us. Which we should struggle to avoid, Rod.
The truth is Rod is scared of conspiracies. He is afraid of the war on 'error'. His whole nation has been taken over the by the EU without a democratic mandate from the people of this nation. His own government go to war and occupy foreign nations in the name of 'democracy' while democracy itself is a joke in his own country. But nobody can convince Rod of conspiracies. His banks are bailed out by the public to the tune of billions and they now announce record profits, though they refuse to lend to their customers. The 'war on terror' consists of false flag operation after false flag operation. The corruption of the police, the media, the politicians is so clear. And yet Rod doesn't believe in conspiracy theories. Let us leave Rod with our good wishes in the hope that his voluntary innoculation against Swine Flu will somehow end his denial of things as they really are and will bring him kicking and screaming into accepting the reality of our times.
Thank you Rod !
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 03:33:14 AM
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 03:33:14 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 02:44:43 AM
We were told on this thread that Mozart's popularity began with the gramophone record. In plain fact he was hugely popular in the early 19th century. His orchestral works alone were by far the most popularly performed at these concerts.
End of story.
Getting caught up in your own words again? You said he was dominant, and then you denied you said he was dominant.
The programme you posted from 1827 showed Mozart was indeed performed at the London Philharmonic Society, but not in the way you had previously depicted, i.e. dominating the entire scene. I'd say that would be the end of the story, and a good point for you to do whatever business you were going to do. I suppose you have been looking for a season which featured more Mozart on the programmes, but you know what? You challenged GMG-members to name a date, and somebody did. Having a life to live, and not being burdenend by your obsessions, I'll pass on the further programmes you'll be posting.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 03:40:27 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 03:40:27 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 27, 2009, 03:33:14 AM
Getting caught up in your own words again? You said he was dominant, and then you denied you said he was dominant.
The programme you posted from 1827 showed Mozart was indeed performed at the London Philharmonic Society, but not in the way you had previously depicted, i.e. dominating the entire scene. I'd say that would be the end of the story, and a good point for you to do whatever business you were going to do. I suppose you have been looking for a season which featured more Mozart on the programmes, but you know what? You challenged GMG-members to name a date, and somebody did. Having a life to live, and not being burdenend by your obsessions, I'll pass on the further programmes you'll be posting.
Herman,
This subject is under discussion because it was claimed that Mozart became very popular only with the invention of the gramophone record. This is plainly untrue. Do you suffer from amnesia by any chance ? ::)
The truth is the performance (of orchestral music) by 'Mozart' even in the early 19th century was massively popular. In plain FACT it was 'Mozart's' music which was, BY FAR, the MOST commonly performed in concerts held in London between 1813 and 1830 (and even beyond). Which part of this simple message do you not yet accept ?
So now you know, right Herman ! ???? If you need more proof just ask.
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 04:04:07 AM
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 04:04:07 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 03:40:27 AM
The truth is the performance (in orchestral music) of 'Mozart's' music, even in the early 19th century was massively popular. In FACT it was 'Mozart's' music which was, BY FAR, the most commonly performed in concerts held in London between 1813 and 1830 (and even beyond). Which part of this message do you not yet accept ?
The 1827 programme does not bear out your previously stated thesis that Mozart dominated the music scene, over composers like Beethoven, nor does it confirm that he was "BY FAR" the most commonly / popularly performed composer. So I don't accept your message as such.
Since you seemed to have some urgent business to do, maybe it would be best to take it easy now. Yesterday you have been posting like a maniac, and I mean that literally. It's not a pretty sight. You're very busy moving various strawmen arguments around, and challenging folks on marginal issues. However in the end it's safe to say that you have no credibility left and posting more crazy posts will not get it back.
When was the last time someone on GMG said, "Gee maybe you have a point, tell me more"? At best this was at page 20 of this topic.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 04:13:38 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 04:13:38 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 27, 2009, 04:04:07 AM
The 1827 programme does not bear out your previously stated thesis that Mozart dominated the music scene, over composers like Beethoven, nor does it confirm that he was "BY FAR" the most commonly / popularly performed composer. So I don't accept your message as such.
Since you seemed to have some urgent business to do, maybe it would be best to take it easy now. Yesterday you have been posting like a maniac, and I mean that literally. It's not a pretty sight. You're very busy moving various strawmen arguments around, and challenging folks on marginal issues. However in the end it's safe to say that you have no credibility left and posting more crazy posts will not get it back.
When was the last time someone on GMG said, "Gee maybe you have a point, tell me more"? At best this was at page 20 of this topic.
Herman,
Your letters are a comedy of errors. Not only do you suffer from amensia but you are now starting to hallucinate. Let me explain -
1. I have already explained that in 1826/7 Beethoven (who had close association with the orchestra in London) was ill. So programmes of that time (orchestral) tend to reflect Beethoven's music more in that period than in others. This is so easy to understand that even you can understand it. But just to make it simple I even said this myself, a few pages ago. Your amnesia seems specially bad these days !
2. I am providing the details of programmes not only from 1826/7 but also from as early as 1813 up to the 1830's. This too I have explained. Perhaps your amnesia is affecting you again ?
3. The documentary evidence shows, convincingly Mozart's orchestral music (so-called) was BY FAR the most frequently performed in those decades. Which part of this message do you not understand ?
4. Mozart did NOT first become popular at the time when the gramophone record was invented. So says the evidence. This too is simple enough for you, even with your severe attacks of amnesia, to understand.
5. No composer was performed more in orchestral terms than 'Mozart' in this time.
6. You suggest the last time somebody asked for more information was back on Page 20 of this thread. But your amnesia is affecting you again since I was requested only a page or so ago to provide details of the orchestral concerts given in London in 1827. Did you forget this ? Was your amensia specially bad when you wrote your last post ?
And finally -
7. Is it still your view that the orchestral music of 'Mozart' was not popular, not easily THE MOST POPULAR OF ALL, until the arrival of the gramophone record ? Or has your amnesia started again ?
::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 04:34:03 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 04:34:03 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 27, 2009, 04:04:07 AM
The 1827 programme does not bear out your previously stated thesis that Mozart dominated the music scene, over composers like Beethoven, nor does it confirm that he was "BY FAR" the most commonly / popularly performed composer. So I don't accept your message as such.
Since you seemed to have some urgent business to do, maybe it would be best to take it easy now. Yesterday you have been posting like a maniac, and I mean that literally. It's not a pretty sight. You're very busy moving various strawmen arguments around, and challenging folks on marginal issues. However in the end it's safe to say that you have no credibility left and posting more crazy posts will not get it back.
When was the last time someone on GMG said, "Gee maybe you have a point, tell me more"? At best this was at page 20 of this topic.
QFT
And another demonstration that Newman (a) doesn't know what facts are, and (b) has no grasp on any fact which is unhappy enough to wander into his orbit.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 04:38:07 AM
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 04:38:07 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 04:13:38 AM
Herman,
Your letters are a comedy of errors. Not only do you suffer from amensia but you are now starting to hallucinate. Let me explain -
3. The documentary evidence shows, convincingly Mozart's orchestral music (so-called) was BY FAR the most frequently performed in those decades. Which part of this message do you not understand ?
4. Mozart did NOT first become popular at the time when the gramophone record was invented. So says the evidence. This too is simple enough for you, even with your severe attacks of amnesia, to understand.
5. No composer was performed more in orchestral terms than 'Mozart' in this time.
I think you should tone down. Yesterday two moderators have had to interfere because you were acting crazy, and here you go again.
Now, as to your question nr 3. It is the wrong question, as I had pointed out before. The documentary evidence does not point out what you want it to point out. So I understand your "message" in that I understand you are wrong.
Nr 4. I have not said Mozart only became popular "when the gramophone record was invented" so it might be an idea to stop trying to argue with me about this point.
Nr 5. See nr 3: I don't think your "documentary evidence, as interesting as it is, provides evidence for this. This is a common problem for autodidacts. They have a thesis and then they're going to look for evidence. If the evidence doesn't do its job, too bad for the evidence.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 04:52:58 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 04:52:58 AM
Quote from: Brian on July 26, 2009, 09:20:58 PM
He doesn't have a leg to stand on here. We know he's a dingbat with no credence here. But the discussion here has run for a long time.
Yes, but virtually everyone recognized him as a buffoon PDQ (though I was surprised by a couple of folks who seemed to expect rational discourse from him long after it was obvious that he's incapable of it).
Quote from: Brian on July 26, 2009, 09:20:58 PMThe only way to get him to leave is to ignore him. :(
Well...a sane person who seeks attention (is that a contradiction?) would leave if ignored, but there's no telling with a nutcase like newman. Anyway, some folks are still amused by him (poor chap isn't sharp enough to realize that he's a laughingstock--rather sad, actually) and they in turn amuse the rest of us.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 27, 2009, 12:55:07 AM
David you seem to be living in denial that Newman is a GMG boy now, and welcomed by the management. It is you guys that are providing harbour for both himself and his innumerable conspiracy theories, so don't mock any other forum that has done the same previously. Be assured the views of the membership at my site do not necessarily reflect that of the management!
I see your reading comprehension is faulty as always. Are you really robnewman's sock puppet, or vice versa, like dzalman and acdouglass?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 04:53:53 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 04:53:53 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 02:44:43 AM
We were told on this thread that Mozart's popularity began with the gramophone record.
Yet another one of your straw men, eh? That wasn't the claim at all. Though I'm not surprised that you're too dense to notice. Actually, my argument was this:
Quote from: O Mensch on July 26, 2009, 07:52:34 AM
BTW, your whole preposterous thesis still has two major gaping holes. No.1 is the fact that the whole "Mozart industry" of which you speak is a distinct late-20th century phenomenon. The mass-marketing of Mozart did not begin in earnest until the invention of the LP.
A significant presence of some more popular Mozart pieces (most of them very short, e.g. individual arias, looking at the programs you posted) does not mass marketing, much less an "industry" make. Public performance of classical music has always been a loss leader dependent on either government subsidies or the generous patronage of wealthy donors. There simply was no "Mozart industry" to speak of until the advent of mass distribution of recorded sound. Priori to that there was no financial incentive for a conspiracy. Most good conspiracy theories, however loony, at least have a compelling answer to the question "cui bono?" Yours doesn't even have that, as for a good two hundred years nobody was really making any meaningful money with Mozart's musical heritage. Your theory is simply pathetic.
PS: I note that you keep threatening absence in light of an alleged workload increase, yet your production of excrement on this forum doesn't seem to abate. I'm not going to hold my breath this time either...
Quote from: Brian on July 26, 2009, 09:20:58 PM
The only way to get him to leave is to ignore him. :(
Or we could simply have him banned. He's embarked on a firm track in that direction anyway... Not sure what the mods are waiting for...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 27, 2009, 05:02:05 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 27, 2009, 05:02:05 AM
The mods don't ban. Only Rob has that ability. Perhaps you might write to him and let him know your feelings.
Knight
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 05:11:46 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 05:11:46 AM
Banning him just because he's not very bright and believes stupid things might set a dangerous precedent. ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:12:10 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:12:10 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 27, 2009, 04:53:53 AM
Yet another one of your straw men, eh? That wasn't the claim at all. Though I'm not surprised that you're too dense to notice. Actually, my argument was this:
A significant presence of some more popular Mozart pieces (most of them very short, e.g. individual arias, looking at the programs you posted) does not mass marketing, much less an "industry" make. Public performance of classical music has always been a loss leader dependent on either government subsidies or the generous patronage of wealthy donors. There simply was no "Mozart industry" to speak of until the advent of mass distribution of recorded sound. Priori to that there was no financial incentive for a conspiracy. Most good conspiracy theories, however loony, at least have a compelling answer to the question "cui bono?" Yours doesn't even have that, as for a good two hundred years nobody was really making any meaningful money with Mozart's musical heritage. Your theory is simply pathetic.
PS: I note that you keep threatening absence in light of an alleged workload increase, yet your production of excrement on this forum doesn't seem to abate. I'm not going to hold my breath this time either...
Or we could simply have him banned. He's embarked on a firm track in that direction anyway... Not sure what the mods are waiting for...
O Mensch has just written (and I quote) -
There simply was no "Mozart industry" to speak of until the advent of mass distribution of recorded sound.
Now who is a 'laughing stock' ?
Here is a simple fact for O Mensch to accept -
The publication and performance of music was BIG BUSINESS in the late 18th and 19th centuries. It was, in fact, AN INDUSTRY. OK ?
Josef Haydn's visits to England were huge BUSINESS which made him and his manager, Salomon, LOTS OF MONEY.
But let's believe O Mensch, who is after all, an academic ! There was NO 'Mozart industry' until the arrival of the gramophone record. So he says. And so you must believe. 'Mozart's' music was easily the most performed and published of all composers in the 19th century concerts in London (1813 to around 1835) but we must never, never believe there was a 'Mozart industry' until the arrival of the gramophone. Only Newman and others would tell you such things ! And when 'Mozart's' manuscripts were sold by his widow Constanze to the publisher Andre of Offenbach, and to others such as Breitkopf and Hartel, for a large sum of money, for publication, we must NEVER, NEVER believe there was a 'Mozart industry'. When tours of 'Mozart' works were made in Germany and other countries by Mozart's widow we must NEVER, NEVER, believe there was a 'Mozart' industry. And when the Mozarteum was founded in Salzburg, and when the newly invented railway led to the first Mozart Festivals in the 19th century (long before the gramophone record was invented) this too is no evidence of a Mozart industry.
I want to thank O Mensch for exposing this heresy being pushed by R.E. Newman. And he is right that the Moderators should act fast to stop this nonsense being taught to innocent pupils of music and its history.
LOL
:D :D :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:29:45 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:29:45 AM
SEVENTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 16, 1814
Act I
Overture, " Demophoon " . . . . . Cherubini
Quartet, " Placido e il mar " (Idomeneo) . . Mozart
(Mrs. Lacy, Miss Rovedino, Messrs. J. Elliott and Lacy).
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
(Messrs. F. Cramer, Mori, Moralt and R. Lindley)
Symphony (MS.) Dr. W. Crotch
(First time of performance.)
Act II
Symphony - Mozart
Trio, " Venite, O Donne, meco'' - Salieri
(Mrs. Lacy, Miss Rovedino and Mr. Lacy)
Quintett (MS.) for Pianoforte, Vln., Viola, 'Cello and Double-Bass . . . . . . . J. B. Cramer
Messrs. J. B. and F. Cramer, Moralt, R. Lindley and H. Hill, senr.
Overture, " Zaira'' - Winter
(Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer)
EIGHTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 30
Act I - Overture ........ Cherubini
(Newly composed and presented to the Society.)
Trio, " lo diro " . . . . . . . Fioravanti
(Mmes Dickons and Ashe and Mr. Naldi)
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Beethoven
(Messrs. Vaccari, Mori, Watts and R. Lindley)
Symphony ........ Mozart
Act II
Symphony (MS.) ....... Haydn
Quintett, " Sento ho Dio " (Cosi fan tutte) . . Mozart
(Mmes Lacy and Ashe, Messrs. Marzocchi, C. Smith and Naldi)
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
PROGRAMMES FOR 1815
FIRST CONCERT. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13
Act I - Overture, " Don Carlos - . . . . . Ferd. Ries
Quarrtett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
(Messrs. Salomon, Gattie, Cudmore and R. Lindley)
Quartett" Ah, Grazie si rendano " {Tenor and Bass) - parts doubled ....... Mozart
(Mmes Moralt and Salomon ; Messrs. Braham and Magrath ;
Naldi and Kellner)
Symphony (MS.) ....... Joseph Woelfl
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Quartet for Pianoforte, Violin, Viola and 'Cello - Mozart
(Messrs. Sisto Perez, Salomon, Cudmore and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Sotto mentita faccia " (Achille) . . . Paer
(Messrs. Braham, Lacy and Kellner)
Overture, " Colmal"...... Winter
(Leader, Mr. Salomon. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi)
SECOND CONCERT. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27
Act I
Overture ........ Romberg
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Mozart
(Messrs. F. Cramer, Mori, Gattie and R. Lindley)
Quartet, " Dite almen " (La Villanella Rapita) - Mozart
(Mrs. Dickons, Messrs. Magrath, Kellner and Naldi)
Symphony ........ Beethoven
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Quintett for Pianoforte, Vln., Viola, 'Cello and Double-
Bass ........ Dussec
Messrs. J. Beale, F. Cramer, Gattie, R. Lindley and H. Hill, senr.
Sestett, " A la bella Despinetta " (Cosi fan tutte) - Mozart
(Mmes Dickons and Moralt, Miss Griglietti, Messrs. Ledesma, Kellner and Naldi)
Overture, " Calypso " . . . . . . Winter
(Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer)
THIRD CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 13
Act I
Overture, " Anacreon " . . . . . . Cherubini
(Messrs. Spagnoletti, Watts, Gattie and R. Lindley)
Trio and Chorus (The Mount of Olives) . . . Beethoven
(Mrs. Dickons, Messrs. Braham and Kellner, with Chorus)
cont'd
//
Act I
Overture, " Demophoon " . . . . . Cherubini
Quartet, " Placido e il mar " (Idomeneo) . . Mozart
(Mrs. Lacy, Miss Rovedino, Messrs. J. Elliott and Lacy).
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
(Messrs. F. Cramer, Mori, Moralt and R. Lindley)
Symphony (MS.) Dr. W. Crotch
(First time of performance.)
Act II
Symphony - Mozart
Trio, " Venite, O Donne, meco'' - Salieri
(Mrs. Lacy, Miss Rovedino and Mr. Lacy)
Quintett (MS.) for Pianoforte, Vln., Viola, 'Cello and Double-Bass . . . . . . . J. B. Cramer
Messrs. J. B. and F. Cramer, Moralt, R. Lindley and H. Hill, senr.
Overture, " Zaira'' - Winter
(Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer)
EIGHTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 30
Act I - Overture ........ Cherubini
(Newly composed and presented to the Society.)
Trio, " lo diro " . . . . . . . Fioravanti
(Mmes Dickons and Ashe and Mr. Naldi)
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Beethoven
(Messrs. Vaccari, Mori, Watts and R. Lindley)
Symphony ........ Mozart
Act II
Symphony (MS.) ....... Haydn
Quintett, " Sento ho Dio " (Cosi fan tutte) . . Mozart
(Mmes Lacy and Ashe, Messrs. Marzocchi, C. Smith and Naldi)
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
PROGRAMMES FOR 1815
FIRST CONCERT. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13
Act I - Overture, " Don Carlos - . . . . . Ferd. Ries
Quarrtett for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Haydn
(Messrs. Salomon, Gattie, Cudmore and R. Lindley)
Quartett" Ah, Grazie si rendano " {Tenor and Bass) - parts doubled ....... Mozart
(Mmes Moralt and Salomon ; Messrs. Braham and Magrath ;
Naldi and Kellner)
Symphony (MS.) ....... Joseph Woelfl
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Quartet for Pianoforte, Violin, Viola and 'Cello - Mozart
(Messrs. Sisto Perez, Salomon, Cudmore and R. Lindley.
Trio, " Sotto mentita faccia " (Achille) . . . Paer
(Messrs. Braham, Lacy and Kellner)
Overture, " Colmal"...... Winter
(Leader, Mr. Salomon. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi)
SECOND CONCERT. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27
Act I
Overture ........ Romberg
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Mozart
(Messrs. F. Cramer, Mori, Gattie and R. Lindley)
Quartet, " Dite almen " (La Villanella Rapita) - Mozart
(Mrs. Dickons, Messrs. Magrath, Kellner and Naldi)
Symphony ........ Beethoven
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Quintett for Pianoforte, Vln., Viola, 'Cello and Double-
Bass ........ Dussec
Messrs. J. Beale, F. Cramer, Gattie, R. Lindley and H. Hill, senr.
Sestett, " A la bella Despinetta " (Cosi fan tutte) - Mozart
(Mmes Dickons and Moralt, Miss Griglietti, Messrs. Ledesma, Kellner and Naldi)
Overture, " Calypso " . . . . . . Winter
(Leader, Mr. F. Cramer. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer)
THIRD CONCERT. MONDAY, MARCH 13
Act I
Overture, " Anacreon " . . . . . . Cherubini
(Messrs. Spagnoletti, Watts, Gattie and R. Lindley)
Trio and Chorus (The Mount of Olives) . . . Beethoven
(Mrs. Dickons, Messrs. Braham and Kellner, with Chorus)
cont'd
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 05:32:21 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 05:32:21 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:12:10 AM
The publication and performance of music was BIG BUSINESS in the late 18th and 19th centuries. It was, in fact, AN INDUSTRY. OK ?
Then stop wasting your time with programs and post some *verifiable* information about the revenues and profits of said "industry", specifically how much of it derived from the publication and performance of Mozart's music.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 27, 2009, 05:40:57 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 27, 2009, 05:40:57 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 04:52:58 AM
I see your reading comprehension is faulty as always. Are you really robnewman's sock puppet, or vice versa, like dzalman and acdouglass?
It is becoming clear to me you live in a complete fantasy world David, so perhaps you should look at yourself in relation to the above remark. Do not pollute my name with your delusion and wishful thinking.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:44:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:44:09 AM
Act II
Symphony, " La Reine de France " . . . . Haydn
Sestett (MS.) for Pfte.,Vln.,Viola,'Cello, Oboe and Bassoon - Kalkbrenner
(Messrs. Kalkbrenner, Spagnoletti, Gattie, R. Lindley, F. Griesbach and Holmes)
Sestett, " Lo, Cherub Bands " (Palestine) . . Dr. W. Crotch
(Mmes Lacy and Dickons ; Messrs. J. J. Goss, Braham, Magrath and Lacy)
Overture, " Ulysse et Circe " . . . . . B. Romberg
FOURTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 3
Act I
Overture, " Tamerlane
"
. . . . . Winter
Notturno for Wind Instruments .... Mozart
Messrs. Mahon, Oliver, F. Griesbach, M. Sharp, Petrides,
Macintosh and J. Tully.
Quintett, " Sento ho Dio " (Cosi fan tutte) . . Mozart
Mrs. Lacy, Miss Griglietti, Messrs. Reyes, C. Smith and
Naldi.
Overture (MS.) composed for the Society . . Chervbini
(First performance ; directed by the composer.)
Act II
Concertante for two Violins and 'Cello . . . Viotti
(Messrs. Viotti, Mori and R. Lindley)
Symphony ........ Haydn
Trio, " Et incarnatus est" . . . . . Cherubini
(Mrs. Lacy, Messrs. Reyes and C. Smith)
Overture, " Le Nozze di Figaro " . . . . Mozart
(Leader, Mr. Viotti. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer)
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 17
Act I
Overture, " Les Deux Journees " . . . . Cherubini
Quintett (MS.) for Pfte., Vln., Viola, 'Cello and Double-
Bass ........ Ferd. Ries, - (Messrs. F. Ries, Vaccari, H. Gattie, R. Lindley and
H. Hill, sen). (First time of performance.)
Trio, " O lieti di " [repeated at the 8th concert) . . Sacchini
(Mrs. Saljion, Messrs. Ledesma and Naldi)
Symphony ........ Haydn
Symphony ........ Mozart
Trio for Violin, Viola and 'Cello .... Mozart
(Messrs. Vaccari, Spagnoletti and R. Lindley)
Quartet, " Lo, Star-led Chiefs " (Palestrine) . . Dr. W. Crotch
(Mrs. Salmon, Messrs. Leonard, Magrath and C. Smith).
Overture, " Prometheus " . . . . . Beethoven
(Leader, Mr. Vaccari. Pianoforte, Mb. Clementi)
SIXTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 1
Act I
Overture (MS.) ....... Joseph Woelfl
Chorus, " Placido h il mar " (Idomeneo) . . . Mozart
(Mrs. Moralt, Messrs. Leonard, Braham, Naldi and others)
Concertante for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Viotti
(Messrs. Viotti, Mori, Mobalt and R. Lindley)
(Arranged, from Viotti's Pianoforte Concerto in A minor, by himself.)
Symphony ........ Haydn
Act II
Symphony (MS.) composed for the Society . . Cherubini
(First time of performance.)
Trio for Pianoforte, Violin and 'Cello . . C. Pleyel, junr.
(Messrs. C. Pleyel, junr., Mori and R, Lindley)
Quartett, " Benedictus'. . . . . Mozart
(Mrs. Moralt ; Messrs. Leonard, Braham and C. Smith)
Overture, " Das unterbrochene Opferfest''. . Winter
(Leader, Mb. Viotti. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer)
SEVENTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 15
Act I
Overture, " Idomeneo'' - Mozart
Trio, " Soave sia il vento " (Cosi fan tutte) . . Mozart
(Master Julius Mayeb, Mbs. Lacy and Mr. Naldi)
Quintet for Pianoforte, Violin, Viola, 'Cello and Double-Bass . . . . . . . . J. B. Cramer
(Messrs. J. B. and F. Cramer, Moralt, R. Lindley and H. Hill, sen).
Symphony (MS.) ....... Ferd. Ries
(First performance; specially composed for the Society.)
Act II
Symphony ........ Mozart
Concertante (Theme and Variations) for Vln., Flute, Oboe, Clar., Horns and Bassoon . . . Spagnoletti
(Messrs. Spagnoletti, Ashe, F. Gbiesbach, Mahon, Petbides and Holmes)
Trio, " Sento fra palpiti" ..... Ferrari
(M. Mayer, Mbs. Lacy and Mb. Magbath)
Overture (MS.) ....... Fiorillo
EIGHTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 29, 1815
Act I
Overture - (MS.) Cherubini
Quartet for Clarinet, Violin, Viola and 'Cello . . Bochsa
(Messrs. Muller, Vaccari, Gattie and R. Lindley)
Trio, " O lieti di " {also sung at the 5th concert) . . Sacchini
(Mrs. Salmon, Messrs. Braham and Naldi)
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Mozart
(Messrs. Yaniewicz, Watts, Gattie and R. Lindley)
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Trio and Chorus, " Most beautiful appear " (The Creation) Haydn
Mrs, Salmon, Messrs. Braham and C. Smith, with Chorus.
Concertante for Violin, Flute and Bassoon . . Lafont
(Messrs. Lafont, Ashe and Holmes)
Overture, " Egmont " . . . . . . Beethoven
(Leader, Mr. Vaccari. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi)
cont'd
//
Symphony, " La Reine de France " . . . . Haydn
Sestett (MS.) for Pfte.,Vln.,Viola,'Cello, Oboe and Bassoon - Kalkbrenner
(Messrs. Kalkbrenner, Spagnoletti, Gattie, R. Lindley, F. Griesbach and Holmes)
Sestett, " Lo, Cherub Bands " (Palestine) . . Dr. W. Crotch
(Mmes Lacy and Dickons ; Messrs. J. J. Goss, Braham, Magrath and Lacy)
Overture, " Ulysse et Circe " . . . . . B. Romberg
FOURTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 3
Act I
Overture, " Tamerlane
"
. . . . . Winter
Notturno for Wind Instruments .... Mozart
Messrs. Mahon, Oliver, F. Griesbach, M. Sharp, Petrides,
Macintosh and J. Tully.
Quintett, " Sento ho Dio " (Cosi fan tutte) . . Mozart
Mrs. Lacy, Miss Griglietti, Messrs. Reyes, C. Smith and
Naldi.
Overture (MS.) composed for the Society . . Chervbini
(First performance ; directed by the composer.)
Act II
Concertante for two Violins and 'Cello . . . Viotti
(Messrs. Viotti, Mori and R. Lindley)
Symphony ........ Haydn
Trio, " Et incarnatus est" . . . . . Cherubini
(Mrs. Lacy, Messrs. Reyes and C. Smith)
Overture, " Le Nozze di Figaro " . . . . Mozart
(Leader, Mr. Viotti. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer)
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 17
Act I
Overture, " Les Deux Journees " . . . . Cherubini
Quintett (MS.) for Pfte., Vln., Viola, 'Cello and Double-
Bass ........ Ferd. Ries, - (Messrs. F. Ries, Vaccari, H. Gattie, R. Lindley and
H. Hill, sen). (First time of performance.)
Trio, " O lieti di " [repeated at the 8th concert) . . Sacchini
(Mrs. Saljion, Messrs. Ledesma and Naldi)
Symphony ........ Haydn
Symphony ........ Mozart
Trio for Violin, Viola and 'Cello .... Mozart
(Messrs. Vaccari, Spagnoletti and R. Lindley)
Quartet, " Lo, Star-led Chiefs " (Palestrine) . . Dr. W. Crotch
(Mrs. Salmon, Messrs. Leonard, Magrath and C. Smith).
Overture, " Prometheus " . . . . . Beethoven
(Leader, Mr. Vaccari. Pianoforte, Mb. Clementi)
SIXTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 1
Act I
Overture (MS.) ....... Joseph Woelfl
Chorus, " Placido h il mar " (Idomeneo) . . . Mozart
(Mrs. Moralt, Messrs. Leonard, Braham, Naldi and others)
Concertante for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Viotti
(Messrs. Viotti, Mori, Mobalt and R. Lindley)
(Arranged, from Viotti's Pianoforte Concerto in A minor, by himself.)
Symphony ........ Haydn
Act II
Symphony (MS.) composed for the Society . . Cherubini
(First time of performance.)
Trio for Pianoforte, Violin and 'Cello . . C. Pleyel, junr.
(Messrs. C. Pleyel, junr., Mori and R, Lindley)
Quartett, " Benedictus'. . . . . Mozart
(Mrs. Moralt ; Messrs. Leonard, Braham and C. Smith)
Overture, " Das unterbrochene Opferfest''. . Winter
(Leader, Mb. Viotti. Pianoforte, Mr. J. B. Cramer)
SEVENTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 15
Act I
Overture, " Idomeneo'' - Mozart
Trio, " Soave sia il vento " (Cosi fan tutte) . . Mozart
(Master Julius Mayeb, Mbs. Lacy and Mr. Naldi)
Quintet for Pianoforte, Violin, Viola, 'Cello and Double-Bass . . . . . . . . J. B. Cramer
(Messrs. J. B. and F. Cramer, Moralt, R. Lindley and H. Hill, sen).
Symphony (MS.) ....... Ferd. Ries
(First performance; specially composed for the Society.)
Act II
Symphony ........ Mozart
Concertante (Theme and Variations) for Vln., Flute, Oboe, Clar., Horns and Bassoon . . . Spagnoletti
(Messrs. Spagnoletti, Ashe, F. Gbiesbach, Mahon, Petbides and Holmes)
Trio, " Sento fra palpiti" ..... Ferrari
(M. Mayer, Mbs. Lacy and Mb. Magbath)
Overture (MS.) ....... Fiorillo
EIGHTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 29, 1815
Act I
Overture - (MS.) Cherubini
Quartet for Clarinet, Violin, Viola and 'Cello . . Bochsa
(Messrs. Muller, Vaccari, Gattie and R. Lindley)
Trio, " O lieti di " {also sung at the 5th concert) . . Sacchini
(Mrs. Salmon, Messrs. Braham and Naldi)
Quartet for two Violins, Viola and 'Cello . . Mozart
(Messrs. Yaniewicz, Watts, Gattie and R. Lindley)
Act II
Symphony ........ Haydn
Trio and Chorus, " Most beautiful appear " (The Creation) Haydn
Mrs, Salmon, Messrs. Braham and C. Smith, with Chorus.
Concertante for Violin, Flute and Bassoon . . Lafont
(Messrs. Lafont, Ashe and Holmes)
Overture, " Egmont " . . . . . . Beethoven
(Leader, Mr. Vaccari. Pianoforte, Mr. Clementi)
cont'd
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:47:51 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:47:51 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 27, 2009, 05:32:21 AM
Then stop wasting your time with programs and post some *verifiable* information about the revenues and profits of said "industry", specifically how much of it derived from the publication and performance of Mozart's music.
I won't waste your time. Please don't waste mine or anyone else's. You finally agree there WAS a Mozart industry in the late 18th century and in the 19th century, LONG BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE GRAMOPHONE. IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCES AND MUSIC PUBLISHING, FOR A START. Which is fine. Since it's a plain fact of music history.
I do believe you are finally learning something !! Please accept a promotion. Move up one or two seats in the class. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 05:51:15 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 05:51:15 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:47:51 AM
You finally agree there WAS a Mozart industry in the late 18th century and in the 19th century, LONG BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE GRAMOPHONE. IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCES AND MUSIC PUBLISHING, FOR A START.
No, I don't. It's not an industry if it doesn't make big bucks and 19th century music performance in and of itself did not. It simply didn't have the economies of scale. That's what recordings did. Unless you can show some earnings information what you're saying is all bunk. Music performance was always dependent on the benevolence of either governments or noblemen or other wealthy patrons. It's not a money making business, even if some individual virtuoso performers made quite a fine living for themselves.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:58:08 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:58:08 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 27, 2009, 05:51:15 AM
No, I don't. It's not an industry if it doesn't make big bucks and 19th century music performance in and of itself did not. It simply didn't have the economies of scale. That's what recordings did. Unless you can show some earnings information what you're saying is all bunk. Music performance was always dependent on the benevolence of either governments or noblemen or other wealthy patrons. It's not a money making business, even if some individual virtuoso performers made quite a fine living for themselves.
So there was NO music industry in the 18th and 19th centuries ? And certainly no Mozart industry. There were no profit making concerts by Salomon and no opera houses who were in the music industry. None before the advent of recording, that is. Great sums of money were not paid for soloists and great singers in those centuries. I must remember this fact of yours when writing about the opera houses, orchestras of Europe and music publishers such as Andre, Breitkopf and Hartel, and many others. Handel did not earn or lose money. The Italian singers were never paid huge sums to sing. Nor were great violinists and soloists paid on their tours. 14 publishers in Vienna alone published 'Mozart' works before 1791 and hundreds more published 'his' music in the 19th century across Europe, long, long before the gramophone was invented. But there was no music industry and certainly no Mozart industry until gramophone records were invented.
It's hilarious !!!!!!!!
Do you work for FOX News by any chance ? :o
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 06:00:37 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 06:00:37 AM
Why does Newman end every post with an insult ? :o
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 06:04:00 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 06:04:00 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 06:00:37 AM
Why does Newman end every post with an insult ? :o
Because you begin yours with the same. And we, as lovers of music, are in the business of resolution. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 06:10:37 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 06:10:37 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:58:08 AM
So there was NO music industry in the 18th and 19th centuries ? And certainly no Mozart industry. There were no profit making concerts by Salomon and no opera houses who were in the music industry. None before the advent of recording, that is. Great sums of money were not paid for soloists and great singers in those centuries. I must remember this fact of yours when writing about the opera houses, orchestras of Europe and music publishers such as Andre, Breitkopf and Hartel, and many others. Handel did not earn or lose money. The Italian singers were never paid huge sums to sing. Nor were great violinists and soloists paid on their tours. 14 publishers in Vienna alone published 'Mozart' works before 1791 and hundreds more published 'his' music in the 19th century across Europe, long, long before the gramophone was invented. But there was no music industry and certainly no Mozart industry until gramophone records were invented.
It's hilarious !!!!!!!!
Do you work for FOX News by any chance ? :o
You have reading comprehension issues. Individual people making good money is not an industry. An industry is a large scale money making system comprising large businesses. Your statements don't support your argument. I never disagreed that certain singers and virtuosos made a good living. But that is not an industry and their number is too few and their collective earnings derived from Mozart alone too small to explain the sort of large scale conspiracy you allege. The cui bono is a trifle in the big picture.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 06:12:48 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 06:12:48 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 27, 2009, 06:10:37 AM
You have reading comprehension issues. Individual people making good money is not an industry. An industry is a large scale money making system comprising large businesses. Your statements don't support your argument. I never disagreed that certain singers and virtuosos made a good living. But that is not an industry and their number is too few and their collective earnings derived from Mozart alone too small to explain the sort of large scale conspiracy you allege. The cui bono is a trifle in the big picture.
So there are no small industries ?
You might care to tell this to the following people -
In Kenya -
http://www.nsic.co.in/
In India -
Small Industries Development Bank of India
http://www.sidbi.com/
In Tonga -
http://mlci.gov.to/site1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=57
and elsewhere worldwide
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 06:14:29 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 06:14:29 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 06:04:00 AM
Because you begin yours with the same. And we, as lovers of music, are in the business of resolution. :)
Then why take it out on poor O Mensch? He wouldn't hurt a fly. :'(
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 06:16:53 AM
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 06:16:53 AM
Well, there was money to be made by music publishers who published piano music (including piano reductions of orchestral pieces). There were a lot of pianos out there in the pre-previous century, and a lot of young ladies looking for a husband.
The point however where newman predictably hits the deep end is by projecting late 20th century business consolidation upon mid 19th century practice, and suggesting the music business was one conglomerate which could shuffle the deck in favor of Mozart so as to mass produce Mozart products. In reality there was a tremendous diversity of publishing houses, printers and indeed, third rate composers who eaked out a living writing stuff for the piano market.
If you look at old piano music collections you'll find loads of completely obscure material interleaved with some names we still know. Just like those London Philharmonic programmes, or in fact even more so. In the LPh programme I studied virtually every composer is still more or less on the map; in these piano albums you're looking at a mishmash of anything.
I see you're doing some backtracking, as usual. Small, local, diverse "industries" would not be able to pull off the Mozart conspiracy which you have staked everything on. They wouldn't be able, and they wouldn't have the wish.
The point however where newman predictably hits the deep end is by projecting late 20th century business consolidation upon mid 19th century practice, and suggesting the music business was one conglomerate which could shuffle the deck in favor of Mozart so as to mass produce Mozart products. In reality there was a tremendous diversity of publishing houses, printers and indeed, third rate composers who eaked out a living writing stuff for the piano market.
If you look at old piano music collections you'll find loads of completely obscure material interleaved with some names we still know. Just like those London Philharmonic programmes, or in fact even more so. In the LPh programme I studied virtually every composer is still more or less on the map; in these piano albums you're looking at a mishmash of anything.
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 06:12:48 AM
So there are no small industries ?
I see you're doing some backtracking, as usual. Small, local, diverse "industries" would not be able to pull off the Mozart conspiracy which you have staked everything on. They wouldn't be able, and they wouldn't have the wish.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 06:25:42 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 06:25:42 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 27, 2009, 06:10:37 AM
You [Newman] have reading comprehension issues.
Yes, he does. But so does anyone who engages him expecting rational discussion. He's simply not capable of it, as he has demonstrated time after time, here and elsewhere over the past few years.
He's been asked several times to put up or shut up. He puts up nothing, because he has nothing to put up. There is no evidence for his hare-brained fantasy, only unsupported accusations, faulty conclusions derived from illogical reasoning based on false premises, opinion masquerading as fact, half-truths, distortions, outright lies, and absurd innuendo...in other words, he's the Michael Moore of Mozart! ;D (Perhaps the movie version of his book can win an academy award for "documentary" (wink, wink) film-making, too! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 06:27:35 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 06:27:35 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 27, 2009, 06:16:53 AM
I see you're doing some backtracking, as usual. Small, local, diverse "industries" would not be able to pull off the Mozart conspiracy which you have staked everything on. They wouldn't be able, and they wouldn't have the wish.
Precisely. Which is why they need Development Banks and trade groups to help finance and promote them!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 06:28:42 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 06:28:42 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 06:25:42 AM
Yes, he does. But so does anyone who engages him expecting rational discussion. He's simply not capable of it, as he has demonstrated time after time, here and elsewhere over the past few years.
He's been asked several times to put up or shut up. He puts up nothing, because he has nothing to put up. There is no evidence for his hare-brained fantasy, only unsupported accusations, faulty conclusions derived from illogical reasoning based on false premises, opinion masquerading as fact, half-truths, distortions, outright lies, and absurd innuendo...in other words, he's the Michael Moore of Mozart! ;D (Perhaps the movie version of his book can win an academy award for "documentary" (wink, wink) film-making, too! ;D
David Ross doesn't believe there was a Mozart industry until the advent of compact discs. He is supported in this view by the Mozarteum and by the consensus of acknowledged experts. Small industries did not exist in the 18th and 19th century and there was certainly no Mozart industry. In fact there was no industry in the 18th century and certainly no music publishing industry. Nor was there an opera industry or concert industry before the arrival of CD's. These things are all inventions being spread by the critics of David Ross. ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 06:31:00 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 06:31:00 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 27, 2009, 06:10:37 AM
You [Newman] have reading comprehension issues.
Yes, he does. But so does anyone who engages him expecting rational discussion. He's simply not capable of it, as he has demonstrated time after time, here and elsewhere over the past few years.
He's been asked several times to put up or shut up. He puts up nothing, because he has nothing to put up. There is no evidence for his hare-brained fantasy, only unsupported accusations, faulty conclusions derived from illogical reasoning based on false premises, opinion masquerading as fact, half-truths, distortions, outright lies, and absurd innuendo...in other words, he's the Michael Moore of Mozart! ;D (Perhaps the movie version of his book can win an academy award for "documentary" (wink, wink) film-making, too! ;D
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 06:28:42 AM
David Ross doesn't believe there was a Mozart industry until the advent of compact discs. He is supported in this view by the Mozarteum and by the consenus of acknowledged experts. Small businesses do not exist. There was no industry in the 18th century and certainly no music publishing industry. Nor was there an opera industry or concert industry. These things are all inventions being spread by the critics of David Ross.
QED
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 06:37:17 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 06:37:17 AM
I must send a copy of this to the music publishers Breitkopf and Hartel in continental Europe. They will be interested to know they were not in the music publishing industry in the 18th century. And I will send copies to the great opera houses of Italy. And to the orchestras of Europe. They too were not part of the music industry in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Since, not only was there no Mozart industry in the late 18th and 19th centuries but there was no music industry also.
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 06:43:26 AM
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 06:43:26 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 06:37:17 AM
I must send a copy of this to the music publishers Breitkopf and Hartel in continental Europe. They will be interested to know they were not in the music publishing industry in the 18th century. And I will send copies to the great opera houses of Italy. And to the orchestras of Europe. They too were not part of the music industry in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Since, not only was there no Mozart industry in the late 18th and 19th centuries but there was no music industry also.
Off the deep end...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 06:49:17 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 06:49:17 AM
newman, if you're citing powerless Kenyan small business as 'proof' that 'industry' doesn't have to be large, so that you can 'prove' your claim that this vast Mozart 'industry' (made of small businesses dependent on government subsidies) and individuals (dependent on the welfare of noblemen) pulled off the grandest coup in the history of music and fooled us all for 200 years, you ought to know you're in trouble. It's only owing to your own advanced dementia that you can go on merrily posting in the face of the contradictions of your own prior words.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 06:56:04 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 06:56:04 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 27, 2009, 06:49:17 AM
It's only owing to your own advanced dementia that you can go on merrily posting in the face of the contradictions of your own prior words.
Word.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 07:02:58 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 07:02:58 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 27, 2009, 06:49:17 AM
newman, if you're citing powerless Kenyan small business as 'proof' that 'industry' doesn't have to be large, so that you can 'prove' your claim that this vast Mozart 'industry' (made of small businesses dependent on government subsidies) and individuals (dependent on the welfare of noblemen) pulled off the grandest coup in the history of music and fooled us all for 200 years, you ought to know you're in trouble. It's only owing to your own advanced dementia that you can go on merrily posting in the face of the contradictions of your own prior words.
Then tell us plainly if small industries exist and that the music publishing industry and music performance industry both existed in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Yes or No ?
............(drum roll.........rustling of papers.......cornflakes ad........more rustling of papers......nerverous laughter in the background.....blank screen.......another cornflakes ad......more rustling of papers......drum roll suddenly ends.....silence.....more nervous laughter.....another cornflakes ad......).
O Mensch, it is my solemn duty to inform you, by printed word of my own and by documentary evidence from others there WAS a music industry in the late 18th and 19th centuries. And that an important part of it was ........ the Mozart industry.
But if you can't learn ABC how can you ever learn XYZ ? ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 07:15:42 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 07:15:42 AM
Since newman refuses to seek professional help or to get an education, but rather insists on demonstrating his painful deficiencies here on GMG, perhaps we can help him by starting with some very remedial lessons that may one day enable him to make valid critical judgments of his own. A good place for him to start might be in learning to distinguish this
(http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb30/Zazael/donkey.jpg)
from this
(http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:AHny_l7qr88CoM:http://tasteslikemyelbow.com/images/20080413163335_elbow.gif)
edited to replace workplace unfriendly image with less questionable one ;D
(http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb30/Zazael/donkey.jpg)
from this
(http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:AHny_l7qr88CoM:http://tasteslikemyelbow.com/images/20080413163335_elbow.gif)
edited to replace workplace unfriendly image with less questionable one ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 27, 2009, 07:21:55 AM
Post by: bhodges on July 27, 2009, 07:21:55 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 07:02:58 AM
............(drum roll.........rustling of papers.......cornflakes ad........more rustling of papers......nerverous laughter in the background.....blank screen.......another cornflakes ad......more rustling of papers......drum roll suddenly ends.....silence.....more nervous laughter.....another cornflakes ad......).
What is this odd obsession with cornflakes? Is Kellogg's sponsoring your book?
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 07:32:40 AM
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 07:32:40 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 07:02:58 AM
there WAS a music industry in the late 18th and 19th centuries.
correct. There were a host of music publishers, working commercially. There were orchestras and choral societies everywhere, virtually none of them working on a commercial basis, so not really what we think of when we hear the word "industry".
QuoteAnd that an important part of it was ........ the Mozart industry.
incorrect. You seem to suggest the second "fact" follows from the first, but it doesn't. It's just your obsession, and you seem to think you we should witness every contorted squiggle of this obsession of yours, becoming painfully familiar with your intellectual defiencies in the process, I'm sorry to say.
You have presented what you considered to be the evidence for your contention, these programmes, and it's clear as daylight these programmes do not show an overwhelming presence of Mozart music on the London Philharmonic porgrammes. You're the only one who's unwilling to acknowledge this. Apart from this, the London Philharmonic does not a Music / Mozart Industry make, so methodically this is deeply flawed, too.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 07:47:28 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 07:47:28 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 27, 2009, 07:32:40 AM
You have presented what you considered to be the evidence for your contention, these programmes, and it's clear as daylight these programmes do not show an overwhelming presence of Mozart music on the London Philharmonic porgrammes. You're the only one who's unwilling to acknowledge this. Apart from this, the London Philharmonic does not a Music / Mozart Industry make, so methodically this is deeply flawed, too.
Yes. But he's not competent enough to understand this, and not smart enough to get the instruction he so obviously desperately needs if he's ever to be regarded as anything other than a garden-variety crackpot. Once he's learned to distinguish the subjects of the two images posted above, then he'll be ready to move on to the next lesson: learning to distinguish them from this:
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:YIacnJqC4c-GVM:http://www.ohmartha.com/roadtrip/rt10.JPG)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 07:51:41 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 07:51:41 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 07:02:58 AM
Then tell us plainly if small industries exist and that the music publishing industry and music performance industry both existed in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Yes or No ?
Nobody ever argued with this. It's one of your straw men that you keep beating up. The point is that they were too small of a business to have the economic and political muscle to pull off the hoax you claim they did. You have to show not just the accused's motive but also an ability to pull it off. This still escapes you.
PS: I sincerely hope you don't have any children. a) because that would be just too painful for the rest of humanity if there were more of you, b) because this thread is a treasure trove of evidence for anyone who wanted to have a court declare you mentally incompetent.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 07:55:20 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 07:55:20 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 27, 2009, 07:32:40 AM
correct. There were a host of music publishers, working commercially. There were orchestras and choral societies everywhere, virtually none of them working on a commercial basis, so not really what we think of when we hear the word "industry".
incorrect. You seem to suggest the second "fact" follows from the first, but it doesn't. It's just your obsession, and you seem to think you we should witness every contorted squiggle of this obsession of yours, becoming painfully familiar with your intellectual defiencies in the process, I'm sorry to say.
You have presented what you considered to be the evidence for your contention, these programmes, and it's clear as daylight these programmes do not show an overwhelming presence of Mozart music on the London Philharmonic porgrammes. You're the only one who's unwilling to acknowledge this. Apart from this, the London Philharmonic does not a Music / Mozart Industry make, so methodically this is deeply flawed, too.
So you agree there WAS a music industry in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Fine ! Great !! And Mozart (both during his lifetime and by means of publishing and performance after his life) was/is PART of that same industry. Fine ! Great. It existed LONG BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE GRAMOPHONE.
So glad we sorted that out. :)
I repeat that the music of 'Mozart' was the most frequently performed music by this orchestra in London for decades between 1813 and for literally decades afterwards. SO SAY THE FACTS OF HISTORY. NO COMPOSER, NONE AT ALL, WAS MORE PERFORMED THAN 'MOZART'. THAT MAKES HIS ORCHESTRAL/CONCERT MUSIC THE MOST PERFORMED OF ALL COMPOSERS IN THAT DECADE, IN LONDON, A MAJOR CENTRE OF MUSIC AT THIS TIME. A CENTRE WHICH HAD CONTACT WITH OTHER MAJOR MUSICAL SOURCES OF THE TIME SUCH AS BEETHOVEN.
DOESN'T IT ?
Would you like another 10 YEARS OF PROGRAMME DATA FROM LONDON TO DEMONSTRATE THESE FACTS BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT ? SINCE THE MOZART INDUSTRY EXISTED, AND IS DEMONSTRATED TO HAVE EXISTED, FROM THE TIME HE, MOZART, WAS FIRST PUBLISHED UP TO AND IN TO THE 19TH CENTURY, LONG, LONG BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE..........GRAMOPHONE RECORD......AND...........LONG, LONG BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE COMPACT DISC.
Any further questions ????
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 08:01:17 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 08:01:17 AM
You see, Herman, even when you're so courteous as to point out the deficiencies in the poor fellow's "evidence" ::) , he's just not clever enough to understand and so thinks that offering to provide even more of the same deficient "evidence" ::) will somehow correct the problem instead of exacerbating it. He's just not playing with a full deck, fellows, and it's silly to expect anything more than continued idiocy from him. Sigh. Wish there were some way to convince him to get help.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 08:08:16 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 08:08:16 AM
Quote from: bhodges on July 27, 2009, 07:21:55 AM
What is this odd obsession with cornflakes? Is Kellogg's sponsoring your book?
--Bruce
I will shortly be using a series of Weetabix ads, and others including Sugar Puffs plus Big Macs. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 27, 2009, 08:16:32 AM
Post by: Christie on July 27, 2009, 08:16:32 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 08:08:16 AMyou eat Big Macs for breakfast????????????????????????????/////??/?/1
I will shortly be using a series of Weetabix ads, and others including Sugar Puffs plus Big Macs. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 27, 2009, 08:17:44 AM
Post by: Christie on July 27, 2009, 08:17:44 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 07:55:20 AMMozart didn't record his Symhponies??????????????????
So you agree there WAS a music industry in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Fine ! Great !! And Mozart (both during his lifetime and by means of publishing and performance after his life) was/is PART of that same industry. Fine ! Great. It existed LONG BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE GRAMOPHONE.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 27, 2009, 08:25:16 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 27, 2009, 08:25:16 AM
Oh Boy, Christie's back! Hi, Christie, come ahead and join in. :)
8)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 27, 2009, 08:27:55 AM
Post by: Christie on July 27, 2009, 08:27:55 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 27, 2009, 05:32:21 AMhahahHAha, verifiable information, in this trhead ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Then stop wasting your time with programs and post some *verifiable* information about the revenues and profits of said "industry", specifically how much of it derived from the publication and performance of Mozart's music.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 27, 2009, 08:33:02 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 27, 2009, 08:33:02 AM
This thread is special.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 08:41:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 08:41:09 AM
Quote from: Christie on July 27, 2009, 08:17:44 AM
Mozart didn't record his Symhponies??????????????????
Well, the Mozart industry will eventually release some original recordings of Mozart conducting 'his' own symphonies. But they don't want to release them until the world is ready for it. Including some piano rolls of his performances of the sonatas. And a DVD of the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. It's very hush-hush at the moment. A friend of mine just came back from a pilgrimage to Easter Island and was told this by a reliable theologian. Who was guarding the icon at the time. So it must be true.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 08:45:07 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 08:45:07 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 27, 2009, 07:51:41 AM
Nobody ever argued with this. It's one of your straw men that you keep beating up. The point is that they were too small of a business to have the economic and political muscle to pull off the hoax you claim they did. You have to show not just the accused's motive but also an ability to pull it off. This still escapes you.
PS: I sincerely hope you don't have any children. a) because that would be just too painful for the rest of humanity if there were more of you, b) because this thread is a treasure trove of evidence for anyone who wanted to have a court declare you mentally incompetent.
It's one of the goals of Mozart research that we have courts declaring us to be mentally incompetent. So I live in hope that maybe you can issue this to me as a scroll. I will frame it with great pride.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: zamyrabyrd on July 27, 2009, 09:30:24 AM
Post by: zamyrabyrd on July 27, 2009, 09:30:24 AM
If you have $120 to spare you can read about http://www.amazon.com/Concert-Life-London-Mozart-Haydn/dp/0521413532#
The younger preceding the elder in the title might have to do with the prodigy Mozart getting to England first in 1765. They sure loved Haydn though in the 80's and 90's. Clementi, Field, and Mendelssohn (1829) were there to console until Chopin (1837) and Berlioz (1847). Rossini must have liked it there enough to stay for 5 years from 1824. Tastes DID change from the classic style upon the turn of the 19th century.
From what I know the music of Mozart and Haydn (classic style) did not remain in active repertoire until performers in the 20th century brought it back. Even in Beethoven's time, the D minor piano concerto was practically the only one by Mozart being performed since it was deemed "romantic".
Was the point about an alleged rage for Mozart in England during the 19th century?
ZB
The younger preceding the elder in the title might have to do with the prodigy Mozart getting to England first in 1765. They sure loved Haydn though in the 80's and 90's. Clementi, Field, and Mendelssohn (1829) were there to console until Chopin (1837) and Berlioz (1847). Rossini must have liked it there enough to stay for 5 years from 1824. Tastes DID change from the classic style upon the turn of the 19th century.
From what I know the music of Mozart and Haydn (classic style) did not remain in active repertoire until performers in the 20th century brought it back. Even in Beethoven's time, the D minor piano concerto was practically the only one by Mozart being performed since it was deemed "romantic".
Was the point about an alleged rage for Mozart in England during the 19th century?
ZB
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 09:34:43 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 09:34:43 AM
Oh, no, ZB! You don't know what sort of loony bin you stumbled into. Our local troll robnewman claims Mozart is a figment of Jesuit imagination and that he wrote none of his works. Instead, the evil Jesuits ripped works from other lesser known composers in order to aggrandize their position through the overwhelmingly powerful 'Mozart industry' which has dominated music making for the last 200 years.
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/confused/confused0058.gif) (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-rolleye-smileys.php)
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/confused/confused0058.gif) (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-rolleye-smileys.php)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 09:54:33 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 09:54:33 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 27, 2009, 09:34:43 AM
Oh, no, ZB! You don't know what sort of loony bin you stumbled into. Our local troll robnewman claims Mozart is a figment of Jesuit imagination and that he wrote none of his works. Instead, the evil Jesuits ripped works from other lesser known composers in order to aggrandize their position through the overwhelmingly powerful 'Mozart industry' which has dominated music making for the last 200 years.
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/confused/confused0058.gif) (http://www.mysmiley.net/free-rolleye-smileys.php)
The real loony bin is under treatment. Today they have learned (finally) there WAS a Mozart industry. It existed during Mozart's own lifetime. In fact, over 100 works were published in Mozart's name before he arrived in Vienna in 1781. And almost 50 more during his last decade. And a further 500 published posthumously. The loony bin has recognised, on this thread, today, that 'Mozart' was being performed and published extensively in the early 19th century. That he was being performed far more, in places like London, than any other composer. And this, plus the huge number of Mozart publications throughout the 19th century are indisputable proof of a Mozart industry. Supplemented, of course, by such establishments as the Mozarteum, and the earliest Mozart Festivals in Salzburg and other places. All these things they have agreed to.
But we don't want to teach them too fast. (They have a habit of suffering from amnesia if they are taught too fast).
As far as Mozart being supplied with lots of works by other composers who were part of this 'scam', yes, the 8 editions of the Koechel catalogue are a disastrous proof of wholesale misattribution already. And that's just the 'official' version. The number of false attributions running in to hundreds. And that's just the conservative view.
As far as the involvement of the Jesuits is concerned, well, we will not talk about Leopold Mozart's education, the funding of young Mozart by the Jesuits of Salzburg and elsewhere, the involvement of Mozart with Jesuit educated Abbe Bullinger (even as late as the late 1770's in Paris) or the support and assistance of many, many Jesuit educated composers. None of these things are to be mentioned or discussed in detail. They are 'irrelevant'. Nor will be reminded as Karl Henning said yesterday that Andrea Luchesi was a Jesuit educated oblate, and that others included Paul and Anton Wranitsky, Vanhal, and many, many others. No, we will not mention the Jesuit monopoly of book and music publishing itself in Austria and Germany up until 1773. Nor will mention the role of fraternities and even Illuminatist, Rosicrucian, Freemasonic and other associates of Mozart who were important in the making of his official career and reputation. The Jesuits of Prague are not to be mentioned in respect of Mozart's official career. We will not mention any such inconvenient facts. We will, instead, rely heavily on reliable records made by Mozart, his immediate family, and by the industry which has constructed his icon, most of it posthumously far, far from the inconvenient publicity of daylight.
And anyone who questions the orthodox dogmas of the Mozart story is, of course, a lunatic.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: zamyrabyrd on July 27, 2009, 09:56:15 AM
Post by: zamyrabyrd on July 27, 2009, 09:56:15 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 05:44:09 AM
Act II
... " Lo, Cherub Bands " (Palestine) . . Dr. W. Crotch
FIFTH CONCERT. MONDAY, APRIL 17
Act I
Quartet, " Lo, Star-led Chiefs " (Palestrine) . . Dr. W. Crotch
(Mrs. Salmon, Messrs. Leonard, Magrath and C. Smith).
EIGHTH CONCERT. MONDAY, MAY 29, 1815
Who is this Dr. W Crotch? "Palestine" (the name of his alleged Oratorio or Opera) was not an entity in 1815, rather part of the Turkish Empire, AKA Greater Syria.
Methinks this poster is trying to "pull some legs", AKA hoodwink, AKA "pull a fast one", etc. etc.
Does anyone here remember Joyce Hatto and husband? Stunning resemblance, I'd say...
ZB
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 09:58:23 AM
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 09:58:23 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 09:54:33 AM
The real loony bin is under treatment. Today they have learned (finally) there WAS a Mozart industry.
(http://www.chifountain.com/images/baby_yawn_sleep.gif)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:07:15 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:07:15 AM
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on July 27, 2009, 09:56:15 AM
Who is this Dr. W Crotch? "Palestine" (the name of his alleged Oratorio or Opera) was not an entity in 1815, rather part of the Turkish Empire, AKA Greater Syria.
Methinks this poster is trying to "pull some legs", AKA hoodwink, AKA "pull a fast one", etc. etc.
Does anyone here remember Joyce Hatto and husband? Stunning resemblance, I'd say...
ZB
In answer to your questions -
The spelling was wrong. It should be -
Quartett, 'Lo ! Star-led Chiefs " (Palestine) - W. Crotch
(Mrs. Vaughan ; Evans, Vaughan and Kellner)
('Palestine' was an Oratorio by Crotch completed in London in 1812).
Here is the interesting Article on William Crotch in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians -
WILLIAM CROTCH
(b Norwich, 5 July 1775; d Taunton, 29 Dec 1847). English composer, organist, theorist and painter. He was an exceptional child prodigy and became one of the most distinguished English musicians of his day.
1. Life.
2. Works.
WORKS
WRITINGS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
NICHOLAS TEMPERLEY, SIMON HEIGHES
Crotch, William
1. Life.
Crotch was the youngest son of Michael Crotch, a master carpenter, and his wife Isabella. At the age of about 18 months he began to pick out tunes on a small house organ which his father had built, and soon after his second birthday he had taught himself to play God Save the King with the bass. He played to a large company at Norwich in February 1778, and that summer his mother began taking him on a series of tours in which his phenomenal gifts were exploited (fig.1). They went first to Cambridge and other main towns in East Anglia, then to Oxford and London, where on 10 December 1778 Daines Barrington heard him play tunes 'almost throughout with chords'. On 1 January 1779 he played to the king and queen at Buckingham Palace. He could transpose into any key, and name all four notes in a chord by ear. Burney described his abilities in a report to the Royal Society on 18 February 1779. A second visit to London followed in October 1779, when an advertisement announced that 'Mrs. Crotch is arrived in town with her son, the Musical Child, who will perform on the organ every day as usual, from one o'clock to three, at Mrs. Hart's, milliner, Piccadilly'. He then toured the British Isles appearing several times in Scotland. He could play the organ, piano and violin, had already begun to compose, and was also talented in drawing and painting. On a visit to Leicester he played to William Gardiner, who reported that he could read Handel's organ concertos at sight. In 1779 he made the acquaintance of two other infant prodigies, Charles and Samuel Wesley, who established that he could distinguish between mean-tone and natural scales. Samuel Wesley and Crotch remained lifelong friends.
The evidence of Crotch's precocity is incontestable, being based in part on contemporary printed accounts in many sources, including those of such qualified observers as Barrington and Burney. The fact that Crotch's ultimate achievement as a composer hardly lived up to this promise may perhaps be put down to the psychological damage he suffered as a child. Crotch himself later confessed: 'I look back on this part of my life with pain and humiliation ... I was becoming a spoilt child and in danger of becoming what too many of my musical brethren have become under similar circumstances and unfortunately remained through life'.
From 1786 to 1788 he was at Cambridge, as assistant to Professor Randall. He played the organ for services at King's, Trinity and St Mary the Great. Then he was sent to Oxford and placed in the care of the Rev. A.C. Schomberg, tutor of Magdalen College, who began to prepare him to enter the university and take orders in the church. This plan was dropped when Schomberg's health broke down, and Crotch continued his musical studies. His oratorio The Captivity of Judah, based on a text by Schomberg, was prepared under the guidance of his Cambridge teacher Charles Hague, and the aging Dutch composer Pieter Helendal. It was performed at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, on 4 June 1789. In September 1790 Crotch was appointed organist of Christ Church, Oxford, while still only 15 years old. During this period he came much under the influence of John Malchair, leader of the Oxford Music Club orchestra, who like Crotch was a painter as well as a musician. From 1793 he began deputizing for the professor of music, Philip Hayes, as the conductor of the Music Room concerts, which he continued to direct until 1806. He took the degree of BMus on 5 June 1794, and that of DMus on 21 November 1799. In March 1797 he succeeded Hayes as professor of music and organist of St John's College and the university church of St Mary the Virgin. Although there was no taught course in music at the university, Hayes had often presented 'lectures' which took the form of specially composed odes or oratorios performed in the Music School. Crotch, however, was the first Heather Professor to deliver formal lectures on the history, theory and aesthetics of music. After an inaugural lecture in December 1798, from 1800 to 1805 he gave an annual course of lectures to subscribers in the Music School. In 1805–7 he gave a similar series at the Royal Institution in London, which was one of the first of the new societies to provide regular courses of lectures on music. In 1806–7 he withdrew from Oxford, resigning his organistships, and settled in London; but he retained the professorship until his death, and continued to award degrees and to compose odes for chancellors' installations – the professor's only formal duties in those days.
In London Crotch became well known as a teacher, composer and scholar. His appearances as a soloist were infrequent but remarkable. He sometimes played one of his organ concertos at a benefit concert. On 7 June 1809 he played a programme of his own arrangements of Handel's music for organ and piano to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the composer's death (possibly the first example of a 'one-man' public concert in Europe). He assisted Samuel Wesley and Benjamin Jacob in bringing out the music of J.S. Bach at organ recitals. In April 1812 came the performance of his oratorio Palestine, his most conspicuously successful work. It was repeated many times in London and the provinces, though Crotch never printed the score and charged 200 guineas for the loan of the instrumental parts and his own attendance as conductor at each performance.
He conducted the Birmingham Festival in 1808, and frequently directed concerts of the Philharmonic Society in London, of which he had become an associate on its foundation in 1813. His Symphony in F was performed by the society in 1814, and he remained a member in 1814–19 and 1828–32. He was also in considerable demand as a lecturer, and in April 1808 hired the Lower Rooms, Hanover Square, where he delivered a course of 12 public lectures, in June 1809. Between 1812 and 1823 he gave courses annually at the Surrey Institution and during the 1820s at the Royal Institution and London Institution. On the establishment of the Royal Academy of Music in 1822 Crotch was appointed its principal. He himself instructed the pupils in harmony, counterpoint and composition. Sterndale Bennett remembered him with affection:
An active man, he used to walk from his house in the neighbourhood of Campden Hill to Tenterden Street, entering his classroom with his pockets distended by paint-boxes and sketch-books, and allowing his pupils, to their great delight, to examine any additions he had made on his walk through Kensington Gardens. A musical treat, often enjoyed by his class, was his playing from memory a series of the Choruses of Handel, which he could select with endless variety.
He resigned the principalship on 21 June 1832. In that year, on the institution of the Gresham Prize for church music, Crotch was appointed one of the judges, along with Horsley and Stevens. In 1834 he produced at Oxford a third oratorio, The Captivity of Judah, a second setting of the text for which he had first composed the music 45 years before; it was repeated in London in May 1836, but earned little of the critical acclaim accorded to Palestine. Crotch's last public appearance was at the Handel Festival in Westminster Abbey, when he played the organ on 28 June 1834. In retirement he devoted himself to sketching, composing and writing on all manner of subjects, especially for the benefit of his young nephews, nieces and grandchildren. He would sometimes visit his son, the Rev. W.R. Crotch, who was master of the grammar school, Taunton; it was during one such visit that he died. He was buried at Bishop's Hull, near Taunton. He left his music and musical copyrights to his son, and the rest of his property (estimated at £18,000) to his wife. After her death most of his library was sold by Puttick & Simpson on 20 February 1873. The 275 lots included a vast range of antiquarian music, some of which had formed the basis of his famous Specimens, and a considerable selection of early theory books.
2. Works.
Crotch was not a prolific composer and chose to concentrate largely on choral and keyboard genres. His contemporary reputation was founded on his oratorio Palestine, the first even moderately successful oratorio composed in England since Handel's day. Handel's music exerted a strong influence on Crotch's own eclectic musical style and also on the formation of the musical aesthetic he expounded in his lectures. His scholarly interest in music of the past often impinged on his own works, which frequently mixed movements in a variety of styles. In the anthem The Lord is King a six-bar ground bass underpins the first half of the chorus 'Confounded be all they', and the funeral anthem The joy of our heart is ceased, written on the death of the Duke of York in 1824, opens with a direct quotation from the Dead March in Handel's Saul. The Third Organ Concerto in B juxtaposes movements in the 'ancient' style of Handel with others in a heterogeneous Classical style. A similar mixture of styles can be heard in Palestine and the second Captivity of Judah, including some movements, like the chorus 'Let Sinai tell' from the former and 'Open ye the gates' from the latter, which demonstrate just how well informed the composer was about contemporary musical developments. Nevertheless, Crotch's music displays a certain detachment from fashionable trends and above all an avoidance of vulgarity and sentimentality. It is poles apart from the idioms of such younger contemporaries as Field and Bishop, but not unlike that of Samuel Wesley, his senior by nine years.
With the exception of the Third Organ Concerto and several symphonic movements, Crotch's orchestral music rarely reaches the level of his oratorios, yet he was an imaginative orchestrator. His large-scale works frequently make use of expanded brass and woodwind sections with parts for three trombones and clarinets. The Bells calls for an array of hand bells which play the chimes of Oxford's various clocks. The witty March and Waltz written for the private concerts of the queen in 1832 reveal an unexpectedly light-hearted side to his character. His symphonies and overtures suggest a familiarity with Haydn's 'London' symphonies which, as an arranger, he made available to a domestic market. His piano music is fluent and inventive. His valuable work as an arranger is often overlooked but included piano arrangements of Mozart's 'Jupiter' symphony, extracts from his operas, and Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony reduced for piano, violin and cello.
His cathedral anthems are mostly early works and display a reverence for the church music of his predecessors; as H.J. Gauntlett complained, they were the result of 'great industry but no genius'. Indeed, the two pieces by Crotch that maintained their popularity longest in cathedral choirs were not written as anthems at all: 'Lo! star-led chiefs' started life as a solo quartet in Palestine, while Methinks I hear the full celestial choir was published as a glee. Although the subdramatic, evangelical grandeur of the oratorio seems to have suited his gifts best, after the second Captivity of Judah he never again attempted anything on such a large scale. His horizons contracted to the point where he spent much of his creative energy on Anglican chants. He composed single chants, double chants, canonic chants, retrograde chants; he published fugues based on chants; he made the composition of chants an important part of his teaching at the RAM, and in 1842 he published his Rules for Chanting the Psalms. It is not, perhaps, wholly ironic that several of his Anglican chants are the only pieces composed by him that remain in regular use.
Crotch was highly influential as a lecturer and writer on musical subjects. His Elements of Musical Composition, published in 1812 and twice reprinted, was much in demand as a manual for beginners, as were his books on thoroughbass and piano playing. Far more important were his lectures, delivered first at Oxford and then, in revised forms, at the Royal Institution and elsewhere in London, and ultimately excerpted in The Substance of Several Courses of Lectures (1831). In these lectures Crotch offered a historical survey of music, firmly grounded on an aesthetic theory. His avowed aim was to improve the taste of lovers of music by enabling them to appreciate the merits of any composition through a consideration of the comparative value of the style adopted by the composer. He believed in a close union of the arts and in his lecture on 'Design' (1802) told his audience: 'Let the student examine a fine composition in the same way he would contemplate the beauties of a picture'. To this end Crotch adopted from Sir Joshua Reynolds the stylistic categories (ranked in descending order of greatness) of the sublime, the beautiful, and the ornamental (the last replacing Reynold's 'picturesque'), into which, regardless of age or nationality, all music, like the visual arts, could be fitted. The value of each style was proportional to the 'mental labour employed in their formation and the mental capacities required for the comprehension and enjoyment of them'. Crotch urged a rediscovery of the sublime style through the revival and imitation of ancient music – a goal that obviously paralleled that of the Gothic revival in architecture. He attempted to put it into practice himself, first by exhaustive collection and study of old music, second by presenting examples for revival in performance, and third by imitating it in composition. His concept of the 'three styles' was often quoted and referred to by later writers, and, more significantly, was also attacked and ridiculed. Burney was an early critic, and in 1836 Henry Gauntlett took issue with Crotch's doctrine of a special church style (the 'sublime') in imitation of ancient music. Despite his veneration of the past, and of Handel in particular, Crotch introduced his audiences to a wide range of music from all ages and did much to stimulate interest in unfamiliar works by Haydn and Mozart; his pioneering lectures on Mozart's operas (1817–21) are of particular importance. His three-volume anthology of Specimens of Various Styles of Music referred to in a Course of Lectures is encyclopaedic in scope and surprisingly forward looking in its aim to combine academic example with practical purpose. He not only hoped to broaden the taste of the public, but also to offer 'a practical History of the progress of the Science' and 'to the Student in Composition a great variety of matter for his study and imitation'. So influential were the Specimens that Grove in 1883 thought it worth while to list their contents in his Dictionary; Bumpus in 1908 still thought them 'useful'. Crotch was also an important force in the revival of early English church music. He published a selection of early psalm tunes, together with Tallis's Litany and Veni Creator, in 1803. Several churches and colleges at Oxford began to revive these tunes and some of the Elizabethan and Jacobean cathedral music, and they were well established there by the time the more general revival got under way in the 1830s. Rainbow has shown that Crotch's lectures had a decisive influence on Thomas Helmore and other musical leaders of the Tractarian movement. In old age Crotch seems to have become unnecessarily dogmatic about what was proper in church music. He condemned S.S. Wesley's The wilderness when it was submitted for the Gresham Prize in 1833, and the same composer's O Lord thou art my God, his exercise for the Oxford DMus in 1839. He actually wrote to Maria Hackett on 4 March 1833: 'The introduction of novelty, variety, contrast, expression, originality etc., is the very cause of the decay so long apparent in our church music'. If this were so, then Crotch himself would have been one of the prime culprits, for his own music is distinguished by all these qualities.
The extraordinary range and depth of Crotch's mental activity can be judged from his voluminous writings on many subjects besides music. The Monthly Magazine of 1800 carried his observations on the shape of the earth, speculations about the atmosphere of the moon, as well as advocating the use of a pendulum as a metronome (15 years before Maelzel discovered Winkel's system). In 1842 he wrote A Treatise on Perspective and as an artist is regarded as a distinguished member of an 'Oxford school' of landscape painting that in some respects anticipated Constable, who was a close acquaintance. A collection of 'Six Etchings by W. Crotch from Sketches by Mr [Hugh] O'Neill, of the Ruins of the late Fire at Christ Church, Oxford' was published at Oxford in 1809. Some 1200 of Crotch's paintings and drawings are in the Norfolk and Norwich Record Office, along with his plays and writings on architecture, art, astronomy, electricity, fortification, geography, geometry, grammar, gunnery, history, optics, physics, pyrotechnics and other subjects. Bumpus also records that he wrote a complete commentary on the Old and New Testaments and the Book of Psalms. The iconography of Crotch is extensive, and includes, as well as a number of representations of the child prodigy, portraits of various stages of his life (see figs.1 and 2). Crotch's 13 volumes of letters (1801–45) and memoirs as well as A.H. Mann's exhaustive researches can be studied at the Norfolk and Norwich Record Office.
//
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:12:40 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:12:40 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 05:11:46 AM
Banning him just because he's not very bright and believes stupid things might set a dangerous precedent. ;D
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 27, 2009, 10:14:56 AM
Post by: Christie on July 27, 2009, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 08:41:09 AM
Well, the Mozart industry will eventually release some original recordings of Mozart conducting 'his' own symphonies. But they don't want to release them until the world is ready for it. Including some piano rolls of his performances of the sonatas. And a DVD of the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. It's very hush-hush at the moment. A friend of mine just came back from a pilgrimage to Easter Island and was told this by a reliable theologian. Who was guarding the icon at the time. So it must be true.
Mozart played piano????????????????? I do too!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 27, 2009, 10:16:00 AM
Post by: Christie on July 27, 2009, 10:16:00 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:07:15 AMWow is this you?????????????????????????? i never talked to a dead man before, Are you dead?????????????
WILLIAM CROTCH
(b Norwich, 5 July 1775; d Taunton, 29 Dec 1847). English composer, organist, theorist and painter. He was an exceptional child prodigy and became one of the most distinguished English musicians of his day.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:16:57 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:16:57 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 09:54:33 AM
. . . as Karl Henning said yesterday that Andrea Luchesi was a Jesuit educated oblate
Obvious to anyone else on the thread, that this was a jest.
QuoteAnd anyone who questions the orthodox dogmas of the Mozart story is, of course, a lunatic.
Not true of just anyone; but likely true of you ;D 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:17:33 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:17:33 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 27, 2009, 09:58:23 AM
(http://www.chifountain.com/images/baby_yawn_sleep.gif)
This thread is worth it for these pics, alone!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: zamyrabyrd on July 27, 2009, 10:18:43 AM
Post by: zamyrabyrd on July 27, 2009, 10:18:43 AM
Well. Dr. Crotch is in Wikipedia...you learn something new everyday...
"The London Magazine of April 1779 records:
He appears to be fondest of solemn tunes and church musick, particularly the 104th Psalm. As soon as he has finished a regular tune, or part of a tune, or played some little fancy notes of his own, he stops, and has some of the pranks of a wanton boy; some of the company then generally give him a cake, an apple, or an orange, to induce him to play again...[1]
Crotch was later to observe that this experience led him to become a rather spoilt child, excessively indulged so that he would perform
He was for a time organist at Christ Church, Oxford, from which he was later to graduate with a Bachelor of Music degree.
His composition The Captivity of Judah was played at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, on 4 June 1789; his most successful composition in adulthood was the oratorio Palestine (1812). He may have composed the Westminster Chimes in 1793."
"The London Magazine of April 1779 records:
He appears to be fondest of solemn tunes and church musick, particularly the 104th Psalm. As soon as he has finished a regular tune, or part of a tune, or played some little fancy notes of his own, he stops, and has some of the pranks of a wanton boy; some of the company then generally give him a cake, an apple, or an orange, to induce him to play again...[1]
Crotch was later to observe that this experience led him to become a rather spoilt child, excessively indulged so that he would perform
He was for a time organist at Christ Church, Oxford, from which he was later to graduate with a Bachelor of Music degree.
His composition The Captivity of Judah was played at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, on 4 June 1789; his most successful composition in adulthood was the oratorio Palestine (1812). He may have composed the Westminster Chimes in 1793."
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:19:24 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:19:24 AM
Quote from: Christie on July 27, 2009, 10:14:56 AM
Mozart played piano????????????????? I do too!
Yes, but Mozart was no Christie !!!
:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:21:06 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:21:06 AM
Quote from: Christie on July 27, 2009, 10:16:00 AM
Wow is this you?????????????????????????? i never talked to a dead man before, Are you dead?????????????
It's not a habit I would encourage ! ::)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: zamyrabyrd on July 27, 2009, 10:23:31 AM
Post by: zamyrabyrd on July 27, 2009, 10:23:31 AM
Maybe Dr. W Crotch is the REAL fraud. WHo wrote the articles for Groves and Wiki?
Get my drift?
Get my drift?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:24:06 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:24:06 AM
QFT
Quote from: knight on July 26, 2009, 07:55:20 AM
Robert,
I will be charitable and assume your reply to each of the Davids was disingenuous.
There are pages and pages here where you were asked questions, but you adopted, what for the experiment here was, an inappropriate Socratic method of answering those questions with questions.
Also, few here claim to be qualified to pronounce about Mozart, but there are plenty of sharp cookies on the board who know how to get to the root of a matter and ask pertinent questions. They did, you prevaricated or gave them insubstantial answers that you both claimed to be fact and to be self evident to sensible people.
So step by predictable step you lead yourself to this place where you sit in your corner and the rest of the room takes pot shots. We assume that as you pop back into that corner so often, that you quite like the adversity.
I am pretty much disinterested in the topic. I asked you some questions, but the answers did not stack up. I therefore made up my mind and don't have the hunger to keep prompting you to get a move on and show us the money. I sense it is Monopoly money and not good in any shop.
But I thought I would let you know how things appear to stand through my observations. I am used to taking the temperature of the board. It is very cool on accepting your allegations about Mozart, but warm for exposing humbug and hot to detect any chinks in your chain mail, which looks to unravel in front of our eyes.
Mike....NB Mike not Knight for the present. I know it can be confusing to those who may be dazzled by a couple of bright lights being shone into their face.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:27:47 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:27:47 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 27, 2009, 10:12:40 AM
8)
Banning people is the equivalent of burning books. It is best to leave the bad ones on the shelf.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 10:29:56 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 10:29:56 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:27:47 AM
Banning people is the equivalent of burning books. It is best to leave the bad ones on the shelf.
Or sell them on amazon marketplace to people like robnewman.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:31:10 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:31:10 AM
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on July 27, 2009, 10:23:31 AM
Maybe Dr. W Crotch is the REAL fraud. WHo wrote the articles for Groves and Wiki?
Get my drift?
Great idea. As soon as you can discuss this idea of yours please post it here !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 10:31:51 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 10:31:51 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:27:47 AM
Banning people is the equivalent of burning books. It is best to leave the bad ones on the shelf.
Ok then, we won't burn your book when it comes out. 8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:33:09 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:33:09 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 27, 2009, 10:29:56 AM
Or sell them on amazon marketplace to people like robnewman.
I never buy books from Amazon. The humidity is too high there and I don't like mosquitos.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:34:29 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 10:31:51 AM
Ok then, we won't burn your book when it comes out. 8)
No David, but you will throw a log on the fire when I am found guilty of heresy instead, right ?
:) :) :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 10:42:27 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 10:42:27 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:34:29 AM
No David, but you will throw a log on the fire when I am found guilty of heresy instead, right ?
:) :) :)
Well you would love to have such a strong reaction to your "ideas", but I don't think it would happen. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 27, 2009, 10:46:06 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 27, 2009, 10:46:06 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 10:31:51 AM
Ok then, we won't burn your book when it comes out. 8)
To paraphrase Dorothy Parker: This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:46:54 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:46:54 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 10:42:27 AM
Well you would love to have such a strong reaction to your "ideas", but I don't think it would happen. :)
David, please believe this - your ideas on Mozart are far more extreme than mine.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:47:07 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:47:07 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 27, 2009, 10:42:27 AM
Well you would love to have such a strong reaction to your "ideas", but I don't think it would happen. :)
Right, David! This is about as strong as the reactions get:
Quote from: Herman on July 27, 2009, 09:58:23 AM
(http://www.chifountain.com/images/baby_yawn_sleep.gif)
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:48:07 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:48:07 AM
Quote from: knight on July 27, 2009, 10:46:06 AM
To paraphrase Dorothy Parker: This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.
Mike
The best books have their own momentum, don't you agree ?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:49:13 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:49:13 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:46:54 AM
David, please believe this - your ideas on Mozart are far more extreme than mine.
But he won't, you know; because as everyone here has already seen to his intellectual satisfaction, you have no proof in support of your 'evangelism'; only your dire zealotry.
Gotta love the amusement value of the one guy with the extreme views imploring us all that we are the ones with the e. v. ;D
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:51:05 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:51:05 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 27, 2009, 10:49:13 AM
But he won't, you know; because as everyone here has already seen to his intellectual satisfaction, you have no proof in support of your 'evangelism'; only your dire zealotry.
Gotta love the amusement value of the one guy with the extreme views imploring us all that we are the ones with the e. v. ;D
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
;D
Karl your views on the genius of Burgsalz are so extreme we never get to know what they are !
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:51:48 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:51:48 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 27, 2009, 07:15:42 AM
Since newman refuses to seek professional help or to get an education, but rather insists on demonstrating his painful deficiencies here on GMG, perhaps we can help him by starting with some very remedial lessons that may one day enable him to make valid critical judgments of his own. A good place for him to start might be in learning to distinguish this
(http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb30/Zazael/donkey.jpg)
from this
(http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:AHny_l7qr88CoM:http://tasteslikemyelbow.com/images/20080413163335_elbow.gif)
edited to replace workplace unfriendly image with less questionable one ;D
I don't know if it is medically possible to instill knowledge of this distinction in the Newman brain.
Heaven help the doctor who draws that short straw! ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:52:30 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 10:52:30 AM
Has anyone totted up the number of posts which Newman designated his "last"? ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:54:27 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 10:54:27 AM
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 27, 2009, 10:52:30 AM
Has anyone totted up the number of posts which Newman designated his "last"? ;D
Why would a man look at more than one post to read the last of them ? And especially when they are arranged chronologically ;D
You should submit this discovery to the civil service. It may reduce taxation.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Elgarian on July 27, 2009, 11:25:19 AM
Post by: Elgarian on July 27, 2009, 11:25:19 AM
What will happen when this thread reaches 100 pages?
A. Will we finally understand all things?
B. Will Mozart himself come among us, and tell us who was right?
C. If B, will we believe him?
D. Will a new debate begin about whether Wagner was a fraud?
E. Will it all just carry on as before?
A. Will we finally understand all things?
B. Will Mozart himself come among us, and tell us who was right?
C. If B, will we believe him?
D. Will a new debate begin about whether Wagner was a fraud?
E. Will it all just carry on as before?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 11:34:06 AM
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 11:34:06 AM
E
newman will carry on till he's thrown out
newman will carry on till he's thrown out
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 27, 2009, 11:44:11 AM
Post by: Brian on July 27, 2009, 11:44:11 AM
Quote from: knight on July 27, 2009, 10:46:06 AM(http://www.wnff.net/Smileys/wnff/icon_clap.gif)
To paraphrase Dorothy Parker: This is not a book to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 11:47:41 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 11:47:41 AM
Quote from: Herman on July 27, 2009, 11:34:06 AM
E
newman will carry on till he's thrown out
Probably; but I think Mike has a great idea which is responsible towards The Real Musical World:
Quote from: knight on July 25, 2009, 10:49:52 PM
. . . To the extent that this thread becomes preserved, (Believe me I daily resist the strong temptation to bin it.) it will sit there waiting to undermine whatever academic credibility you might hope to build up; should you ever find enough money to pay for the publication of your Mozart opinions.
In case there is any doubt in your mind; you are regarded as a troll. You are restricted in your activity here. Any remotely dubious postings on music threads will continue to be deleted without explanation. New topics also will hit the dust. It is for the owner of the site to decide when enough is enough. I can only assume that he is allowing some kind of social experiment to run just now.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:13:48 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:13:48 PM
Knight writes -
. . . To the extent that this thread becomes preserved, (Believe me I daily resist the strong temptation to bin it.) it will sit there waiting to undermine whatever academic credibility you might hope to build up; should you ever find enough money to pay for the publication of your Mozart opinions.
In case there is any doubt in your mind; you are regarded as a troll. You are restricted in your activity here. Any remotely dubious postings on music threads will continue to be deleted without explanation. New topics also will hit the dust. It is for the owner of the site to decide when enough is enough. I can only assume that he is allowing some kind of social experiment to run just now.
Thanks for this description of your views.
I daily resist the strong temptation to describe you as worse than a troll, one who cannot see the disruption that has been caused merely by asking the question on a thread of whether Mozart was a fraud.
You say I am regarded as a troll. Would you care to define this term for me ? I've looked at the Wikipedia definition of this term and it says -
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or collaborative content community with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion
OK, any objections to me using this definition ?
Notice that a characteristic of a 'troll' is that he/she has the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
As a veteran on this thread the records show I have, no less than 33 times (that is, thirty three times), appealed to others NOT to provoke others into an emotional or disciplinary response and have asked them NOT to generally disrupt normal ON-TOPIC discussion. Such is the record.
So, on what grounds am I a 'troll' ?
I am most happy when the TOPIC is under discussion instead of others posting stupid pictures of babies and infantile remarks. Am I not ? In fact we have today have extensive discussion on the extent of Mozart's popularity in the early 19th century.
So, on what grounds am I a 'troll' ?
Please do tell me. I am really keen to know.
Maybe you are a 'troll' since you are, by your last post, disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Please do not do this, because the topic of this thread (in case you have forgotten) is 'Mozart A Fraud ?'. And much progress has been made. Why, today, its been recognised there WAS a 'Mozart industry'. It existed even in his own lifetime and was booming in the early 19th century with countless performances and publications of 'his' music by music publishers. And we've all arrived at agreement. Without our discussion most people would have believed otherwise.
How about this 'olive branch' ? I won't call you a 'troll' if you don't call me one ? Since, according to the above definition, I am NOT a troll. As any fair and reasonable person will agree. And these facts support my view.
Do you have your own definition (one you've kept hidden from view) perhaps ? Such as, 'Anyone who does not subscribe to the mythical life, career and iconic status of Mozart is a troll if he tries to discuss the subject on a thread', perhaps ?
Regards
Robert Newman
. . . To the extent that this thread becomes preserved, (Believe me I daily resist the strong temptation to bin it.) it will sit there waiting to undermine whatever academic credibility you might hope to build up; should you ever find enough money to pay for the publication of your Mozart opinions.
In case there is any doubt in your mind; you are regarded as a troll. You are restricted in your activity here. Any remotely dubious postings on music threads will continue to be deleted without explanation. New topics also will hit the dust. It is for the owner of the site to decide when enough is enough. I can only assume that he is allowing some kind of social experiment to run just now.
Thanks for this description of your views.
I daily resist the strong temptation to describe you as worse than a troll, one who cannot see the disruption that has been caused merely by asking the question on a thread of whether Mozart was a fraud.
You say I am regarded as a troll. Would you care to define this term for me ? I've looked at the Wikipedia definition of this term and it says -
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or collaborative content community with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion
OK, any objections to me using this definition ?
Notice that a characteristic of a 'troll' is that he/she has the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
As a veteran on this thread the records show I have, no less than 33 times (that is, thirty three times), appealed to others NOT to provoke others into an emotional or disciplinary response and have asked them NOT to generally disrupt normal ON-TOPIC discussion. Such is the record.
So, on what grounds am I a 'troll' ?
I am most happy when the TOPIC is under discussion instead of others posting stupid pictures of babies and infantile remarks. Am I not ? In fact we have today have extensive discussion on the extent of Mozart's popularity in the early 19th century.
So, on what grounds am I a 'troll' ?
Please do tell me. I am really keen to know.
Maybe you are a 'troll' since you are, by your last post, disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Please do not do this, because the topic of this thread (in case you have forgotten) is 'Mozart A Fraud ?'. And much progress has been made. Why, today, its been recognised there WAS a 'Mozart industry'. It existed even in his own lifetime and was booming in the early 19th century with countless performances and publications of 'his' music by music publishers. And we've all arrived at agreement. Without our discussion most people would have believed otherwise.
How about this 'olive branch' ? I won't call you a 'troll' if you don't call me one ? Since, according to the above definition, I am NOT a troll. As any fair and reasonable person will agree. And these facts support my view.
Do you have your own definition (one you've kept hidden from view) perhaps ? Such as, 'Anyone who does not subscribe to the mythical life, career and iconic status of Mozart is a troll if he tries to discuss the subject on a thread', perhaps ?
Regards
Robert Newman
Title: Mozart a frog?
Post by: bhodges on July 27, 2009, 12:23:59 PM
Post by: bhodges on July 27, 2009, 12:23:59 PM
Oh sorry...just blanked out there for a minute.
;D
--Bruce
;D
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Christie on July 27, 2009, 12:29:54 PM
Post by: Christie on July 27, 2009, 12:29:54 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:13:48 PMSince, according to the above definition, I am NOT a troll. As any fair and reasonable person will agree. And these facts support my view.Will you be a Troll with me??????????????????????????? I like making New freinds :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 27, 2009, 12:31:57 PM
Post by: Brian on July 27, 2009, 12:31:57 PM
Quote from: Christie on July 27, 2009, 12:29:54 PMA match made in heaven. I'll gladly preside over the ceremonies if somebody is willing to give Christie away.
Will you be a Troll with me??????????????????????????? I like making New freinds :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Scarpia on July 27, 2009, 12:33:38 PM
Post by: Scarpia on July 27, 2009, 12:33:38 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:13:48 PM
Knight writes -
. . . To the extent that this thread becomes preserved, (Believe me I daily resist the strong temptation to bin it.) it will sit there waiting to undermine whatever academic credibility you might hope to build up; should you ever find enough money to pay for the publication of your Mozart opinions.
In case there is any doubt in your mind; you are regarded as a troll. You are restricted in your activity here. Any remotely dubious postings on music threads will continue to be deleted without explanation. New topics also will hit the dust. It is for the owner of the site to decide when enough is enough. I can only assume that he is allowing some kind of social experiment to run just now.
Thanks for this description of your views.
I daily resist the strong temptation to describe you as worse than a troll, one who cannot see the disruption that has been caused merely by asking the question on a thread of whether Mozart was a fraud.
You say I am regarded as a troll. Would you care to define this term for me ? I've looked at the Wikipedia definition of this term and it says -
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or collaborative content community with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion
OK, any objections to me using this definition ?
Notice that a characteristic of a 'troll' is that he/she has the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
As a veteran on this thread the records show I have, no less than 33 times (that is, thirty three times), appealed to others NOT to provoke others into an emotional or disciplinary response and have asked them NOT to generally disrupt normal ON-TOPIC discussion. Such is the record.
So, on what grounds am I a 'troll' ?
I am most happy when the TOPIC is under discussion instead of others posting stupid pictures of babies and infantile remarks. Am I not ? In fact we have today have extensive discussion on the extent of Mozart's popularity in the early 19th century.
So, on what grounds am I a 'troll' ?
Please do tell me. I am really keen to know.
Maybe you are a 'troll' since you are, by your last post, disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Please do not do this, because the topic of this thread (in case you have forgotten) is 'Mozart A Fraud ?'. And much progress has been made. Why, today, its been recognised there WAS a 'Mozart industry'. It existed even in his own lifetime and was booming in the early 19th century with countless performances and publications of 'his' music by music publishers. And we've all arrived at agreement. Without our discussion most people would have believed otherwise.
How about this 'olive branch' ? I won't call you a 'troll' if you don't call me one ? Since, according to the above definition, I am NOT a troll. As any fair and reasonable person will agree. And these facts support my view.
Do you have your own definition (one you've kept hidden from view) perhaps ? Such as, 'Anyone who does not subscribe to the mythical life, career and iconic status of Mozart is a troll if he tries to discuss the subject on a thread', perhaps ?
Regards
Robert Newman
Hard to believe this thread is still here. No Newman, you are not a troll. By the definition you quote, a troll roils emotional responses and bad feelings on the board. I think it was Herman who said it somewhere on this thread or another, you are just a punching bag. At this point, no one gets the least emotional or worked up over the silliness you post here. They simply enjoy mocking you for your pathetic attempts to put together a coherent argument, and prodding you to see what nonsense you will come up with next. No one here is in the slightest interested in your bizarre theories about Mozart and your credibility has reached a nadir where no one will get the least bit worked up about anything you have to say. The main question facing everyone here is why the management continues to tolerate you, given the bad impression your ravings and the ancillary tauntings would make the board look to a newcomer.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 27, 2009, 12:34:47 PM
Post by: Joe_Campbell on July 27, 2009, 12:34:47 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:13:48 PMDude...Mike's (knight's) a moderator, not a troll. He can make your posts on this board cease to exist. Shouldn't you acknowledge this profound difference between yourself and him?
...
edit - actually, you could also make your own posts cease to exist...wouldn't that be something...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 12:37:53 PM
Post by: Herman on July 27, 2009, 12:37:53 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:13:48 PM
Why, today, its been recognised there WAS a 'Mozart industry'.
(http://z.about.com/d/pediatrics/1/0/G/O/baby_milestones.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:43:11 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:43:11 PM
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 27, 2009, 12:34:47 PM
Dude...Mike's (knight's) a moderator, not a troll. He can make your posts on this board cease to exist. Shouldn't you acknowledge this profound difference between yourself and him?
edit - actually, you could also make your own posts cease to exist...wouldn't that be something...
Joe Campbell,
Yes, I acknowledge the profound difference between an ordinary member and a Moderator. A Moderator is more inclined to know what a 'troll' is. Especially one who thinks I am a 'troll'. Don't you agree ?
And on checking this term I find it does not apply to a person who (for the record) has 33 times on a single thread asked for others to confine themselves to the subject of this thread. Now, even you, Joe Campbell, will agree with this. Won't you ?
So you see, I am being entirely respectful of the Administrator. He has just made a mistake, that's all. Maybe he has not read the disruption to this thread and has not examined the definition of 'troll'. Maybe he has a definition we've never heard of.
Thanks
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 27, 2009, 12:49:40 PM
Post by: knight66 on July 27, 2009, 12:49:40 PM
Quote from: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:13:48 PM
You say I am regarded as a troll. Would you care to define this term for me ? Regards
Robert Newman
No. You must be much debilitated. If you imagine I am going to get into a word by word and line by line tussle over whether you think you are a troll...you are even more hopeful of lost causes than I had thought. I don't give a flying fig whether or not you think you are a troll. You are the sort who would go to the stake claiming the world is flat. To a man it is the opinion of the mods here and a good many members; so, troll it is.
That was a nice short debate. As suggested before, just regard yourself as fortunate that for the moment your oxygen supply remains intermittently available.
Bruce, As so often, I wish I had your sensibilities. I unfortunately ploughed right through that set of rhetorical questions...(After all, he thinks he knows the answers and as usual, he is wrong.) and remained sentient, but it was a near run thing.
Rob, stop wasting your time trying to draw me into your puny little nets of argument.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 12:53:12 PM
Post by: karlhenning on July 27, 2009, 12:53:12 PM
Newman: He was actually funny for a brief while.
Long, long ago . . . .
Long, long ago . . . .
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 27, 2009, 12:54:03 PM
Post by: bhodges on July 27, 2009, 12:54:03 PM
Quote from: knight on July 27, 2009, 12:49:40 PM
Bruce, As so often, I wish I had your sensibilities. I unfortunately ploughed right through that set of rhetorical questions...(After all, he thinks he knows the answers and as usual, he is wrong.) and remained sentient, but it was a near run thing.
Happy to accept praise of course, but don't you mean...Elgarian? He published the list below:
Quote from: Elgarian on July 27, 2009, 11:25:19 AM
What will happen when this thread reaches 100 pages?
A. Will we finally understand all things?
B. Will Mozart himself come among us, and tell us who was right?
C. If B, will we believe him?
D. Will a new debate begin about whether Wagner was a fraud?
E. Will it all just carry on as before?
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:57:49 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 12:57:49 PM
Quote from: knight on July 27, 2009, 12:49:40 PM
No. You must be much debilitated. If you imagine I am going to get into a word by word and line by line tussle over whether you think you are a troll...you are even more hopeful of lost causes than I had thought. I don't give a flying fig whether or not you think you are a troll. You are the sort who would go to the stake claiming the world is flat. To a man it is the opinion of the mods here and a good many members; so, troll it is.
That was a nice short debate. As suggested before, just regard yourself as fortunate that for the moment your oxygen supply remains intermittently available.
Bruce, As so often, I wish I had your sensibilities. I unfortunately ploughed right through that set of rhetorical questions...(After all, he thinks he knows the answers and as usual, he is wrong.) and remained sentient, but it was a near run thing.
Rob, stop wasting your time trying to draw me into your puny little nets of argument.
Knight
Knight,
The last time I read something like what you have just written it was found in a fantasy novel -
When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Lewis Carroll - ''Through the Looking Glass''.
I have no objection to you inventing different meanings to a word. But it becomes difficult to know what your meaning is of 'troll' if you do not tell us in advance, so that we can avoid (in your eyes) being one.
Is this not fair and reasonable, the sort of thing you would expect others to do for you, I mean ?
Thank You
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 27, 2009, 12:59:40 PM
Post by: knight66 on July 27, 2009, 12:59:40 PM
Bruce, I see we have reached page 86. We could accelerate matters and consolidate this with yet another another of the troll threads, then today we could see which of Elgarian's options come about.
What do you think?
Mike
What do you think?
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Brian on July 27, 2009, 01:00:30 PM
Post by: Brian on July 27, 2009, 01:00:30 PM
Okay, guys. As David Ross pointed out, there's risk in ignoring Rob Newman because we don't really know that, if we ignore him, he'd actually leave. But I think it is worth a try.
At this point I will cease to read or post in any Rob Newman-related threads. I will try to do this for as long as possible. I implore you to join me. Not going to name names, but by my estimation, if five or six posters in particular abandoned the effort, the odds this thread will reach 100 pages will drop prodigiously.
Farewell. If you choose to join me, I will be in the Chat Thread for the duration of Rob's stay.
At this point I will cease to read or post in any Rob Newman-related threads. I will try to do this for as long as possible. I implore you to join me. Not going to name names, but by my estimation, if five or six posters in particular abandoned the effort, the odds this thread will reach 100 pages will drop prodigiously.
Farewell. If you choose to join me, I will be in the Chat Thread for the duration of Rob's stay.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 01:04:18 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 01:04:18 PM
When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." - "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
''Through the Looking Glass''
Now, that novel is a fantasy, of course. Seems fair though that people should be aware of what meaning you as a Moderator give to a word such as 'troll' if it differs from the usual and if infringing your rules of 'trolling' are not clearly laid out for those who may be accused of doing so. Sort of 'Golden Rule' basics, yes ? I mean, would you like me to act the same arbitrary way to you ? That would be very unfair.
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
''Through the Looking Glass''
Now, that novel is a fantasy, of course. Seems fair though that people should be aware of what meaning you as a Moderator give to a word such as 'troll' if it differs from the usual and if infringing your rules of 'trolling' are not clearly laid out for those who may be accused of doing so. Sort of 'Golden Rule' basics, yes ? I mean, would you like me to act the same arbitrary way to you ? That would be very unfair.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 01:07:51 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 01:07:51 PM
Quote from: Brian on July 27, 2009, 01:00:30 PM
Okay, guys. As David Ross pointed out, there's risk in ignoring Rob Newman because we don't really know that, if we ignore him, he'd actually leave. But I think it is worth a try.
At this point I will cease to read or post in any Rob Newman-related threads. I will try to do this for as long as possible. I implore you to join me. Not going to name names, but by my estimation, if five or six posters in particular abandoned the effort, the odds this thread will reach 100 pages will drop prodigiously.
Farewell. If you choose to join me, I will be in the Chat Thread for the duration of Rob's stay.
Brian,
Do you ever consider that you and your colleagues are acting like a pack of lemmings ? That the definition of a 'troll' clearly states that the troll is a person who does not stay on the subject of the thread. That of, 'Mozart a Fraud ?'.
What sort of brain do you have ?
It seems wired to acting like a lemming. An action group full of heroes. Do you dress up in costumes to celebrate your militarisms ? ;D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 27, 2009, 01:13:50 PM
Post by: bhodges on July 27, 2009, 01:13:50 PM
Quote from: knight on July 27, 2009, 12:59:40 PM
Bruce, I see we have reached page 86. We could accelerate matters and consolidate this with yet another another of the troll threads, then today we could see which of Elgarian's options come about.
What do you think?
Mike
Worth pondering, for sure. I always appreciate a glimpse into the future. ;D
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 01:16:50 PM
Post by: robnewman on July 27, 2009, 01:16:50 PM
Quote from: bhodges on July 27, 2009, 01:13:50 PM
Worth pondering, for sure. I always appreciate a glimpse into the future. ;D
--Bruce
Great, if being called a 'troll' in complete contradiction to the accepted use of that term is being a 'troll' then, of course, you are judged by your own standards. Since yours are the posts off this topic and you are the trolls.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 01:22:47 PM
Post by: MishaK on July 27, 2009, 01:22:47 PM
newman, you'd be surprised to know that 'troll' means a lot more than you think it does. Key parts highlighted for your ease:
I herewith join Brian's boycott of this nonsense.
Quote
troll
v.,n.
1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT.
2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."
3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See also Troll-O-Meter.
I herewith join Brian's boycott of this nonsense.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 27, 2009, 01:28:20 PM
Post by: knight66 on July 27, 2009, 01:28:20 PM
OM, I really do admire your energy, persistence and patience. Robert just plays the pick and mix option.
I do think you and Brian are making the right decision. I hope you can stick by it. There is so much that can be written instead about our love of music.
Robert, Nope, I am not biting. You might learn that I don't allow others to dictate the rules of discourse that I run to.
Knight
I do think you and Brian are making the right decision. I hope you can stick by it. There is so much that can be written instead about our love of music.
Robert, Nope, I am not biting. You might learn that I don't allow others to dictate the rules of discourse that I run to.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 27, 2009, 11:43:31 PM
Post by: snyprrr on July 27, 2009, 11:43:31 PM
Quote from: knight on July 27, 2009, 05:02:05 AM
The mods don't ban. Only Rob has that ability. Perhaps you might write to him and let him know your feelings.
Knight
Who's Rob?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: greg on July 27, 2009, 11:58:22 PM
Post by: greg on July 27, 2009, 11:58:22 PM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 27, 2009, 11:43:31 PMThe administrator.
Who's Rob?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 28, 2009, 12:09:27 AM
Post by: snyprrr on July 28, 2009, 12:09:27 AM
I was reading about Florian Leopold Gassmann today in the library when I read an interesting paragraph with an example of his melodic gift, and then showing how a certain melody by Mozart was strangely similar to it. It's just the way Groves phrased it that made me chuckle, like they thought it was mysterious. Of course I wish I could share it. Anyone have a Grove's handy?
And again, for the third time (that phrase seems to happen a lot on this thread!), I'm curious about the so-called squabble between Cambini and Mozart over some misunderstanding. This also was in Groves. Anyone?
I'm very excited by the prospect of 100 pages! Will there be cake?
Also, I very much enjoyed the surrealism of the last 8 pages. There is a certain breathless quality in the posts, a certain exasperation that is priceless, mingled with a newfound playfulness and giddy dizziness. Whoever's playing the role of Christie is a genius of perfluidity. Bravo! I sense an aftertaste of chocolate and flowers with a hint of apricot.
I love walking around this thread early early in the morning. It's 4am, and it's sooo quiet. I just know most of you are snuggled away, dreaming happy dreams of the way things used to be, ahhh. :)
And again, for the third time (that phrase seems to happen a lot on this thread!), I'm curious about the so-called squabble between Cambini and Mozart over some misunderstanding. This also was in Groves. Anyone?
I'm very excited by the prospect of 100 pages! Will there be cake?
Also, I very much enjoyed the surrealism of the last 8 pages. There is a certain breathless quality in the posts, a certain exasperation that is priceless, mingled with a newfound playfulness and giddy dizziness. Whoever's playing the role of Christie is a genius of perfluidity. Bravo! I sense an aftertaste of chocolate and flowers with a hint of apricot.
I love walking around this thread early early in the morning. It's 4am, and it's sooo quiet. I just know most of you are snuggled away, dreaming happy dreams of the way things used to be, ahhh. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 28, 2009, 01:25:44 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 28, 2009, 01:25:44 AM
Quote from: snyprrr on July 28, 2009, 12:09:27 AM
I'm very excited by the prospect of 100 pages! Will there be cake?
100 pages is nothing in the world of Mozartian conspiracy, the topic questioning the origins of Figaro at my place lasted 190 pages, and that's with all the numerous posts that were simply insults deleted! Do the same here and it will be a long time before you reach 100 pages. I think the Figaro discussion was much better than this one, though the case remained unproven.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 01:59:51 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 01:59:51 AM
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 28, 2009, 01:25:44 AM
100 pages is nothing in the world of Mozartian conspiracy, the topic questioning the origins of Figaro at my place lasted 190 pages, and that's with all the numerous posts that were simply insults deleted! Do the same here and it will be a long time before you reach 100 pages. I think the Figaro discussion was much better than this one, though the case remained unproven.
Rod, getting a Mozartean to admit ANYTHING contrary to their view takes a dozen pages. Whether we are talking about Figaro or the quintet KV452 or any other. But, for what it's worth, I think the Figaro debate on your Classical Mayhem forum (which ran for around 190 pages) contains some of the best, most remarkable debates ever made on the subject of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and the facts surrounding its origins. Facts which were later provided with even more detail in the publication of 'Figaro- Aria Della Contessa' by Prof. L. Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta (a copy of which you already have). I think any person who made the musical analysis of this score would agree with its two authors that this work is only a hastily made arrangement of a work that already existed by others, which Mozart and Lorenzo da Ponte quickly arranged in Italian language from the German for May of 1786. The evidence in support of this view is truly of many kinds.
I hope you will keep that record since it is one of the rare occasions when issues are discussed in the detail they deserve.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 28, 2009, 02:07:55 AM
Post by: Rod Corkin on July 28, 2009, 02:07:55 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 01:59:51 AM
I hope you will keep that record since it is one of the rare occasions when issues are discussed in the detail they deserve.
It now resides for all time in the Archive section.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 02:08:56 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 02:08:56 AM
Quote from: knight on July 27, 2009, 01:28:20 PM
OM, I really do admire your energy, persistence and patience. Robert just plays the pick and mix option.
I do think you and Brian are making the right decision. I hope you can stick by it. There is so much that can be written instead about our love of music.
Robert, Nope, I am not biting. You might learn that I don't allow others to dictate the rules of discourse that I run to.
Knight
Knight, when will you realise nobody is 'dictating' anything to you ? But if you, as a Moderator or as a member, accuse a person of being a 'troll' you are obliged by common sense and by being a Moderator to define, or at least to be aware, of the common definition of that term which we find in Wikipedia and elsewhere. A definition which clearly does not apply to me. So you should withdraw it. And if you hide from us your own private definition despite being repeatedly asked to provide it then I reserve the right to call you a 'genius' or a 'banana' without ever defining what I actually mean by those words.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: karlhenning on July 28, 2009, 04:16:19 AM
Post by: karlhenning on July 28, 2009, 04:16:19 AM
Quote from: blah blah blahKnight, when will you realise nobody is 'dictating' anything to you ? But if you, as a Moderator or as a member, accuse a person of being a 'troll' you are obliged by common sense and by being a Moderator to define, or at least to be aware, of the common definition of that term which we find in Wikipedia and elsewhere. A definition which clearly does not apply to me. So you should withdraw it. And if you hide from us your own private definition despite being repeatedly asked to provide it then I reserve the right to call you a 'genius' or a 'banana' without ever defining what I actually mean by those words.
Quote from: Herman on July 27, 2009, 09:58:23 AM
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 05:34:20 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 05:34:20 AM
It's a true picture of ignorance that people who claim to understand and even who claim to teach on the life and career of Mozart are reduced to posting stupidity in defence of his giant/iconic reputation. With no ban or censure from the Moderators of this forum. And this instead of providing some of the mass of evidence which (supposedly) supports their views. Instead of outdoing their critics in presenting evidence they turn in on themselves and act like real fools. THIS is the true state of affairs as page after page of this thread proves. It speaks as loudly as anything can possibly speak. Proof positive to any fair minded person of the nature of the opposition.
My book is not for you. You can't handle reality. It's for those who wish to examine these issues of music history fairly, from BOTH sides. Not much to ask after 200 years of fiction. But too much for you.
R.E. Newman
My book is not for you. You can't handle reality. It's for those who wish to examine these issues of music history fairly, from BOTH sides. Not much to ask after 200 years of fiction. But too much for you.
R.E. Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 06:09:35 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 06:09:35 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 02:08:56 AM
Knight, when will you realise nobody is 'dictating' anything to you ? But if you, as a Moderator or as a member, accuse a person of being a 'troll' you are obliged by common sense and by being a Moderator to define, or at least to be aware, of the common definition of that term which we find in Wikipedia and elsewhere. A definition which clearly does not apply to me. So you should withdraw it. And if you hide from us your own private definition despite being repeatedly asked to provide it then I reserve the right to call you a 'genius' or a 'banana' without ever defining what I actually mean by those words.
A) Yes you are indeed trying to dictate. And I am not biting your wriggling little worm on its hook.
B) As was pointed out to you, there is more than one definition...go read.
C) Feel no obligation to stick around and post more of your nionsense.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 06:44:16 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 06:44:16 AM
If you make an accusation you must be able to support it with evidence. You have none. I have no less than 33 times complained that these fools are wrecking this thread on 'Mozart - A Fraud ?'. You refuse to act. And everyone can see it.
This is a kindergarten for delinquents. As anyone can see. And you, the 'Moderator', deserve them, just as they deserve you. It's surrealism at its worst.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 06:50:28 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 06:50:28 AM
Fine...fine. Just dandy, as I say, don't feel obligated to stick with your failed experiment.
Knight
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 06:56:54 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 06:56:54 AM
Quote from: knight on July 28, 2009, 06:50:28 AM
Fine...fine. Just dandy, as I say, don't feel obligated to stick with your failed experiment.
Knight
Thanks. Please feel obliged to stick with yours.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on July 28, 2009, 07:04:52 AM
Post by: Franco on July 28, 2009, 07:04:52 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 06:56:54 AM
Thanks. Please feel obliged to stick with yours.
Please feel obliged to stick it up yours.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: zamyrabyrd on July 28, 2009, 07:07:25 AM
Post by: zamyrabyrd on July 28, 2009, 07:07:25 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 02:08:56 AMHow does one "define" banana? And if so, is there more than one definition of the noun used singularly?
And if you hide from us your own private definition despite being repeatedly asked to provide it then I reserve the right to call you a 'genius' or a 'banana' without ever defining what I actually mean by those words.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 28, 2009, 07:08:12 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 28, 2009, 07:08:12 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 06:56:54 AM
Thanks. Please feel obliged to stick with yours.
Oh you know of Knight's failed experiment to feng shui his house only using curtains? It was bold, audacious, but after he lost his son, then his wife, then his pets and finally his cd collection to the curtains he just had to give it up. ;D There was a time when he was lucky to find the door and leave, the curtains would play tricks on him you see... :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 28, 2009, 07:08:46 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 28, 2009, 07:08:46 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 06:44:16 AM
If you make an accusation you must be able to support it with evidence.
That is so priceless I can scarcely contain myself....
8)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 28, 2009, 07:13:11 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 28, 2009, 07:13:11 AM
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on July 28, 2009, 07:07:25 AM
How does one "define" banana? And if so, is there more than one definition of the noun used singularly?
The truth is that one can debate the meaning of banana until the end of time, but to truly understand one must abandon reality and become the banana
(http://www.msnheaven.com/content/emoticons/54/banana006.gif)
This thread is a very good tool for achieving the zen state of banana. 8) :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: zamyrabyrd on July 28, 2009, 07:19:11 AM
Post by: zamyrabyrd on July 28, 2009, 07:19:11 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 28, 2009, 07:13:11 AM
The truth is that one can debate the meaning of banana until the end of time, but to truly understand one must abandon reality and become the banana
Otherwise one goes bananas...
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 07:24:10 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 07:24:10 AM
I will explain something.
We have a man who lives in the same flats that we do. He refuses to pay his service charges and always has to be dragged to court to reluctantly pay up. He always writes very long letters with endless questions and complaint and we know he already knows the answers. His stance is of being the victim. This has taken up vast tracts of time by the directors of the flat's management company, the factors, the solicitors, the court. I have seen the exchanges and they are in volumes of files over the last few years.
He never concedes anyone has a valid point of view and he endlessly uses legal terms he does not fully understand, but which cause increased costs to the rest of us through further solicitor involvement. He even threatens the solicitors!
He wears some people down and sometimes he even gets away with his unacceptable behaviour because he seems to have nothing to do all day but design endless rebuttals and supplementary questions and then barrage all and sundry. He also denies any and all evidence sent to him.
I guess all but you will by this time know just where this is heading.
He absolutely reminds me of you Robert in his tactics. But, I have no intension of running about providing you with endless opportunities for argument, disagreement, accusations etc. You put the work in. You read through the thread. You are not going to be eating up my time any more than I feel inclined. I have other things to be getting on with.
Our problems with you have been spelt out to you by me and by others earlier in this thread. If you refuse to see it...well, only to be expected really. Your behaviour is manipulative, obtuse, wrongheaded, belligerent, insulting, disingenuous and repetitive.
So, that's it. Play or don't play. If you feel aggrieved, write to Rob under the title 'admin'. But don't expect a lot of leeway, he was very concerned at your arrival. He was fully aware of your bad reputation on other fora. When he does get in touch and notices the nonsense here; I think I know what action he will take.
So make the hay in the time left to you. But from me, expect no change, small or otherwise.
Knight
We have a man who lives in the same flats that we do. He refuses to pay his service charges and always has to be dragged to court to reluctantly pay up. He always writes very long letters with endless questions and complaint and we know he already knows the answers. His stance is of being the victim. This has taken up vast tracts of time by the directors of the flat's management company, the factors, the solicitors, the court. I have seen the exchanges and they are in volumes of files over the last few years.
He never concedes anyone has a valid point of view and he endlessly uses legal terms he does not fully understand, but which cause increased costs to the rest of us through further solicitor involvement. He even threatens the solicitors!
He wears some people down and sometimes he even gets away with his unacceptable behaviour because he seems to have nothing to do all day but design endless rebuttals and supplementary questions and then barrage all and sundry. He also denies any and all evidence sent to him.
I guess all but you will by this time know just where this is heading.
He absolutely reminds me of you Robert in his tactics. But, I have no intension of running about providing you with endless opportunities for argument, disagreement, accusations etc. You put the work in. You read through the thread. You are not going to be eating up my time any more than I feel inclined. I have other things to be getting on with.
Our problems with you have been spelt out to you by me and by others earlier in this thread. If you refuse to see it...well, only to be expected really. Your behaviour is manipulative, obtuse, wrongheaded, belligerent, insulting, disingenuous and repetitive.
So, that's it. Play or don't play. If you feel aggrieved, write to Rob under the title 'admin'. But don't expect a lot of leeway, he was very concerned at your arrival. He was fully aware of your bad reputation on other fora. When he does get in touch and notices the nonsense here; I think I know what action he will take.
So make the hay in the time left to you. But from me, expect no change, small or otherwise.
Knight
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 07:26:09 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 07:26:09 AM
Quote from: DavidW on July 28, 2009, 07:08:12 AM
Oh you know of Knight's failed experiment to feng shui his house only using curtains? It was bold, audacious, but after he lost his son, then his wife, then his pets and finally his cd collection to the curtains he just had to give it up. ;D There was a time when he was lucky to find the door and leave, the curtains would play tricks on him you see... :)
I thought you had promised not to tell that to anyone! David how could you? ;D
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 28, 2009, 07:29:16 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 28, 2009, 07:29:16 AM
Quote from: knight on July 28, 2009, 07:24:10 AM
I will explain something.
We have a man who lives in the same flats that we do. He refuses to pay his service charges and always has to be dragged to court to reluctantly pay up. He always writes very long letters with endless questions and complaint and we know he already knows the answers. His stance is of being the victim. This has taken up vast tracts of time by the directors of the flat's management company, the factors, the solicitors, the court. I have seen the exchanges and they are in volumes of files over the last few years.
He never concedes anyone has a valid point of view and he endlessly uses legal terms he does not fully understand, but which cause increased costs to the rest of us through further solicitor involvement. He even threatens the solicitors!
He wears some people down and sometimes he even gets away with his unacceptable behaviour because he seems to have nothing to do all day but design endless rebuttals and supplementary questions and then barrage all and sundry. He also denies any and all evidence sent to him.
I guess all but you will by this time know just where this is heading.
He absolutely reminds me of you Robert in his tactics. But, I have no intension of running about providing you with endless opportunities for argument, disagreement, accusations etc. You put the work in. You read through the thread. You are not going to be eating up my time any more than I feel inclined. I have other things to be getting on with.
Our problems with you have been spelt out to you by me and by others earlier in this thread. If you refuse to see it...well, only to be expected really. Your behaviour is manipulative, obtuse, wrongheaded, belligerent, insulting, disingenuous and repetitive.
So, that's it. Play or don't play. If you feel aggrieved, write to Rob under the title 'admin'. But don't expect a lot of leeway, he was very concerned at your arrival. He was fully aware of your bad reputation on other fora. When he does get in touch and notices the nonsense here; I think I know what action he will take.
So make the hay in the time left to you. But from me, expect no change, small or otherwise.
Knight
0:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 28, 2009, 07:31:48 AM
Post by: Todd on July 28, 2009, 07:31:48 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 06:44:16 AMI have no less than 33 times complained that these fools are wrecking this thread on 'Mozart - A Fraud ?'. You refuse to act.
Silly Bob - as the person who started the thread, I can say definitively that the only person who is wrecking the thread is you. Mozart was real and you are the fraud. The overwhelming mass of evidence proves that. Case closed.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 28, 2009, 07:46:30 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 28, 2009, 07:46:30 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 06:44:16 AM
If you make an accusation you must be able to support it with evidence. You have none. I have no less than 33 times complained that these fools are wrecking this thread on 'Mozart - A Fraud ?'. You refuse to act. And everyone can see it.
This is a kindergarten for delinquents. As anyone can see. And you, the 'Moderator', deserve them, just as they deserve you. It's surrealism at its worst.
Yes, it's just awful. If you had a shred of common sense, decency, or honor, you would resign your account and just leave!
[Don't y'all love the irony of Newman expressing outrage at others for not supporting their claims with evidence and for failure to stay on topic (he still doesn't get that the topic of this thread is his own nuttiness).]
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 28, 2009, 07:46:30 AM
Yes, it's just awful. If you had a shred of common sense, decency, or honor, you would resign your account and just leave!
David Ross,
If you had a shred of common sense, decency or honour you would agree Mozart has always been a cultural fraud, a packet of lies, designed for the gullible, fed to the fraternities, pumped in gallons to the credulous, the infiltration of musicology by hoodlums and part of the dumbing down of generations. Whose equivalent is found in banking, finance, politics and every other sphere of the modern, dumbed down society. 33 complaints later and dozens of baby pictures later this is clearer now than when we first began.
I do resign my account. Because I believe and know that others are far more worthy of truth and reality than you.
R.E. Newman
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 28, 2009, 07:55:47 AM
Post by: Todd on July 28, 2009, 07:55:47 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 07:52:33 AMI do resign my account.
Please do so in haste. Delete your account so that everyone can see that you are serious.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 28, 2009, 07:56:47 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 28, 2009, 07:56:47 AM
You just go into PROFILE and it's at the bottom of the lefthand menu.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 08:01:10 AM
Post by: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 08:01:10 AM
Quote from: Todd on July 28, 2009, 07:55:47 AM
Please do so in haste. Delete your account so that everyone can see that you are serious.
Gladly.
Three Stages of Truth
1. Ridicule
2. Violent Opposition
3. Acceptance
Bye
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 28, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 28, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
Solid work fellas.
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0005.gif)
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0005.gif)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 28, 2009, 08:04:47 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 28, 2009, 08:04:47 AM
There should be a short quiz when you sign up for an account here, including the question:
True of False: Mozart is a fraud
If they answer "true", they are not allowed. $:)
True of False: Mozart is a fraud
If they answer "true", they are not allowed. $:)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Franco on July 28, 2009, 08:05:19 AM
Post by: Franco on July 28, 2009, 08:05:19 AM
Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: MishaK on July 28, 2009, 08:05:59 AM
Post by: MishaK on July 28, 2009, 08:05:59 AM
Quote from: MN Dave on July 28, 2009, 08:04:47 AM
There should be a short quiz when you sign up for an account here, including the question:
True of False: Mozart is a fraud
If they answer "true", they are not allowed. $:)
There should be at least one other:
"God" is spelled with "o" in the middle, true or false?
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Todd on July 28, 2009, 08:07:25 AM
Post by: Todd on July 28, 2009, 08:07:25 AM
I wonder if Alfred E Neuman's account has also been deleted, or if Bob will come back. It seemed too easy.
I do wonder when that book will come out.
I do wonder when that book will come out.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 28, 2009, 08:08:17 AM
Post by: Dr. Dread on July 28, 2009, 08:08:17 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 28, 2009, 08:05:59 AM
There should be at least one other:
"God" is spelled with "o" in the middle, true or false?
Heh. :D
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 08:11:36 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 08:11:36 AM
Todd, I checked that one out right at the start. AEN has an ISP in the USA. Robert's was in the UK.
I think Robert left in order to spend more time with his book, commendable really.
Mike
I think Robert left in order to spend more time with his book, commendable really.
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on July 28, 2009, 08:12:21 AM
Post by: Florestan on July 28, 2009, 08:12:21 AM
Quote from: Todd on July 28, 2009, 08:07:25 AM
I wonder if Alfred E Neuman's account has also been deleted
It has. :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Florestan on July 28, 2009, 08:14:01 AM
Post by: Florestan on July 28, 2009, 08:14:01 AM
Quote from: knight on July 28, 2009, 08:11:36 AM
I think Robert left in order to spend more time with his book
Quite right. He'll be rereading for the zillionth time his book (i.e, the only one he owns): the one by Trombetta and Banchini.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 28, 2009, 08:15:13 AM
Post by: bhodges on July 28, 2009, 08:15:13 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 28, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
Solid work fellas.
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0005.gif)
I feel like buying a round of drinks.
;D
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 08:20:09 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 08:20:09 AM
Absinthe for me Bruce, you know how it makes the heart grow fonder.
Mike
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: greg on July 28, 2009, 08:23:36 AM
Post by: greg on July 28, 2009, 08:23:36 AM
Buy some egg nog for me.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 28, 2009, 08:25:02 AM
Post by: snyprrr on July 28, 2009, 08:25:02 AM
Say it ain't so. :'(
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: snyprrr on July 28, 2009, 08:26:46 AM
Post by: snyprrr on July 28, 2009, 08:26:46 AM
Can we still take this to 100? :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidW on July 28, 2009, 08:32:39 AM
Post by: DavidW on July 28, 2009, 08:32:39 AM
How many would like to see this thread deleted in its entirety? :)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: DavidRoss on July 28, 2009, 08:42:01 AM
Post by: DavidRoss on July 28, 2009, 08:42:01 AM
Quote from: robnewman on July 28, 2009, 07:52:33 AM
David Ross,
If you had a shred of common sense, decency or honour you would agree Mozart has always been a cultural fraud, a packet of lies, designed for the gullible, fed to the fraternities, pumped in gallons to the credulous, the infiltration of musicology by hoodlums and part of the dumbing down of generations. Whose equivalent is found in banking, finance, politics and every other sphere of the modern, dumbed down society. 33 complaints later and dozens of baby pictures later this is clearer now than when we first began.
I do resign my account. Because I believe and know that others are far more worthy of truth and reality than you.
R.E. Newman
Gosh. I'm so ashamed. :-[ Now where will we turn to find "truth and reality?" I hope you all will forgive me.
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 08:43:43 AM
Post by: knight66 on July 28, 2009, 08:43:43 AM
I forgive you David.
Mike
Mike
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: bhodges on July 28, 2009, 08:49:44 AM
Post by: bhodges on July 28, 2009, 08:49:44 AM
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 28, 2009, 08:42:01 AM
Gosh. I'm so ashamed. :-[ Now where will we turn to find "truth and reality?" I hope you all will forgive me.
[John Wayne voice] "I dunno...there be some darn serious accusations there, pardner. Are you sure you aren't conspiring to conceal your true intentions?" [/John Wayne voice]
;D
--Bruce
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Herman on July 28, 2009, 08:51:54 AM
Post by: Herman on July 28, 2009, 08:51:54 AM
Quote from: O Mensch on July 28, 2009, 08:04:36 AM
Solid work fellas.
(http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0005.gif)
took a while... ;)
(http://www.turnbacktogod.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/best-baby-smile-child-12.jpg)
Title: Re: Mozart a fraud?
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 28, 2009, 09:22:21 AM
Post by: Gurn Blanston on July 28, 2009, 09:22:21 AM
OK, solid work by all. I'm going to lock this up now, I don't see a need for it any longer. I won't delete it though, if anyone wants to go back and relive it, all they have to do is hunt it up. I wouldn't feel too sorry for Robert, there are still fora out there that haven't seen the light yet, the Internet is a vast wasteland, always room for more waste... :)
8)
8)