Mozart a fraud?

[jhar26]

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' -  

//

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.

[robnewman]

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 ?

[knight66]

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

[Guido]

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.

[robnewman]

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

[Guido]

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.

[Guido]

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!

[Herman]

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.

[robnewman]

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.

[robnewman]

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 !! 

[snyprrr]

Is there no help for the widow's son?

[Brian]

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 ?

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.

[robnewman]

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  

[robnewman]

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.

[robnewman]

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

[DavidRoss]

 The only way to deal with him is to keep plugging away at the same question....  

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."

[robnewman]

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

[Brian]

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."

[snyprrr]

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.

[karlhenning]

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!