Mozart a fraud?

[DavidRoss]

Though 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.

[robnewman]

--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.

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.  

[karlhenning]

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!

[karlhenning]

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.

[robnewman]

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.

[Herman]

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).

[robnewman]

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 ?

[Franco]

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.

[DavidRoss]

I consider this post value added, and on-topic. BTW.

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.

[robnewman]

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 ?

[karlhenning]

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.

A 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

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!

[robnewman]

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.

[DavidRoss]

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).

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.  

[robnewman]

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.

[karlhenning]

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!

[karlhenning]

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!

[bwv 1080]

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?

[Dr. Dread]

I'll go check.

[robnewman]

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.

[Franco]

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.