Mozart a fraud?

[robnewman]

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.

[karlhenning]

. . . 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:)

[robnewman]

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.

[karlhenning]

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 )

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

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.

[Josquin des Prez]

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.

[DavidW]

You cannot name a single book which questions in any detail the myth of his life and career because they do not exist.

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.

[robnewman]

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.

[robnewman]

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.

[robnewman]

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 !

[bwv 1080]

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?

[robnewman]

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

[greg]

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!

That's so hilarious, Karl. 

[not edward]

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 ?

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!

[Cato]

 0:)     0:)      0:)      0:)      0:)     Waiting....     0:)      0:)       0:)       0:)       0:)

[snyprrr]

Just a marker to keep track of the pages.

[Herman]

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.

[Florestan]

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?

[Herman]

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.

[robnewman]

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.

[robnewman]

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 ?