Mozart a fraud?

[Herman]

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.

[robnewman]

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.

[robnewman]

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.

[Florestan]

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?

[Herman]

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.

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.

[robnewman]

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


//

[robnewman]

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

[Florestan]

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.

[robnewman]

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.


//

[robnewman]

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.

[Herman]

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.

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.

[greg]

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.

Stop answering questions with questions.

[Florestan]

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.

[robnewman]

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.

[robnewman]

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.

[Scarpia]

"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.

[robnewman]

"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.

[Opus106]

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.

[robnewman]

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 ?

[Holly]

Herman, earlier today your advice to me was:

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?