# Mozart and Mythology



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

I wanted to give this thread a sub-title, 'Mozart, Morons, and the search for intelligent life on Earth' but demythologising an icon of the stature of Mozart is thirsty work - so I decided to reduce it simply to 'Mozart and Mythology' while I make time for a cup of tea. // Pause//

Act 1

Judge (to Prisoner) - You stand accused of bringing in to disrepute one of the great iconic characters of western civilization, Wolfgang - Amadeus - Mozart. Have you anything further to say before the verdict is given ? And do you plead guilty ?

Prisoner - Has - a - crime - been - committed ?

Judge - Would you be standing here is no crime had been committed ? Slander, libel and defamation of character come to mind.

Prisoner - Oh yes, Mozart slandered, libelled and defamed many people - mostly musicians - dozens of examples in his correspondence.

Judge - I am not talking of him. But of _your _crimes.

Prisoner - Do you not mean my 'alleged' crimes ?

Judge - You are saying that Mozart had virtually no school education - that he rarely, in fact, had any music tuition, and that he did NOT compose music like taking dictation from God, yes ?

Prisoner - Yes, My Lord

Judge - And you believe students in schools should not be told that Mozart was a genius ?

Prisoner - Yes, My Lord

Judge - And that this icon of Rome and of the Holy Roman Empire was, in fact, little more than a fake ?

Prisoner - Yes, My Lord

(LOL) -COMMERCIAL BREAK -


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

*Commerical Break*

*K.525 in the background*

We present you the complete works of one of the greatest composers the world has ever seen. 

Listen to the greatest symphonies, operas and concertos written by the Genius of Wolfgang-Amadeus-Mozart

The Complete Mozart Edition
$$$$$$$$$$
Shipping+Handling charges


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Thank you Op.67 - you are refering to 'Grosse Nachtmusik' are you not ?


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

I suppose so...
Is Grosse Nacktmusik the "technically correct" name, or was it the original name of Signor.L's work?


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

I mean that virtually everything Mozart wrote is Nachtmusik and that there is so much attributed to him that we cannot call it Kleine. It is huge.

But since you are in the marketing business here's an idea. Consider how many works once attributed to Herr Mozart have been ditched from the accepted list over the last 200 years or so. You could make at least a dozen more CD's, right ? Mozart fans would love to hear them. And they'd sell well just by association with his name. Yes ?


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

What happens to the prisoner??

I can't take the suspense!!


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Yes, Leporello, I will continue with his story in the next day or so. This story begins at the end of the trial (which is unusual) but I will explain why in my next installment.

LOL


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

Can't wait. I doubt this is the first internet "soap" but Coronation Street got boring all those years ago so a new slant might be entertaining. 

Basically you've raised some issues for thought. One need look no further than today to see how celebrities' stories are glamorised, and I do know that Mozart farmed out a few symphonies...a CD booklet says as much of the 37th (I think)... so I wouldn't be the least surprised to learn ultimately that a lot of his other stuff got passed to agencies....

Common sense more than academia....Other CD inlays suggest that he spent most of his time playing, boozing and copulating, so how he could write all that music in about 30 years...well, I wish I had his energy.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Judge - Come a bit closer, so that we don't need to shout - yes, take a seat - fine !

(I wouldn't wish to judge you without first giving you a fair hearing)

Prisoner - Well, frankly, I was starting to think you didn't believe in a fair hearing

Judge - Why is that ?

Prisoner - There being no jury, for example - Just you and me

Judge - And why should that work against you ?

Prisoner - Isn't that a Inquisition ? I mean, you believe I am guilty. There is no sense of me being 'innocent till proved guilty' - you just said, for example, that I would not be standing here unless there were crimes etc.

Judge - I mean there are definitely issues that you are accountable for, whether you are guilty or not.

Prisoner - So this is NOT an inquisitorial trial ?

Judge - No, it's a trial. And, as you see (_Judge points to the court stenographer) _ records of this trial are being made and will be part of the public record

Prisoner - I see, but............

Judge - There are no buts

Prisoner - But is there the assumption of guilt ?

Judge - There is the rightful concern of the public. But as to whether you are guilty of these crimes is, well, down to me to decide

Prisoner - Crimes ? Has it been established that crimes have been committed ?

Judge - So says the public - and I serve them

Prisoner - And do you agree with them ?

Judge - I will answer that when I deliver my verdict. But for the time being, you cannot deny that you are accused of all sorts of mischief. You are specifically accused of slander, libel and defamation against Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - and there is hardly a member of the public who can speak in your favour. Unless you can defend yourself I will make my judgement here and now, so that justice will be done.

Prisoner - This is a strange court

Judge - It is no stranger than the case itself

Prisoner - It IS as strange as the case itself

Judge - It is rare, for sure

Prisoner - And you have heard enough on which to form a judgement ?

Judge - Yes

Prisoner - Then it only remains for me to ask permission to ask you yourself a question

Judge - To ask ME a question ?

Prisoner - If you can allow one to be part of these proceedings ?

Judge - It is highly unusual

Prisoner - As is the case itself my Lord

_(Judge thinks for a moment) _

Judge - Oh, very well, but make your question a simple one. We must make an end of this.

Prisoner - Thank you - In what sense are you qualified to judge this case ?

Judge - Oh, that's easy - in the sense that I am a qualified judge, and have been appointed to judge this case, under the law

Prisoner - But your answer is 'circular'. You say you are qualified to judge BECAUSE you are a 'qualified' judge. I am asking of the sense in which you are qualified.

Judge - In the legal, civic sense.

Prisoner - But the case is musical, and historical and biographical, and many other things, is it not ? Are you qualified in those senses ?

Judge - I allowed you ONE question and now you ask many

Prisoner - Then let me focus on the first of them. In what sense are you qualified to judge matters of music, history and biography in the matter of Mozart ?

Judge - I am NOT qualified in THOSE senses - and yet the people have given me authority in a legal sense

Prisoner - The same people who accuse me have given you authority in a case whose particulars you admit you are not qualified to judge.

Judge - I see no sense in this conversation. Let us break here and when we return you will summarise your defence.

///


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

I can already see that this going to be an internet saga...


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Wow, an internet saga !


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Robert, this wouldn't happen to be a screenplay you're working on, is it?


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> Robert, this wouldn't happen to be a screenplay you're working on, is it?


Not a screenplay but a draft of _The Amadeus Coda_ (specially available for TC members and others who may care to visit the site).


----------



## The Purple Wasp (Apr 19, 2007)

The next morning, the Judge found this letter on his desk :

« My Lord, 
you are looking for a traitor, aren’t you.
I am the traitor. I confess everything. 
I have never composed music for Mozart. I lied when I said I did.
I never composed anything.
It was Mozart and Haydn who have composed for me.

I am guilty. Condemn me. 
Send me to the jail or Cut my head off, as you prefer. 
Andrea Luchesi.”


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

LOL !

Mozart and Haydn both composed for Andrea Luchesi ? Brilliant !

The first problem is, of course, that the name of Andrea Luchesi was so brilliantly suppressed by texbooks for almost 200 years. (Surely the opposite of what was intended ? Such things are meant to inflate reputations and NOT to do the very opposite, yes ?). And we still wait to know from The Purple Wasp which 'Luchesi' works were composed by Haydn and Mozart. The Wasp's next post will make interesting reading, for sure.

Time to study the works of Luchesi either way, yes ? Time to admit wholesale fakery either way, yes ? Because, if the 'Luchesi Confession' is genuine you prove the very issue under dispute - that fakery was a major part of Haydn and Mozart's career. So we now have not one but TWO different theories saying the same thing.

You quote Luchesi saying _'I lied when I said I did'_. It's a small point but, in fact, Luchesi NEVER claimed at any time to have composed music for Haydn and Mozart. When did Luchesi lie about this ? Ever ?

Gee, thanks Purple Wasp.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2007)

robert newman said:


> Yes, Mozart and Haydn both composed for Andrea Luchesi ! Brilliant !


I am making a strictly relevant post to this thread.

Your statement above is right, *Mr Newman*. This is the first time I agree with you. *The Purple Wasp *is brilliant. He's only been here 5 minutes and has you fully sussed out.

I'd like to nominate *The Purple Wasp *to be a Moderator on this Forum with immediate effect.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

robert newman said:


> I wanted to give this thread a sub-title, 'Mozart, Morons, and the search for intelligent life on Earth'


Suggested alternate title for thread (apologies to the estate of the regrettably late Falco)... _"Dock-me-Amadeus"_.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Ah, very interesting. So when the other Mozart thread is threatened by management to be closed for getting onto ridiculous topics, the solution is not to discuss anything substantial, but rather to... post in a thread whose entire _raison d'etre_ is to be ridiculous? Then, no matter what is posted, it will be on topic!

Brilliant.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> Ah, very interesting. So when the other Mozart thread is threatened by management to be closed for getting onto ridiculous topics, the solution is not to discuss anything substantial, but rather to... post in a thread whose entire _raison d'etre_ is to be ridiculous? Then, no matter what is posted, it will be on topic!
> 
> Brilliant.


In fact, the worse the nonsense posted here the better it fits the criterion of being "on topic".


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Purple Wasp has suggested (jokingly) that Mozart and Haydn faked music for Luchesi. But such a suggestion insulted nobody and there IS a serious side to this thread. It's a serious matter that things widely believed of Mozart are, in fact, based on nothing but tradition. People get really angry when their core myths are cross-examined (as we see). So the thread is called 'Mozart and Mythology'. The Easter Bunny and Father Christmas are two such examples. In the case of W/A/ Mozart his life and supposed works are actually so full of faked or falsified achievements that those who defend the 'statius quo' or who claim expertise in this area can rarely admit that their basic assumptions are baseless.

It's for this reason that such simple questions as 'Is _the 'Mozart' signature on the manuscipt of the Requiem a fake _?' goes unanswered. A simple YES or NO would do. But mythmakers can't answer such a simple question.

Secondly, this thread opens AFTER a court hearing of the evidence for and against Mozart has already occurred. So we don't need to argue for weeks on this point or that. We will simply read here of the verdict on these issues from a judge.

I wonder if you will accept his verdict Mango ?


----------



## The Purple Wasp (Apr 19, 2007)

The next evening, appeared Leopold’s Ghost.

The ghost :why do you persecute my son?

The Judge : I persecute him, because I hate him.

The ghost :but why?

The Judge :because, I’ve never been able to compose any music.
(after a long silence)
as a child, I wanted to play the piano. But my mother preferred the flute. I hate the flute.
I know that your son is innocent. But I can’t help it.

And the Judge started to cry.


----------



## The Purple Wasp (Apr 19, 2007)

What a scatterbrained Wasp I am :I forgot to read you the post-scriptum of the letter !

“P.S. I’ve ceded back the works Mozart did for me to J. Myslivececk »


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2007)

robert newman said:


> .... It's a serious matter that things widely believed of Mozart are, in fact, based on nothing but tradition. People get really angry when their core myths are cross-examined (as we see).


You say these things are "widely believed". This is an under-statement. It would be far more correct to say "universally agreed based on vasts amount of published scholarship". Your opinions are so insignificant that they don't register, which is why you are grovelling around in here for your only audience.

You say people "get really angry when their core myths are cross-examined". What is irritating for sure is when an unqualified nobody is allowed endless bandwith to promulgate a baseless viewpoint, and who uses all manner of devious devices to blind the tiny few gullible idiots who appear to buy it.

Far better that you try to publish your views in a proper music journal, and that the few gullible idiots here learn their Mozart from respectable sources rather from someone like you with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. They can learn far more from a simple Google search and spending an hour or so reading the material they find there, than they would reading any of your mad twaddle over a month of Sundays.


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

Can't totally agree with that. A good amount of effort will be spent keeping the revolutionary and sceptic out of "proper" journals. Unlike science where rebels would reach respected journals if they could prove their hypotheses, history doesn't work like that. Times might come when forensics could unearth good evidence but at present we have to construct a case based on hypothesis and what evidence we have. 

So I don't imagine anyone questioning the orthodox would be published until the volume of likeminded believers forces the issue. There's really no harm in questioning the conventional if it matters to someone enough. I personally couldn't care but I accept that livelihoods and reputations are at stake so even if those forensics ultimately prove mozart's was in fact someone else's, huge efforts will be made to shut it up. If nothing else it would seriously affect Austria's tourist industry. 

Similar stiflings happened with the Dead Sea Scrolls and countless other historic issues.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2007)

Frasier said:


> Times might come when forensics could unearth good evidence but at present we have to construct a case based on hypothesis and what evidence we have.


Where did you acquire your knowledge of scientific methodology? So much for amateur speculation. You have things the wrong way round.

You don't start with a hypthesis and then find evidence to support it. The standard procedure is to find certain facts, create a theory to explain those facts, and then set up a testable hypothesis which is capable of showing the hypothesis to be inconsistet (not consistent as you say) with the theory at a pre-determined level of statistcal significance.

There is no evidence that anything like this approach has been used here by Mr Newman. Instead, a wild idea has been born out of a few scattered and inconsequential bits of history relating principally to revisions to Koechel which took place long ago. Then an elaborate myth (involving Jesuits and all) was set up to justify the half-baked theory that Mozart was a complete fraud, and which only admits certain evidence as being relevant.

I didn't elaborate too much on this methodological weakness, as I didn't want to make it too technical. Nor was it necessary to do so , as just a few well-placed questions was all that was necessary to bring the whole, very shaky, edifice tumbling down.


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

Mango said:


> Where did you acquire your knowledge of scientific methodology? So much for amateur speculation. You have things the wrong way round.
> 
> _*You don't start with a hypthesis and then find evidence to support it*_. The standard procedure is to find certain facts, create a theory to explain those facts, and then set up a testable hypothesis which is capable of showing the hypothesis to be inconsistet (not consistent as you say) with the theory at a pre-determined level of statistcal significance.


Your logic seems somewhat facile. One thinks, one collects evidence (iterating these two tasks as necessary); comes up with a hypothesis. Once one has a hypothesis one tests it (which might involve statistical method - it might not) and if it can predict whatever it aims to predict, it becomes a theory. If not, it stays a hypothesis or gets abandoned. If you don't like the word hypothesis, let's substitute supposition. Matters not a hoot to me.

I did not use the words "consistent" or "inconsistent". 
I didn't say "....start with a hypthesis and then find evidence to support it". 
Using the word "and" as a logical connective, as I did, does not imply sequence!

I made no claim about acquiring or having a "knowledge of scientific methodology". What I was using was *far* more complicated. It's called common sense since I wans't writing about scientific methodology but the naivety of imagining that an orthodoxy rebel would get published in a learned journal!

Never mind.

bye.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Frasier has 'hit the nail on the head'. Rebels against 'orthodoxy' (in whatever field they may be) have virtually no chance of being published in the modern academic world. 

It gets worse than that. Even in forums devoted (supposedly) to our specialist subject (Mozart) a person can be banned if he presents arguments that call in to question the supposed status, scale or achievements of our hero. Mozart forums exist to conserve, to teach, and to preserve a version of the composer but NOT to arrive at a version of his life and works that is sustainable. In fact, it's only recently that any real attempt has been made to discuss Mozart within the context of the times in which he lived. 

Mango says I'm guilty of having a hypothesis and building on it. But that's precisely what the Mozart 'orthodoxy' that he relies on is doing ! An 'orthodoxy' whose 'experts' are nowhere to be found. 

In certain areas of academic work we have what is called the 'fruitloop' - a version of events that is easily shown to be ridiculous but which is pumped out 'ad nauseum' by vested interests. One in which we pay lip service to a version of events or to a person which ion closer examination is easily shown to be absurd, unsustainable and even contrary to logic and common sense. Corporate news agencies on many important issues of our times are perhaps the most obvious example of this. 'Media manipulation' it's called. The absence of fair debate and accountability is its most striking feature. 

Is Mozart a special case in the pantheon of great composers ? He sure IS. That's easily proved.

Q1. In the history of western classical music which composer has had more works falsely attributed to him than any other ? Is it Chopin, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, or anyone else ? IT'S MOZART 

Q2. Has fakery, forgery, wholesale misattribution and downright misinformation ever featured in the widely accepted version of Mozart's life and career ? YES, THEY HAVE. ON A HUGE SCALE. 

We are in the case of Mozart dealing with corporate mythology. Common sense has not misled us. But corporate mythology and vested interests are no match for free, fair and honest exchanges on forums such as this. In fact, here, where discussion on musical issues is encouraged the internet is at its very worst and at its very best. Common sense, honesty, a fair attitude and our own integrity will prevail.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2007)

Frasier said:


> ... Your logic seems somewhat facile ....


I think if you look back, *Frasier*, you will find that I have not come on this forum to pick arguments with anyone but Nr Newman. I have never attacked anyone unless they have attacked me first, and if anyone has done so I have usually gone about it in a disciplined way unless they have made a particularly aggressive comment in the first place.

I have taken aim at Mr Corkin partly because he decided to have a pot at me in support of Mr Newman, and partly because of his stupendous arrogance in relation to his admiration for Beethoven, and total dismissal of all other composers (with the partial exception of Handel). I have not deliberately gone after you, for example, but merely responded to your comments about what I wrote.

You appear to think that you have a skill in smoothing over difficult debates by the exercise of your assumed better common sense than that possessed by other contributors, including mine. Actually, I find the assumptions underpinning many of your comments very irritating.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Mango, nobody is annoyed with your idea that Mozart wrote rubbish and virtually miraculous works almost side by side. Nobody is annoyed you refuse to give a straight yes or no answer to things like the fake signature on KV626, or that there are dozens of other issues you carefully avoid admitting are relevant tp establishing the real or fake career of Mozart. But it IS annoying if you personalise matters or if your posts incite bad feeling between posters. The fuss created by damaged egos on Mozart's status is truly ridiculous. 

I don't think you are crazy. But I do believe you are seriously misinformed. It's not your fault. Your views are held by most people but they are simply traditions or are based on attributions which are highly tenuous - with little or no evidence to support them. 

Maybe you can confirm Mozart, the writer of KV407 and of the introductory bars of KV444, the writer of the Singspiel 'The Impressario' of 1786 and various other works is the same person who composed the 20 great works you've recently listed here on this forum. (?).

Is it crazy to say the same person did NOT one minute write such poor stuff and yet the next write such marvellous things ? Will the REAL Mozart please stand up ??? LOL !!


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

robert newman said:


> Will the REAL Mozart please stand up ??? LOL !!


*arises*

It is I!

Hey, this thread _is_ about mythology, isn't it?


----------



## The Purple Wasp (Apr 19, 2007)

I regret what I said previously. I beg your pardon.

I’d like to be objective and bring arguments in order to substantiate Robert’s theory. 

It is an evidence that the plot went on during the twentieth century. Let me explain:

Like Mozart, Adolph Hitler was born in Austria (April 20, 1889 at Braunau am Inn). Hitler used to listen Mozart, and between the world wars he lived in Lambach, near Salzburg. It is not a coincidence, it is a fact. The annexation of Austria in 1938 is not an hypothesis of historian, it is an indisputable fact that demonstrates the Hitler’s attachment to Mozart’s country. 

Besides, Mussolini was Italian, like Luchesi. And you have probably noticed that Mussolini and Hitler were very close during the war, like Mozart and Luchesi previously. It is not a coincidence, it is a fact. Ask the Historians, if you don’t believe me.

During the World War II, Hitler, with his Italian accomplice, destroyed the last pieces of evidence of the plot. And why? He wanted to restore the Splendor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

And that is the reason why no more pieces of evidence remain of the plot today.

When Mozart killed himself in his bunker, I am sure that he was very ashamed of what he did, and of who he was.

I am also aware of the fact that many people don’t believe that Mozart died in his bunker, and that he is still alive. So, be careful!


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2007)

*The Controversy over the true musical achievements of Andrea Luchesi*

A huge new controversy has hit the musical world like a whirlwind.

New evidence shows that little known Italian composer Andrea Luchesi, Kapellmeister of Bonn (between 1771 and 1794), was a secret alcoholic, wife beater, forger, and generally one of the biggest dick-head composers of the late 18tb Century.

I would like to ask other Members if this marvellous Forum whether they aware of this amazing controversy. Yes, it's the major talking point across the musical salons of Europe. Forum after Forum is anxious for information on this devastating news. I may not be able to spend much more time with you.

Luchesi fans are up in arms and are astonished at new evidence that suggests that all or most of the music associated with the maestro was in all probability composed by the hitherto unknown student Bert Uri Moxart, known to his fellow students as "Moxy".

Having studied this subject myself, I've found this to be a hugely controversial area of research, and the truth has been suppressed by supporters of Luchesi. This evidence is based on painstaking analysis of surviving archive material, including manuscripts now at various libraries in Central North Korea and Iran. Members of this forum can, if they wish, ask me for further information and I will do my utmost to help answer all your questions.

The thesis is that the musical achievements of Luchesi are entirely fake, he being totally untrained in anything beyond first-year recorder, which he pinched from school. He was also a drunk and in constant need of drying-out. To exist he required a constant supply of works in order to sustain his reputation and to meet his onerous obligations as Kapellmeister. These facts have been concealed by the Luchesi establishment for years. Because of his job-for-life status, and the strict rules enforced by the Grand European Union of Kapellmeisters, he was unsackable.The amount of skulduggery is scandalous.

The said works were supplied by the brilliant Bonn student, Bert Uri Mozart. He was a fellow student of Ludwig van Beethoven and rumour is that the two got on very well. Unfortunately, Beethoven's personal notebook for this period has gone missing, so we have no actual record of the acquaintanceship. But this is a mere technicality as it is exceptionally unlikely that LvB would not have known about Moxy or have been unimpressed with Moxy's brilliance. We have some evidence, too, that Moxy could possibly have been the true composer of some early works attributed to Lvb. This most sensitive aspect is likely to be highly sensational once I have completed some further watermark analysis.

Now Bert Uri Moxart ("Moxy") was no slouch when it came to contracts. He was adamant at the outset that he would only compose for Luchesi on the basis of a licence that lasted for 5 years, after which all such works would return to its original rightful owner. As might expected, this factor in the dealings gave rise to some hair-raisingly complex transactions , and hence is a source of a big muddle in the paper work, but due to my clinically accurate analysis I am now able to reveal all.

The amount of fakery is a sight to be seen. The public image of Luchesi is about to be smashed. I can show Luchesi the con-man , the wife beater, the man who was utterly dependent on alcohol, and the drying out clinics run by the Jesuit Order. Yes, the Jesuits are involved too.

Unfortunately, records of "Moxy's" compositions are somewhat limited after 1791, as we have reason to believe he may have a had a nasty skiing accident. This aspect is still under very active research but we are currently having trouble in accessing the records, which the North Korean authorities are reluctant to release until the USA stops threatening to nuke them.

That these issues are based on documentary and other evidence is not in doubt. There are only one or two minor gaps in the evidence. The story is full if intrigue. The details I am now able to release - of late night drinking sessions, rollicking slap and tickle sessions, wife-beatings, gross composing deception - will provide true shock and awe. I am prepared to divulge further details if any members of this forum would be prepared to consider the case for such a viewpoint but know in advance that such things may be unacceptable to others. However, I assure you that these facts are sound and the entire musical world is talking about it.

I would like to issue a challenge to the Luchesi Establishment to come out and defend their fake hero.

Any nervous types among you are warned about the horrific things I am now able to reveal, which are hugely controversial.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

This is very interesting. Which pieces of Luchesi are we talking about ?


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Great. Can you please tell us, specifically, which pieces are being falsely attributed to Luchesi ?


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

In a recent post Mango lists 20 works he believes prove the compositional genius of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. I think the opposite. I think evidence indicates Mozart was not the composer of any of these 20 pieces.

Well, let's set aside the infamous 'Requiem' KV626 with its fake signature and its mountain of lies and irregularities by Constanze Mozart, Maximilian Stadler and Franz Sussmayr etc (since we are not likely to get any 'yes' or 'no' from 'Mozart Experts' on the importance of the forged signature on its autograph).We will focus next on another of the 20 great works that Mango selected as the test of his authenticity, this time 'Mozart's' 'Serenade for 13 woodwinds', KV 361 (also known as the 'Gran Partita'.). This, says, Mango, is an indisputably great work by Mozart. (Well, we all agree KV361 is a great musical work but NOT on Mozart being its composer.

According to Koechel this work was composed around 1780/1 by Mozart. That's the way it's portrayed almost everywhere today.

But, as usual, the casual reader gets very little information to doubt Mozart's supposed musical genius. And here, with KV361 is another example of the amazing nature of 'Mozart expertise'.

Here are the facts of the case.

In the First Edition of the Koechel catalogue (made by Ludwig Koechel himself) appears a listing for a 4 movement String Quintet and numbered there as KV46. What's so unusual about that ? Well, the 4 Movements of this piece are as follows -

1. Largo/Allegro
2. Minuet with 2 trios
3. Adagio
4. Rondo (Allegro molto)

Strangely, the above 4 movements of this String Quintet are, in fact, error filled versions of none other than Movements 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the very work now under discussion, KV361 !!!! And, as the low Kochel number indicates, Koechel himself believed this quintet was written in Mozart's boyhood.

He had reasons to believe this. They include the following -

1. Koechel knew the autograph for this 4 movement Quintet, KV46 was at that very time available for his study in the Vienna Music Verein. He even gives the library number of this autograph as being ' IX 14156'.

2. That autograph is dated. In fact, it's dated with the place of its composition also being given. 'January 25th 1768 - Salzburg'

3. Koechel therefore says KV46 was composed 'before 1770'.

Thus, according to Ludwig Koechel, 4 movements of KV361 were NOT, in fact, composed in 1780/1 (as is commonly believed) but were composed, though in a form filled with errors, in Salzburg, BEFORE 1770, fully a decade earlier.

But the 'Mozart establishment', never slow at any time to inflate the 'genius' of Mozart, has been strangely very slow in this case. As Dennis Pajot notes (and I quote) -

'It's odd that no-one has ever seemed to comment the date and place can not be historically correct, as Mozart was not in Salzburg on January 25, 1768, having been in Vienna since January 10, 1768 and remained there almost all year'

(If you pressed him Mr Pajot may also admit to the stranger fact that this same autograph is not today sufficient reason for modern editors of the Koechel catalogue to attribute KV46 to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. In fact 'experts' want us to ignore KV46 altogether. WHY ?

Let's temporarily leave that question to one side as we move on quickly to another point.

In Berlin at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - in the 'Preußischer Kulturbesitz' section (reference 15424/1) is a copy of this very same String Quintet, KV46. It was given to the library by the famous music manuscript collector Alloys Fuchs. And this copy contains a heading written in an unknown hand that reads, 'Quintet in Bb Major" - followed by Fuch's own handwritten note that it's scored "for 2 violins, 2 violas and cello, composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in Salzburg on 25, January 1768. NB. Coped from the original score in Mozart's own handwriting, Vienna 1834".

We even have a third copy of KV46 made by Ludwig Koechel himself from the original. Today it's in the very same library in Berlin. This too is without doubt a copy of 15424/1 and it even carries a note from Ludwig Koechel himself saying, 'the autograph of this piece is in the Archive of the Vienna Musik Verein".

Great. So we have what seems to be abundant and plain documentary evidence that Mozart composed 4 movements of KV361 fully a decade BEFORE KV361.

In that case (we really must ask ourselves) WHY IS IT THAT TODAY, IN THE KOECHEL CATALOGUE, KV46 IS SAID TO BE 'SPURIOUS' ????

(We know KV361 was published first 10 years after Mozart's death).

KV46 was quickly realized to be a big problem. So the Mozart establishment decided to backtrack and to bury the piece altogether. We have statements such as this by Otto Jahn -

"Considerable doubt still exists on the subject of a quintet in B flat major, which, according to Köchel's unimpeachable authority is preserved in Mozart's boyish handwriting in the archives of the Austrian Musikverein; it has many corrections, and the date appended, in a strange hand certainly, but coinciding with the composition, is 'd. 25 Januar 1768'. This quintet, for two violins, two tenors, and violoncello, contains the four principal movements (omitting the second minuet, the romance, and the variations) of the grand serenade for wind instruments belonging to the year 1780 (K. 361); the substance is here in its integrity, with only the necessary alterations to adapt it for strings. 
Close examination leaves hardly any doubt that the composition was originally intended for wind instruments; finer effects are produced in the serenade, and are obviously not interpolated; the quintet betrays itself as an arrangement by evident efforts to bring out given effects. Accordingly the serenade must be considered also as a very early work, and the omission of the three movements in the quintet affords no reason for ascribing them to a different period. Nevertheless, the conception and workmanship of these movements, and the scientific mastery of the art therein displayed, belong to the maturity of manhood, and make it difficult to give credence to the handwriting of the manuscript rather than to this internal evidence".

But researchers such as Georges de Saint-Foix wrote "We do not know what to think about all this - because, as we have said, Mozart would have been absolutely incapable of composing or even of conceiving [at that age] ANY of the pieces of the present serenade, one of the most grandiose which was written".

By the 3rd edition of Koechel it was nevertheless decided to remove the strange Quintet KV46 from the main catalogue. It became a non-piece. The editor at that time (Einstein) now tells us THE MANUSCRIPT OF KV 46 (WHICH HAS BEEN REMOVED AND IS NOW BEING KEPT AT THE GESELLSCHAFT DER MUSIKFREUNDE IN VIENNA) HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH WOLFGANG AMADEUS MOZART. !!!!

So strange are these manipulations that he admits, 'it's one of the great incomprehensibilities of Mozart research'. YES, IT CERTAINLY IS. BUT IT'S YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE FAKERY, EXAGGERATIONS AND DOWNRIGHT FRAUDULENT NATURE OF WHAT IS WIDELY SAID, TAUGHT AND BELIEVED OF MOZART'S COMPOSITIONAL CAREER.

I hold that view that these are further examples of the fakery and deception that was involved in creating the iconic status of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

What about the rest of the article you're citing, though? There's a part at the end of that particular piece, which states the following:

_Daniel L. Leeson and David Whitwell examined the Quintet and wrote of it in an article in the 1976/77 Mozart-Jahrbuch. They found that the manuscript thought by Köchel and others to be a Mozart autograph is not (a photo of the first page is included in the Jahrbuch). They conclude this string quintet arrangement is an arrangement of a Traeg score for 8 wind instruments of the same four movements of K361. This "Parthia" was advertised by Traeg on August 11, 1792. Thus K46 is "an arrangement of an arrangement". Leeson/Whitwell can not account for the January 25, 1768 dating on the manuscript. They say this about the "autograph" issue of K46:

"...we see that Fuchs erred when he saw the score he thought to be in Mozart's hand. Köchel, in not wishing to contradict him, saw in the manuscript that which he wished to see: Mozart's boyish handwriting. Nottebohm and Joachim chose not to contradict Köchel (Jahn says that Köchel's authority is 'umimpeachable'). None of these men deliberately deceived us. We believe their mistake to be an honest one. If in this area, we were privileged to see further than they, it is only because we had their shoulders to stand upon"._

Based on this, it doesn't seem as clear as you say it is that Mozart had anything at all to do with KV 46. Indeed, the crucial hinging date of January 25, 1768, is not written in by Mozart, and the fact that the Otto Jahn quote you give calls it a "strange hand" suggests it is not in Leopold's hand either. Even so, I don't see how you jump from this 1768 date to the conclusion that the piece is faked. Since Mozart wasn't in Salzburg on the date in question, and since the handwriting is not Mozart's (or Leopold's, I'm assuming), it seems all the _more_ reason to discount the importance of this copy of KV 46 altogether, and to just assume that KV 46 is connected to someone who did poor research about Mozart, or someone who simply didn't have that information available -- information such as the fact that Mozart wasn't even in Salzburg on January 25, 1768.

Apparently, Leeson and Whitwell had reason to believe that KV 46 is an arrangement unconnected to Mozart, in fact stemming from this arrangement done by Traeg. Now, I know you might claim that this Traeg story is simply an excuse to cover up another "fakery" of Mozart, but it seems that Leeson and Whitwell think it realistic that KV 46 is related to this arrangement by Traeg. Presumably there are valid musical reasons for this conclusion. Have you actually examined Traeg's arrangement and compared it to KV 46, to see if their conclusion is probable or improbable?


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Yes Leporello, you are addressing all the right issues. Let's expand this issue to include the views of people like Leeson and Whitwell. Let's even consider this Traeg issue. Let's examine this issue as broadly and as specifically as possible. I'm completely in favour of such an approach.

But let me first quote a few things you've written (just to emphasise them). You write -

1. _'It doesn't seem as clear as you say it is that Mozart had anything at all to do with KV 46'_

Well, Ludwig Koechel (who knew rather more of Mozart manuscripts than Dan Leeson or most other Mozart researchers) attributes KV 46 to Mozart in the 1st Edition of the Koechel catalogue, yes ? Leeson and others say he was mistaken to do so. Yes ?

If the original MS of KV46 is truly by Mozart then, obviously, it should be today included in the Koechel catalogue. But if that MS is NOT by Mozart then, obviously it should not. Since these things are obvious we can ask this -

WHY THEN DOES THE MANUSCRIPT OF KV46 CONTAIN MOZART'S NAME, DATE AND PLACE WHERE HE FINISHED IT ?

You may agree Leporello that if this manuscript is NOT Mozartean somebody has attempted to fake a musical manuscript and did so for reasons that must be established before Ludwig Koechel, the first editor of the Koechel catalogue, came in to contact with it. Yes ? WHY ?

Secondly,

If the specific date, name of the composer, and location is faked why would a faker have gone to the trouble of doing this ?

Leeson and Whitwell do not even tackle this issue. They merely convince themselves that this manuscript is NOT in Mozart's hand. They differ, in fact, on this issue, from Ludwig Koechel.

But there is a solution to this that makes perfect sense. Let me suggest it as follows -

1. This manuscript (KV46) contains music - 4 movements that are today part of KV361 that is so advanced (despite its multiple errors) that various researchers have been amazed by it. True ?

2. George de Saint-Fox writes of KV46 (and his opinion is surely as relevant as Leeson's or anyone else's) - _'We do not know what to think about all this - because, as we have said, Mozart would have been absolutely incapable of composing or even of conceiving [at that age] ANY of the pieces of the present serenade, one of the most grandiose which was written'_

In my opinion (and we see there are several) this piece, KV46, is NOT a manuscript from Salzburg of 25th January 1768 but is, in fact, A MANUSCRIPT WRITTEN BY WOLFGANG AMADEUS MOZART AROUND THE VERY TIME THAT HE IS TRADITIONALLY SAID TO HAVE COMPOSED KV361 - I.E. AROUND 1780/1.

This error filled document of KV46 bears a fake date, a fake attribution to Mozart, and a fake place of origin BECAUSE IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THOSE WHO WERE CREATING THE MYTH OF MOZART TO PROVIDE 'EVIDENCE' THAT HE (RATHER THAN ANYONE ELSE) WAS ITS TRUE CREATOR. This is why the name of Mozart, the Salzburg origin and the date were added.

Here, in short, is the true Mozart once again. The man who wrote the slow introduction to KV444. The man whose 'Impressario' calls in to question his real compositional ability. And the man who is today falsely being attributed with a work, KV361 that he never, actually, composed. But it was (as seems to be agreed) Traeg who actually created KV361 in the form we know today.

Are we to believe that Traeg was the creator of this error filled manuscript ? No. But Traeg, I believe, transformed/corrected this very manuscript of KV46, had 3 extra movements added to it and allowed it to be portrayed as a 'Mozart' work, KV361 - this finally being published after Mozart's death.

So, if we reject KV46 as a Mozart document we must explain or at least offer a solution for these and many other matters related to its content. These ARE explained by first appreciating that the date IS fake, that the attribution to Mozart was made for a reason obviously connected with that fake, and that KV46 is filled with errors because its writer was NOT Traeg but a minor composer who, for reasons that must be explained, could do no better. THAT MINOR COMPOSER WAS MOZART - and in KV 46 Mozart was attempting to make a version of an already existing piece BY EAR - the same as he is credited (falsely) by tradition with successfully doing at the Sistine Chapel. - Mozart the faker.

I could add a great deal to this but that is the outline of my opinion on this matter. May I ask what your view is of the date, the Salzburg origin and the attribution of KV46 to Mozart ? In short, do you believe KV46 is a fake ?


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Robert,

I assumed that this was the stance you were going to take; namely that Traeg is the true composer of KV 361. While this _might _ explain the strange 1768 date on KV 46, I think this interpretation of events raises several other questions. Here are some responses to your points:



robert newman said:


> Well, Ludwig Koechel (who knew rather more of Mozart manuscripts than Dan Leeson or most other Mozart researchers) attributes KV 46 to Mozart in the 1st Edition of the Koechel catalogue, yes ? Leeson and others say he was mistaken to do so. Yes ?


You and I both know that Ludwig Koechel was not infallible and made no shortage of errors (hardly the least of which was a decision to do a chronological catalog in the first place). The number of changes that have been made to the catalog since its first edition testify to this. This was the same catalog that believed a below mediocre Michael Haydn piece to be a work of Mozart from 1783, yes?



> In my opinion (and we see there are several) this piece, KV46, is NOT a manuscript from Salzburg of 25th January 1768 but is, in fact, A MANUSCRIPT WRITTEN BY WOLFGANG AMADEUS MOZART AROUND THE VERY TIME THAT HE IS TRADITIONALLY SAID TO HAVE COMPOSED KV361 - I.E. AROUND 1780/1.


I knew we were coming to this. But you know my question: is there any proof for this, in terms of paper analysis, etc? In fact, it seems that there is some decisive evidence *against* this claim. The cited article speaks of "boyish handwriting." Mozart's musical hand as an adult is famously neat, and yet it seems that the writing on KV 46 is quite messy. If this quintet arrangements dates from Mozart's adult years, what explains the mysterious deterioration in handwriting quality?



> This error filled document of KV46 bears a fake date, a fake attribution to Mozart, and a fake place of origin BECAUSE IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THOSE WHO WERE CREATING THE MYTH OF MOZART TO PROVIDE 'EVIDENCE' THAT HE (RATHER THAN ANYONE ELSE) WAS ITS TRUE CREATOR. This is why the name of Mozart, the Salzburg origin and the date were added.


Once again-- any evidence, or is this just a creative guess? First of all, let's suppose someone did exactly what you claim; namly, have evidence that KV 361 should be associated with Mozart. You may agree, in that case, that whoever did this did a very poor job of it. First: why put the date 1768, which seems obviously misleading? Why not choose a date in the early 1780's? Next: if you want to protect Mozart's reputation, why choose a piece which, as you say, is _filled with errors_? There are plenty of Mozart pieces that don't have surviving autographs, and yet we believe that they are written by him -- even if our first source for such pieces dates from the 19th century, from Breitkopf and Hartel, for instance! So there's no harm in destroying this copy, as the publishers alone would've propagated the "myth" that KV 361 is a work of Mozart. The copy doesn't help that along at all. In fact, precisely because of the errors, it detracts from the goal at hand. I am still unconvinced that this copy does anything at all to "guarantee" to posterity that Mozart composed KV 361. This seems like a huge jump to make.



> Are we to believe that Traeg was the creator of this error filled manuscript ? No. But Traeg, I believe, transformed/corrected this very manuscript of KV46, had 3 extra movements added to it and allowed it to be portrayed as a 'Mozart' work, KV361 - this finally being published after Mozart's death.


You knew this was coming, I'm sure. What great works do we have by Traeg that are on the level of KV 361? Is there any reason to believe he had the ability to compose a work of this high quality?



> THAT MINOR COMPOSER WAS MOZART - and in KV 46 Mozart was attempting to make a version of an already existing piece BY EAR - the same as he is credited (falsely) by tradition with successfully doing at the Sistine Chapel. - Mozart the faker.


Where did this come from? It's not as though Mozart and Traeg were strangers. Why should Mozart have had to write down anything by ear? Surely, Traeg would have supplied Mozart with a score, yes?

So, to sum up, it comes down to the following questions which, I believe, are unanswered, thus far:

(1) Traeg's ability to compose works of high quality, such as KV 361, needs to be established.

(2) The reason for keeping this error-filled KV 46 copy and writing a fake date needs to be established, as the explanation you wrote above doesn't quite ring true, and doesn't seem to be at all substantiated.

(3) If the KV 46 copy dates from 1780-1, as you claim, how can you explain the "boyish handwriting" (apparently agreed to by Koechel, based on his 'before 1770' date for KV 46)?

Thanks.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Sorry, I think something got botched at the end, and I posted a bit too quickly. It looks like the assertion is actually that Mozart heard this piece somewhere, and tried to write it down, and did so poorly? And then Traeg came along and made a superior arrangement of this, for winds?

Even in that case, the story doesn't check, as previous research done seems to indicate that KV 361 is the original version and KV 46 is the arrangement. You seem to be suggesting the exact opposite, but does that make sense in the music?


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

No, Leporello. I am not saying Traeg was the composer of KV361. Let me make that clear from the very start.

I am saying that Traeg took KV46 and created from it (KV46) that version of another composer's music which is today known as KV361. I am further suggesting KV46 is a document written by Mozart, not in 1768 but in 1780/1. This very document was used by Traeg to create KV361 soon afterwards. A further 3 movements were added at the time when KV361 was finally created. I am also suggesting Mozart had aural access to the 4 movement work on which KV46 is created. And that later the fake name, attribution and false place of origin was added to this manuscript called KV46 - to give the false impression that the young Mozart of Salzburg was its composer.

Over time it was realised that KV46 must be made to 'disappear'. Leeson and other Mozart literati must (and have) argued that the handwriting on KV46 is NOT that of Mozart when, in fact, they surely know very well such a claim was never made by those who first studied it and who even copied it, men such as Ludwig Koechel, Saint-Fox or by Aloys Fuchs. Not one of these 3 men called the Mozartean writing in to question. And yet Leeson and others have achieved fame and favour with the Mozarteum for having relieved them of a real problem. Note that Leeson has nothing to say on the date we find on KV46. Or of its supposed place of origin. Surely he owes us some remark on this most important matter ? Why does he not have anything to say on this ? But that would require him and his 'expert' colleagues to admit that fakery has been involved. And when (if I may be so bold) did Dan Leeson become an expert on Mozart's musical handwriting ? Fakery can NEVER be allowed to enter in to the hallowed halls of 'learned' Mozart studies. The piece is therefore dropped from Koechel's 3rd edition with Leeson and others later adding their seal of approval on the new idea that the handwriting is not Mozart's from any period of his life - and the matter has rarely been discussed ever since. It's certainly not well known.

But you did not really answer my question and I am keen you offer an opinion if you can. Let me repeat it -

_Is KV46 a fake ?_

You suggest _'Mozart's hand as an adult is famously neat'._ Well, no, not really. There are many examples of Mozart's musical handwriting NOT being neat. (It's extremely easy to be a neat musical handwriter if you have in front of you a manuscript virtually written for you. That often happened. But not in this case). Secondly, there are many examples of Mozart's boyish handwriting and KV46 (as said) was accepted as genuine by the first 3 researchers who studied it.

You ask why anyone should have placed a Salzburg date of 1768 on KV46 (rather than 1780/1). The answer to this may be, simply, that in 1780/1 it would have been impossible or very risky for Mozart to have claimed he was its true composer. So KV46 'became' Mozart' at a later date - at the time when the fake date and its fake attribution was made. We find a similar case in KV626 with its fake date ('1792') and its fake 'Mozart' signature. So I really must press you on this. Is KV46 a fake ? What do you tbink ?

The piece is filled with errors. But there are various other works from Mozart's mature years that are filled with musical errors. Copies so bad we wonder how anyone could have made them. Of 'Mozart' works.

That is why I suggest KV46 was created by Mozart as the result of him attempting to write down the piece at a time when he had the chance to hear it being repeatedly performed - but NOT at a time when he had access to it in a documentary form. This can explain why KV46 is so full of errors. It is precisely what we know for sure occurred with Mozart's 'miraculous'writing down of the sacred work he heard (twice) in Rome during his visit there. Once again the precedent is before us. That manuscript disappeared too although it too was riddled with musical mistakes. Mozart attempted to write down the work that became KV46. And KV46 became (with the later help of Herr Traeg) KV361. This is why KV46 'became' Mozart'. It's also why KV361 'became' Mozart.

Traeg could not supply Mozart with the score because Traeg did not in 1780/1 have any access to it. Nor did Mozart. Had either of them had access to the score there would not have been the document we today know as KV46.

So KV46 had to be 'buried'. And that is exactly what has happened. The whole case is described as a 'mystery' of Mozart research when, in fact, it's a rather obvious example of fakery and forgery, though of a special kind.

Who WAS the true composer of the music that finally became KV46 ? I do not know. But dozens of examples of works from the period of KV46 are, in plain fact, by other composers. In this particular case the attempt is even made to fake an early Salzburgian provenance for the work.

In reply to your final 3 points -

1. Traeg did not need 'great compositional ability'. He was not the composer of either KV46 or KV361. He was, in fact, the arranger of that work which we today know as KV361.

2. The reason for keeping the error filled KV46 is that it 'proved' (e.g. it 'proved' to Koechel and others) that KV361 was a work begun by the boy Mozart in Salzburg, 10 years before KV361 - a story that added to the supposed compositional achievements of Mozart and which was believed to be genuine at the vital time when Mozart's iconic status was being created - a falsehood that served its purpose UNTIL it was realised that such a lie was unsustainable. That is, from 1801 onwards. The myth of the boyhood KV46 was strong enough to fool Ludwig Koechel well in to the mid-19th century.

3. The 'boyish' handwriting found on KV46 (and dating, I suggest) from 1780/1 should be compared to Mozart's handwriting at all periods of his lifetime. For, one thing is surely beyond dispute, the manuscript is riddled with musical errors. It's also well known that 'Mozart's' handwriting varies considerably throughout his entire professional career. And if KV46 is not by Mozart should we not fairly concede, at the very least, that there was an early faker operating to inflate the supposed achievements of Mozart - a faker who fooled Koechel and others ?

p.s. Your most recent post has just appeared so let me try to deal with it.

a) Yes, the story that is today fashionable is that KV46 is an arrangement of KV361. But Leporello, if that is really the truth (and excuse me using capitals to empahsise it) THEN, BY DEFINITION, KV46 WAS CREATED AS SUGGESTED, IN 1780/1, YES ? Consider the implications of that please.

b) KV46 (as said) was created with its fake date being added to give a false provenance to the piece.

c) The 'boyish handwriting' of KV46 begs closer study of Mozart's musical handwriting at all periods of his supposed career.

Rgds


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Yeah, I realized what you were saying there after I wrote the post -- namely, about Traeg not being the composer. I posted that a little too quickly, sorry about that. I do realize that you're not saying that, although, I'm of course interested in who the "true" composer is. In any case, I will go over your latest post soon. Thanks.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

If you, Leporello, say 'It is I' when the REAL Mozart is asked to stand up that is one thing. But the fact that you stand saying, 'Hey, this thread is about mythology, isn't it' allows us only one way in which your action can be truthfully resolved - that you, the REAL Mozart, are an admitted myth. Sir, I congratulate you on your honesty ! Honest confession is good for the soul. LOL !


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

A few points on KV 46 and KV 361:

As you mention, the handwriting issue needs further study. Based on facsimiles I have seen, as well as manuscripts in a couple museums, Mozart's handwriting as a child was quite different from his handwriting as an adult, and it stands to reason this should be the case. So, obviously getting a better handle on this is very important. I'd also prefer stronger analysis of the manuscript paper. Is the paper on which KV 46 is written shared by other Mozart manuscripts from this period, or is it from a completely random source unconnected to the supply of paper Mozart was known to be using at the time?

As this stands now, the story you've proposed to explain the existence of KV 46 is still quite speculative. Again, we have a series of facts, which can be arranged into a few different "stories", and the story you find most plausible points, once more, towards Mozart fakery. But there's a lot to prove here still. One issue:



> That is why I suggest KV46 was created by Mozart as the result of him attempting to write down the piece at a time when he had the chance to hear it being repeatedly performed - but NOT at a time when he had access to it in a documentary form. This can explain why KV46 is so full of errors.


Since you say Mozart must've heard it "repeatedly", I am assuming you don't believe the common story of a superb musical memory which retains an entire work of music at the first hearing. However, is it likely Mozart would have had the chance to hear a piece repeatedly? Not many pieces in the 18th century, other than operas, were performed repeatedly, and it doesn't seem like a serenade or divertimento -- pieces very often intended for entertainment music or a specific event, such as a wedding or graduation -- would be the sort of piece that would enjoy multiple performances.

Of course, it's possible that the "original version of KV 361" that Mozart allegedly heard and wrote down wasn't a serenade or divertimento at all, but simply some other 4-movement work, maybe even a symphony -- although that seems suspect, in light of how comfortable this piece is in its woodwind form.

In any case, to substantiate the case that Mozart repeatedly heard such a piece of music and wrote it down, a few obvious points require evidence. Obviously, for at least movements 1, 2, 3 and 7 of KV 361 it must be clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this is the music of another composer, through all possible means of evidence. (The time frame makes it difficult. If Mozart heard the piece being performed, it was likely a recent composition, so a composition date of 1781 doesn't prove one way or the other if it's Mozart or someone else. ) Possibly, the piece will be in a form other than a string quintet or harmoniemusik, but it most somehow exist and clearly belong to another composer.

If Mozart heard this work in performance, ideally, the record of a performance of this work would be found (perhaps multiple such records, if Mozart indeed heard this piece "repeatedly"). The performance(s) would've had to occur at a place and time coinciding with Mozart's presence, and it would've been the type of performance that Mozart could realistically have attended over and over, or even once.

Once these points are addressed, then I can give you my opinion on the question "is KV 46 a fake?", but not before. I simply do not know enough about this piece (having not even seen the score!) to say one way or the other.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

I really appreciate what you say and agree with much of what you write. But are we in a position to at least say that the date on KV46 is fabricated ? Or is this still (in your view) speculative ?

p.s. You are aware, of course, of the Mozart letter that was altered by Constanze Mozart (made during the time of her second marriage to Nissen and after Mozart's death) in which Constanze describes the performance of music at Mozart's wedding to Constanze ? (Marriage date of 4th Auigust 1782 in Vienna). The music described by Constanze has in the past being suggested as being KV361 though Leeson and others have shown that this passage has been falsely added by Constanze.

That music for winds WAS performed at Mozart's wedding (though not by Mozart) is one reason why Constanze may have falsely refered to it as having been composed by her husband. Certainly the date of the marriage is about right. It's around this time when KV361 first appears. So here is one performance of wind music that Mozart may indeed have heard publicly at the festivities for his own wedding and liked - music that the performers would have been already perfomring repeatedly around town. Such things are well known practices of Vienna wind ensembles of the time and such groups of musicians are refered to even in the Mozart correspondence.

I do not dogmatically say the music performed at Mozart's wedding must be the source of KV46. But an explanation of that kind makes sense, I think.

Anyway, that KV46 has its origin around roughly the same time as KV361 and not 10 years earlier seems to be already the considered view of Leeson and others. I agree with that aspect of their theory. If KV 46 is derived from music being already performed around Vienna in the early 1780's (which certainly makes more sense than the Salzburg myth) may account for the errors in that manuscript. KV46 may indeed be an attempt by Mozart to write down an already existing work being performed for hin at a party simply byhim repeatedly hearing it from hired wind players. Whether KV46 was written when Mozart was drunk (rather than being a boy in Salzburg, for example. That too may have been a factor in the 'youthful' handwriting.

That encores of entire movements were common with publicly performed wind music in Vienna at this time is well known. People hired these musicians to repeat entire movements and, again, we have Mozart correspondence to this effect.

That Mozart has wrongly been attributed lots of wind music from just this time in his career is a fact already widely known. What better example than the following article -

_Mozart's 'Spurious' Wind Octets 
Daniel N. Leeson, David Whitwell
Music & Letters, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Oct., 1972), pp. 377-399_

The Divertimento in E Flat (wind octet) is one such example. (K.Anh.C 17.01) This piece is 'Mozartean' in style though it has no connection with Mozart at all. Yet it was published in 1801 as 'Mozart' by B&H in 1801 - the very same year and by the very same publisher as KV361.

Rgds


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Robert, thanks for your reply. I don't have much time for a really long post right now, but these are the first thoughts that leap into my head in response to your latest post:

(1) The date appears to be fabricated, because it is in a "strange hand" (i.e. presumably not Wolfgang's or Leopold's, neither of which would be dubbed "strange"), and because of the incompatibility of the location (Salzburg) and the date (January 25, 1768). However, the following facts are not clear to me: (a) who wrote this, (b) when it was written, and (c) why it was written.

(2) I'm not sure Leeson is saying that KV 46 truly dates from the same time as KV 361. Based on what I've read, he seemed to assert that KV 46 was an arrangement done from the wind version of KV 361 that Traeg released in 1792, which at least suggests a post-1792 date for KV 46. Is there other material on this that I've missed which says otherwise? As I briefly mentioned earlier, a study of the paper used might be helpful with this part.

(3) Thanks for mentioning the repeated performance question I brought up, although this was really more of a side point in my post. Still, the scenario you depict seems plausible to me, in terms of wandering wind bands.

(4) On your last note, about the other wind octets. It makes sense that B&H would've published all this "Mozart" harmoniemusik together in 1801. The fact that some of those works are probably spurious is not sufficient to prove that KV 361 is also spurious. By the way, the specific piece you mention, KV Anh. C. 17.01, I would call "mildly Mozartean" at best, probably. It's a charming work, and certain melodies sound slightly like Mozart, but other parts are completely banal, and the scale is entirely different (this piece is probably 1/3 the length of KV 361). In short, it is not the high quality work that KV 361 is, or even KV 375 and 388. So I personally would be wary about lumping these two works together and giving them the same fate in terms of authorship.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

I agree we've more or less surveyed all the important issues on KV361 and KV46. We seem to agree the date on KV46 has been fabricated etc. 

We agree that paper studies may be vital. And now, surely, it can be established whether this paper is from 1768, the early 1780's or around 1792. 

What cannot be changed is the fact that KV46 was attributed to W.A. Mozart. There is in my view no logical reason for those 4 movements to be attributed to the 10 year old Mozart in Salzburg on a specific day other than attempted deception. 

I again agree that handwriting studies may be further evidence and I will try to find details of any analysis that has been done on the music and handwriting style of KV46. 

Thanks for this exchange.


----------



## zlya (Apr 9, 2007)

Robert Newman, have you tried to get this evidence of yours published in an academic journal? Have you been rejected by any? Did they give you a reason?


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2007)

zlya said:


> Robert Newman, have you tried to get this evidence of yours published in an academic journal? Have you been rejected by any? Did they give you a reason?


I would like to join you in asking this question. Can we have your clearest answer, please, Mr Newman?

I have been asking this same question for the past month. I must have asked it about half a dozen times, very clearly and specifically, on the closed thread. Indeed, it was the main question that I have been asking, all the rest being window dressing as, perforce, I tried to handle all manner of devious or non-responses.

Do you know, zlya, that there is one apologist Senior Member here - who writes all over this Forum - who thinks that it is perfectly normal that academic music journals might not wish to publish such "evidence", in view of the novelty and contentiousness of this subject. What do you think of that? See if you can spot that Senior Member?

That matter aside, consider the discussion immediately above about K46 and K361. I have absolutely no time for such trivia, and I shouldn't think that 99.999% of Forum members aren't either. This detailed stuff is purely for academic journals. If Mr Newman were to set out his views on such issues, and was able to get it published, you can be assured that he would be ripped to pieces by proper technical experts. He knows that, so it suits him to keep all this bunk out of journals.

All this is so obvious, but I can't resist pointing it out.

So, let's all focus on this single issue: Why, Mr Newman, have you not published any of this stuff in proper academic journals?. Just keep focused on this point and don't let him wriggle off onto some other topic. You can be assured that he will. That's why the closed thread was 27 pages of evasive nonsense.


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

zlya said:


> Robert Newman, have you tried to get this evidence of yours published in an academic journal? Have you been rejected by any? Did they give you a reason?


I've already raised this too. It's fairly obvious that no academic journal is likely to publish views/evidence or whatever that run contrary to the orthodoxy.

Simple when you think about it - academies are built on dogma and reinforce the orthodoxy. Reputations of the academy, its professors, funders etc are at stake. So if anything, Mr Newman would have to publish in a renegade journal, or compile his work into a book then hope to find a publisher to take it on - cold, that's difficult because publishers, even the alternative press, have to consider their repuation too. With the right promotion it might work.

No way will this stuff get into a learned journal until the weight of evidence/pressure is sufficient that it can no longer be avoided. Historic matters are particular victims. Dismissal of alternative views has happened time and again even in the face of compelling evidence. Considerable effort is usually made to shut rebels up rather than risk giving them voice.

Ok?


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2007)

zlya said:


> Robert Newman, have you tried to get this evidence of yours published in an academic journal? Have you been rejected by any? Did they give you a reason?





Frasier said:


> I've already raised this too. It's fairly obvious that no academic journal is likely to publish views/evidence or whatever that run contrary to the orthodoxy.
> 
> Simple when you think about it - academies are built on dogma and reinforce the orthodoxy. Reputations of the academy, its professors, funders etc are at stake. So if anything, Mr Newman would have to publish in a renegade journal, or compile his work into a book then hope to find a publisher to take it on - cold, that's difficult because publishers, even the alternative press, have to consider their repuation too. With the right promotion it might work.
> 
> ...


Let's see Mr Newman's answers to the simple questions raised by zyla. Here they are again:

1. Has he tried to get this evidence of his published in an academic journal?

2. Has it been rejected by any?

3. Did they give him a reason?​
Three simple questions for you, Mr Newman.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Three simple answers - 

1. NO
2.NO
3. NOT APPLIOABLE

And here are 3 detailed answers to the same questions - 

1. It would be a huge task to describe, even in rough detail, the scale of the case against Mozart's grossly exaggerated musical status. A single researcher could spend his entire life amassing evidence that challenged his huge status in the musical world - and still not be able to collate his findings in to a readable and useful form. The task is huge. No, I don't consider that more than a fraction of the necessary work has yet been done to make such a work possible. It's certainly possible to write a quite sensational smaller book even at this stage focusing on particular aspects of Mozart's life and career - but no doubt such a work would be condemned for 'not dealing with things in detai' or for 'failing to discuss other important issues' etcl. The ability of people to believe tradition and myth is truly remarkable. 

The view that Mozart's musical career was faked and exaggerated at virtually every single stage is of course easily stated. Far more difficult to wriite a work that does justice to the sheer mass of already available evidence in support of it. And what of areas that have not as yet had detailed study made on them - e.g. numerous stage works, piano concertos., etc ? 

No. I think these issues are already in the public domain thanks to pioneering research by people such as Professors Taboga, Bianchini, Trombetta, South, and others. But, again, there is so much still to be done before any claim can be made that the case has been fully and fairly represented in print. 

I know msyelf that literally hundreds of anomalies exist in the area of Mozart's supposed life and career which, collectively, justify serious study and wider appreciation. But I do not assume a publisher would be willing to publish a book at this time. 

I have lots and lots of notes on isuch ssues never discussed here or anywhere else online. So do others. Far too many to dismiss so easily. So, at present, perhaps the best approach is to freely share these things openly and to have them discussed openly as work continues to make the whole picture more clear. 

2. Nobody has rejected any manuscript of mine on Mozart for publication. None has any manuscript yet been completed. You'll appreciate my willngmess to freely post on these issues takes up time. This in itself has made a proposed biography (which I began making notes for years ago) less feasible and not more so. But I can see a time coming (perhaps in a few years) where a collaborative work on Mozart will appear in print. Before that time arrives these issues will be far more familiar to the music loving public. It's the public who, of course, can judge these issues. 

3. N/A


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2007)

Mr Newman

Thank you for your very clear and honest answers to the questions above.

I hope I don't have the same trouble in regard to my campaign to promote "Moxy". But then I have rocket-propulsion fuel to assist me, indisputable evidence, and am bound to succeed.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

My pleasure. 

I think you should at least be awarded membership of the Order of the Golden Spur for your great services to music. In special cases this can be awarded even though the recipient has done virtually nothing of musical significance. The illustrious names of a certain Georg Vogler and even of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart come to mind. So you are in good company.


----------



## zlya (Apr 9, 2007)

Ok, so Professors Taboga, Bianchini, Trombetta, South, and others have published work on this issue. That would seem to suggest that some academic journals are willing to print unorthodox views. 

I really think that people would be much more willing to believe and trust your evidence if it were coming from a reputable source, i.e. a journal or book. If your goal is to make this available to a wider audience than the traditional music journal readership, you could try posting the articles online after they are published. I know I'm much more willing to trust something I find online if it has a paper publication date as well. If you yourself are not willing or able to write such articles, perhaps you should try to help make the articles written by the professors you mention more widely available.

Also, you seem to think that if you can't write everything, you can't write anything. I'm sure that's not the case. Why don't you try writing up some of your more specific theories, perhaps the one dealing with KV46, and see if you can get that published? If not, at least you'll get some feedback from the academic journals and then you'll know where to go from there.

I think it's silly to give up without trying, because you assume they won't be interested in unorthodoxy, as Frasier seems to suggest you should do.

You must be frustrated at the reception you are getting at this forum (I know I would be). The internet is notorious for conspiracy theories, so anything drastically different from the norm runs the risk of being classified as such. If you can get your ideas into paper form, I think you'll have more success getting people to listen to you.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Actually, I'm perfectly happy to publish short posts online about the fake career of Mozart. This prevents the subject being buried in dusty academic journals far from wider/general appreciation. It makes it public. It makes it possible for fair minded people to see the quality of the arguments, their scale, significance and also, of course the sort of responses such things bring. Above all, oublic forums bring in to focus issues that would otherwise never be discussed. It openly challenges myths and exaggerations. And it counteracts 'wall to wall' Mozart as an iconic object of musical worship. All these benefits are derived from the simple public exchange of views on Mozart and his mythical career. Experts and amateurs alike can see such things for themselves and can form their own considered judgement.

I am perfectly happy with reactions to such posts. I believe people are not quite so foolish as 'experts' suppose. Some people believe insults and personal attacks will successfully stop these matters being widely known. Others shake their heads and can't believe their hero was a fake. Still others are genuinely interested to know of the scale of fakery, forgery and exaggeration that was involved in the creation of Mozart's iconic status. 

Not that I think your post is patronising. Not at all. You mean well. But we live in a world where knowledge is so compartmentalised that entire academic disciplines often have little contact with others. The chemist rarely talks to the physicist, and vice versa. The oxygen of publicity is a good thing. It exposes fools and it establishes reality. So I choose it, I prefer it, to learned journals. Besides, the world is full of 'experts' who disagree with one another on basic things. Better to see these things in detail and also in context. 

So, thank you for your goodwill. I offer mine in return. Let things speak for themselves and we will all be wiser. 

Regards


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Stupid question it may be, but you speak mainly about Mozart. Does it means there is no evidence concerning Haydn?


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Handel said:


> Stupid question it may be, but you speak mainly about Mozart. Does it means there is no evidence concerning Haydn?


Ah Handel, sticking up for Haydn, I see


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> Ah Handel, sticking up for Haydn, I see


Of course. Haydn is my man.  And I think my question has legitimacy since Robert mentioned that Luchesi composed for Haydn and that I didn't see evidence for that.

Haydn commissioned minor works to younger composers (eg. a set of menuets by Eybler). But if Luchesi composed the London symphonies, he composed too the previous symphonies (88-92) and Paris symphonies since they all have the same style.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Handel said:


> But if Luchesi composed the London symphonies, he composed too the previous symphonies (88-92) and Paris symphonies since they all have the same style.


Most likely Haydn picked them up from Luchesi while passing through Bonn, en route to London.


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> Most likely Haydn picked them up from Luchesi while passing through Bonn, en route to London.


All twelve?

But what about the previous symphonies who were composed before 1790 and who sounds exactly like London symphonies?


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Handel said:


> All twelve?
> 
> But what about the previous symphonies who were composed before 1790 and who sounds exactly like London symphonies?


I guess those could've been delivered...gee, I don't know. I still very much count myself amongst the skeptics here -- though I will be honest, I feel less badly about Haydn being a fake than Mozart. (Sorry, Handel!)

I guess we'll see what Robert's ideas are on this. If I remember correctly, all or most of the "Haydn" symphonies in the Modena file are before No. 82?


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> I guess those could've been delivered...gee, I don't know. I still very much count myself amongst the skeptics here -- though I will be honest, I feel less badly about Haydn being a fake than Mozart. (Sorry, Handel!)
> 
> I guess we'll see what Robert's ideas are on this. If I remember correctly, all or most of the "Haydn" symphonies in the Modena file are before No. 82?


I forgot those before # 82 (before the great commissions to comte d'Ogny 82-87 and 90-92, the 2 sold to a Paris editor 88-89 and the London symphonies). They were composed for Esterhazy court (except 76-77-78 intended for british market). More than 60 of hs 104 symphonies were composed between 1757 and 1774. I'm sure a few of them are not from him, especially the early ones. But I doubt there is a fraud about his later one.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Although there are obviously some similarities (to be expected since Mozart and Haydn were close friends), to my ear, late Haydn sounds completely different from late Mozart -- in general, certainly, but even terms of just the symphonies. Lately, I've been listening quite a bit to both composers' symphonies, trying to hear if it makes sense as written by one composer. I have to admit, I haven't gotten far with that so far.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

Before this latest theme denegerates into an even bigger farce, let it be known that:

1. Mr Newman has not an ounce of credibility because he has never published anything on this subject in his life. In other words, he has never once applied the market test to any of his wild theories. He could, in priniciple, so easily have focused on a single issue which he thought was a good one and attempted to write a proper article. If he had gained even a tiny reputation in this manner I would have been far more inclined to listen to him. In fact, I bet that I wouldn't have been alone, as there would have been a demand from the market for him to supply more such revelations. OK, it may have been a daunting task for one amateur individual to meet this demand, but other interested researchers would have probably joined in. After a while, if the allegations contained any perceived validity, then a further airing of the issues in places like this might have been useful. 

2. Yes, it's true that one or two others have published the odd allegation or two about Mozart, but they have generally been in very obscure, off topic, journals. Take the Taboga article. I think you will find it appeared in some mathematical conference paper, and in order to get it published it was necessaary to waffle on initially about something completely different from the main allegation concerning fakery by Mozart. 

3. It's also true that none of these other papers has stimulated wider interest. As Mr Newman confesses, they have largely remained stuck in dusty journals collecting cobwebs. This shows that the opinions have no marketable value. In my estimation, that means they are rubbish, which indeed they are.

4. This latest twist about Haydn has been discussed here before. Another former member (Sinfonia Espansiva, I recall) asked various questions about the allegations, got a series of typically unsatisfactory and unconvincing answers, and then cleared off. This kind of thing has happened a lot here, namely sensible people being so astonished at the vulgar audacity of these allegations that eventually they clear off completely, leaving for far more sophisticated musical discussion elsewhere, where rubbish like this is banned because of its manifest nonsensical nature. 

5. Mr Newman relies on newcomers who haven't bothered to read all, or even any, of the previous material. This is quite apparent from some of the recent questioning. There isn't one worthwhile aspect of these ludicrous claims that hasn't been discussed and debated in some depth before.

6. Personally, I would find it far more acceptable - and much less an object of derision - if Mr Newman made his claims a lot more modest, and tailored to the highly limited evidence he thinks he has. But he hasn't. He has gone to the other extreme and claims that virtually the whole of Mozart's and Haydn's careers were fakes. It's this which is patently absurd.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

But Mango, you are currently running a thread that aims to debunk Luchesi's 'reputation' are you not ?

It seems to me little short of hypocrisy that you are guility of the very thing I am accused of. 

First, there was no composer called 'Moxy' and nor has Luchesi had any compositional reputation to overthrow during all of your lifetime. The things you write are plain silly and various people have already pointed this out to you. 

Regarding your claim that I have published nothing on Mozart - I have taken my time (many years) before writing at length on Mozart on various online forums. Freely and openly. Accountability matters to me. So does fact. 

Sinfonia espansiva was a respectful music lover who asked for, and received, details of various 'Haydn' manuscripts at Modena. And other information. His attitude was respectful throughout. But he can speak for himself. Nothing said to him was wrong and he was very interested to learn about these issues. At no time did he insult me nor I him. 

The only' patent absurdity' is the huge scale of myth that surrounds Mozart's career and status - myth that was used to elevate him and keep him at a status that is bogus.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

robert newman said:


> Regarding your claim that I have published nothing on Mozart - I have taken my time (many years) before writing at length on Mozart on various online forums. Freely and openly. Accountability matters to me. So does fact.
> 
> ..........
> 
> The only' patent absurdity' is the huge scale of myth that surrounds Mozart's career and status - myth that was used to elevate him and keep him at a status that is bogus.


Here you go again. More half-truths and pure assertion. The only material you have written on online forums has always been the subject of huge derision. And this in the very short term timescales before you were unceremoniously dumped for peddling nonsense and providing insulting comments to known experts. For example, you turned up here last October, as a pariah, after being banned by CMG days before that after only a few weeks posting.

You've had so much time here that it must have exceeded your wildest dreams. I can see why you are trying to hang on, since there is no place else to go to. And yet all you've done here is give us a string of devious replies, or rubbish ones like Maria von Paradis (for whom virtually no musical records remain) being the composer of all or most of Mozart's Piano Concertos. How you have the sheer audacity to come to a place like this and utter such total nonsense defies belief. And yet there are odd people here who seem prepared to listen to you.

Why don't you take the advice given by several here to "put up or shut up", i.e try to get your views published. If it's too big a task for you to present all, then just pick on one bit you feel happy with. We'll then see what happens.

I have already asked you a string of questions that are far more intelligent than all the babbling nonsense, or puerile one-liners, of many (not all) other members here, and you haven't answered any to my satisfaction. They are all entirly vacuous or devious.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

The 'insulting comments' made to 'experts' was to challenge one person to produce evidence for his fairy story that Mozart was commissioned to write a Requiem in 1791. The 'expert' failed to produce any evidence whatsoever. It was laughable. For ruffling the feathers of such an 'expert' I was banned.

Show me please a single example of insulting any expert on Mozart. I have never done so. It is only when stupid comments are made of me that I will respond angrily. But I do not insult experts. I applaud them. An expert is a person who knows his subject and who admits that he does not know nearly as much as he./she should.

i will happily focus on the 'Mozart' piano concertos. A story that begins with Concertos 1,2, 3 and 4 still today regarded as 'Mozart' concertos, though, in fact, they are nothing but pastiches of music by other composers - a fact never admitted by Mozart or his father at any time during their entire careers. In fact, the true composer of some of the music contained within these concertos is recorded as being very angry with the Mozart plagiarism.

There is a track record of sleeze, exaggeration and deception in each and every category of music attributed today to W.A. Mozart. The piano concertos are no exception.

As for Von Paradis, I am seriously considering focusing on the 'Mozart' concertos later this year. May I suggest you do your homework on them if you want to defend the reputation of Mozart ? I say this because I have recently received some extraordinary information about the career of von Paradis and have been made aware of evidence of many of the 'Mozart' piano concertos that will show, beyond reasonable doubt, that Theresia von Paradis was their true composer. But I am not currently able to put all this information together. *I repeat that this newly obtained information is completely consistent with von Paradis being the true composer of most of the 23 'Mozart' piano concertos.*


----------



## Morigan (Oct 16, 2006)

Has anyone besides Mr Newman read Taboga's paper? This man is truly mad. His only objective is to promote an "Italian agenda" in the history of music... His assertions are wild. Let me quote his conclusion :



> Therefore we should consider the Wiener Klassik as a whole italian phenomenon. The famous idiot Haydn28 didn't compose any symphony, and those which are still registered in his name are Sammartini's and Luchesi's; the high masses and the oratori aren't his as well. We have discovered seventy works which aren't his and this witnesses that Mozart is still a common name29. His best symphonies have to be ascribed to Luchesi; Beethoven could become a genius of music thanks to the long and accurate teaching he received in Bonn from the Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi.


The full text can be found HERE .


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Morigan, yes, that paper is certainly not very good. It definitely seems like a biased rant from an Italian against all German music, not to mention the ridiculous "theorems" which are articulated. (As someone with mathematical training, I take particular offense to Taboga's use of that word!) The translation also does not seem that felicitous. In that paper, it does seem like scholarship takes a second place to just putting forth a "mad" theory for the sake of it, and providing only scant evidence.

However, it is supposedly the case that this paper you've linked is not actually the sum total of Taboga's argument and research. There is another (much longer) paper by Taboga which, as I understand it, goes into full detail into analyzing these manuscripts, and it's in that paper where the substance of this argument truly lies. The "damnatio personae" paper seems to be more of a vengeful summary than a real paper.

I've actually been in short correspondence with Taboga, and he has agreed to mail me a translation of his longer paper. As I understand it, this paper is the crux of whatever evidence Taboga claims to have, and for me at least, this paper will probably make or break the deal.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

I split your last post into two sections:



robert newman said:


> The 'insulting comments' made to 'experts' was to challenge one person to produce evidence for his fairy story that Mozart was commissioned to write a Requiem in 1791. The 'expert' failed to produce any evidence whatsoever. It was laughable. For ruffling the feathers of such an 'expert' I was banned. Show me please a single example of insulting any expert on Mozart. I have never done so. It is only when stupid comments are made of me that I will respond angrily. But I do not insult experts. I applaud them. An expert is a person who knows his subject and who admits that he does not know nearly as much as he./she should.


As you well know, all or most of your postings on CMG last Summer were scrapped upon your banning in September. Thus, it is more than a little difficult for me to reply to your request. But you know very well what I mean. There, you met a real expert or two and you were in your element trying to get some kudos from the association, until Admin rumbled you and you got banned for arguing the toss without sufficient evidence.



> I will happily focus on the 'Mozart' piano concertos. A story that begins with Concertos 1,2, 3 and 4 still today regarded as 'Mozart' concertos, though, in fact, they are nothing but pastiches of music by other composers - a fact never admitted by Mozart or his father at any time during their entire careers. In fact, the true composer of some of the music contained within these concertos is recorded as being very angry with the Mozart plagiarism.
> 
> There is a track record of sleeze, exaggeration and deception in each and every category of music attributed today to W.A. Mozart. The piano concertos are no exception.
> 
> As for Von Paradis, I am seriously considering focusing on the 'Mozart' concertos later this year. May I suggest you do your homework on them if you want to defend the reputation of Mozart ? I say this because I have recently received some extraordinary information about the career of von Paradis and have been made aware of evidence of many of the 'Mozart' piano concertos that will show, beyond reasonable doubt, that Theresia von Paradis was their true composer. *But I am not currently able to put all this information together. *I repeat that this newly obtained information is completely consistent with von Paradis being the true composer of most of the 23 'Mozart'piano concertos.


See the penultimate sentence in particular. What a laugh. You now admit you have no evidence. This is exactly what I have been saying all along, exactly that, no more and no less. The same applies to all your other crazy allegations.

You operate on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence and hunch merely because it fits your warped views on the situation. And you make strong assertions because that's the only way you know how to operate. Thanks for the admission at last. I suggest you are now a completely spent force as a result of this admission.

I further suggest it's time for you to pack your bags, go off and do some decent research, try to get it published and come back in due course to tell us all about it. If you can get any of this stuff about Maria von Paradis (being the true composer of many famous Mozart PCs) published in a reputable journal - and assuming it's not rubbished by proper experts - I promise I will apologise for everything I've said here and repent a thousand times over. That's a real promise. I'm 100% sure you won't get anywhere at all.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

Morigan said:


> Has anyone besides Mr Newman read Taboga's paper? This man is truly mad. His only objective is to promote an "Italian agenda" in the history of music... His assertions are wild.


Thankyou, Morigan. I certainly had read this paper. It is jibberish. It's a crude attempt to promote Italian composing. This is the kind of rubbish that Mr Newman relies upon. There are some other papers by a few other colleagues of Mr Newman, which are equally jibberish. Incidentally, have you seen the "Italian Opera" website where the so-called evidence from Modena material is set out. It's a nut-house. Watch out you don't get a virus.

Everything I have written in the Moxy thread thus far has a direct counterpart in the Newman story. For example, guess who the mad N Korean Professor of Nuclear Fission equates to? And note the seeming irrelevancies about how to assemble a piece of flat-pack furniture with badly translated Korean gobble-de-**** English. Note how Beethoven's diary in relation to his knowledge of Moxy has gone missing. Note too how much other vital evidence has all disappeared. More will be revealed soon on the "Moxy" thread. Keep watching.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Mango, 

I find your attitude tiring and frankly boring. You have contributed absolutely nothing in your 'defence' of Mozart other than to remind us that you are a typical 'Mozartean'. 

Today I posted to say that I have received new (and remarkable) information about the 'Mozart' piano concertos and also about the career of Theresia von Paradis. This information is consistent with my assertion that she, von Paradis, is the true composer of MANY (though by no means all) the piano concertos of the mature Mozart. This you instantly rubbish. As usual. 

Let me remind you (once again) that up until now I have NOT studied the 'Mozart' concertos in real detail. I have said this (twice) here on this forum. I now say it for a third time. Hopefully this time you will actually digest what I am saying. 

I repeat that I have had no time to study this information in detail. But I say again (also for the 3rd time) that if you want to defend the attribution of these works to Mozart I will be in a position to do this by the end of this year. I've also suggested that you do your homework before that time. How about accepting the challenge ? Right here on this forum ? 

For those who wonder why it takes so long to write of this subject if the evidence is so interesting/relevant let me briefly describe its nature. You will then see the sense in me taking my time. I offer the following -

1. I have obtained details from a 19th century published source on blind musicians in which the career of von Paradis is discussed. Not in great depth. But in sufficient detail to be of real significance. Amongst the information it provides is a brief description of how von Paradis developed a unique system of recording her own musical works by embossing certain symbols on paper. We know for certain von Paradis DID record her own many compositions in this way (though virtually all of them are today lost). And this new source of information also speaks in general terms about HOW her system of musical notation actually worked. That information was never before available to me. It can be shown to apply to what we know of the manuscripts of the mature 'Mozart' concertos.

2. The fact that specific works by von Paradis are 'lost' (in some cases giving the key of the lost work etc) we can be certain that a record exists somewhere. How else can we know its key ? So I wish to find the source for the list of her acknowledged works. That list may of course be very incomplete. Again, I suspect that the list we see today of her compositions is very incomplete. 

3. Von Paradis was for some time the greatest musical attraction in Paris. She also performed concertos in England and was the first person to develop a system of music able to be read by blind people. We know also who helped to design and build the device that she used to record her works. And we now know the outline of her method. 

All of this (and more) needs to be closely studied. But there IS a vital new discovery. I now understand the principle of the von Paradis system. I am surprised it's a system we find evidence for in the case of a certain composer from Salzburg whom she met and had professional association with - W.A. Mozart. We know that only 7 Mozart concertos were published during his lifetime. These I will give special attention to. We also know that after Mozart's death (at Offenbach and other places) Nannerl Mozart was involved in other concertos arriving at their published form with Andre and others. 

So there you are. Please do not accuse me of running from anything. 

As to your comments on Prof. Taboga - you have read very little of what he has written or what Prof Bianchini or Prof Trombetta or what anyone associated with them has written. Italian Opera is NOT a nationalistic website. In fact, it has sections on composers of vritually every nationality. Sp why do you spread such falsehoods ? The website certainly emphasises the Italian legacy in music which is, after all, greater than any other. But that too is completely fair. 

Please learn to read things more carefully. Otherwise we will think you are nothing more than the average Mozart fan - grossly misinformed and drowning in the most silly myths.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

robert newman said:


> Please learn to read things more carefully. Otherwise we will think you are nothing more than the average Mozart fan - grossly misinformed and drowning in the most silly myths.


After your pointless rant above, let me give you a bit of advice.

I have absolutely nothing against you doing your research on Mozart and coming up with whatever conclusions you may reach. You can conclude whatever you like. But don't ask me to engage with you in a detailed debate on the minutiae of your allegations and findings. This is not the way things are done.

What you have to do is to present your analysis and conclusions to proper experts on the subject. Let them examine it and give a verdict. I am not an expert on Mozart, and have never pretended to be. I probably know far more about Mozart's life and works than a typical classical music fan, but that is as far as it goes. In particular, I have no wish to delve into the same highly obscure documents as you do, as I probably would not understand a lot of it. And in any case, I have far more interesting useful things to do with my time over the next 6 months

Let me further explain that my philosophy - in most areas areas of my knowledge - is to base my opinions on the accepted wisdom of respectable, qualified experts. I do not take much if any notice of people like you. This is simply because you have absolutely no street cred. You are nothing more than a mysterious, unqualified internet chatter who babbles on a lot about Mozart. Why should I, or anyone else, believe a word of what you say? What are your qualifications? You are 99% pure assertion, and you have caved in several times when under real pressure.

So this is the deal. You do your research. Then try to get it published. Expose it to proper experts. Then, in the light of your allegations and their response, we will all come back in 6 months time and discuss how you got on. This is the approach I proposed earlier, but you obviously find this to be extremely difficult because you know very well that you will not be able to get your views published. Isnt that the case?

Let me be specific: *Are you prepared to submit your analysis of the von Paradis files , which you say you have or will have, for publication later this year? Do please tell us.*


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Mango,

I must laugh where you write -

_'I do not take much if any notice of people like you'. _

Will you forgive this forum for thinking that you take a great deal of notice of me ? That you post repeatedly in reply to me ?

But you are right in one sense since you clearly do not digest what you read.

Now, in answer to your specific request -

*Are you prepared to submit your analysis of the von Paradis files , which you say you have or will have, for publication later this year? Do please tell us.*

Absolutely, and right here on this forum.

But no, I will not submit it to any journal. Let your 'experts' read what others read. Then things will be done in broad daylight.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

robert newman said:


> Mango,
> 
> Now, in answer to your specific request -
> 
> ...


You say: *I will not submit it to any journal.*

You must be joking if you think you can get away with this.

Why not? Please tell us exactly what you are afraid of, apart from being scared out of your wits as you are fully exposed.

I, for one, won't be here to discuss anything with you unless you have at least tried to submit your results for publication. This is what any normal person would expect, although I accept there are few here who apparently are prepared to accept far less.

It sounds like a neat, self-contained topic, so your earlier excuses - of there being too much ground to cover - don't apply. You must be really lacking in confidence.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

'Scared out of my wits' - LOL !

How about this idea. I choose to read and write as I please rather than have it chosen for me. 

Does that make sense to you ?

I have a suggestion for you. Why can't you avoid writing here and send your posts to a journal yourself ? Do as you please Mango. Either way you're arleady a public figure who is rescuing the reputation of W.A. Mozart from criticism. Isn't that your role ? I just happen to prefer writing things on Mozart and his fake career that are available to those who don't nornally have access to academic journals. You don't have to read them or make any comment on them. Sounds reasonable to me. What do you say ?


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Since there is 'more to follow' I will exercise my right not to read it. Thanks.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Mango, doesn't this post belong in the "Controversy over the true musical achievements of Andrea Luchesi" thread, rather than this thread?


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> Mango, doesn't this post belong in the "Controversy over the true musical achievements of Andrea Luchesi" thread, rather than this thread?


Yep. Thanks. Now moved.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> Mango, doesn't this post belong in the "Controversy over the true musical achievements of Andrea Luchesi" thread, rather than this thread?





robert newman said:


> 'Scared out of my wits' - LOL !
> 
> How about this idea. I choose to read and write as I please rather than have it chosen for me.
> 
> ...


I wonder why?

If you like to write for those who don't normally read journals, why do you criticise experts for not engaging you in proper debate? Surely you don't really expect experts to come to places like this and debate with the likes of you, a complete unknown with no credentials of any description.

The normal way to debate such issues is through publication of some sort in a respectable journal, or book. Otherwise you are just blabbering on, talking largely to a bunch of amateurs, who can't possibly match your knowledge, however screwed up it may be.

Sorry but your position is completely hopeless.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Well Mango, I'm not completely unknown. I've been reading/taking notes and commenting on this subject for more than 10 years. 'Respectable journals' are those which never allow the bigger picture to be examined. And, as to my knowledge being 'screwed up' there are plenty of people with knowledge out there. Besides, the general public rarely get a chance to engage on these issues. All these reasons make public forums a great way to discuss these issues. After all, what the public believe is so often the result of being wrongly taught, by supposed 'experts'. Better that they can form their own considered views.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2007)

robert newman said:


> Well Mango, I'm not completely unknown. I've been reading/taking notes and commenting on this subject for more than 10 years. 'Respectable journals' are those which never allow the bigger picture to be examined. And, as to my knowledge being 'screwed up' there are plenty of people with knowledge out there. Besides, the general public rarely get a chance to engage on these issues. All these reasons make public forums a great way to discuss these issues. After all, what the public believe is so often the result of being wrongly taught, by supposed 'experts'. Better that they can form their own considered views.


That you are really screwed up in your thinking is clear from this reply.

Your whole philosophy about music is based on the notion of there being one big conspiracy operating throughout most of the second half of the 18th century, all focused on manufacturing the careers of two of history's most famous composers, Haydn and Mozart.

If this were true, it would be one of the biggest contricks in western civilisation. Apart from its inherent implausibility, what makes it so utterly ridiculous is that this alleged fakery (on the vast scale you allege it to have taken place) has only recently been discovered by the likes of you and a few others. Things don't work like that, Mr Newman. Major revisions to the existing body of thought in most subjects don't take two centuries to mature, and they don't result from amateur scribblings by the likes of you, lurking behind closed doors in internet forums.

Furthermore, you now admit - after persistent questioning - that all this alleged fakery is so unlikely to be listened to in the normal music journals, that you intend to rely exclusively on Music Message Boards such as this one to disseminate your message. This is perhaps the biggest laugh of all. Soon it will just be you and I "discussing" this, and I hardly think you are ever likely to persuade me; at least, not unless I receive a nasty bang on the head and finish up in some asylum.

Sadly for you, Mr Newman, there is a growing tally of your weird views for which you admit a complete lack any evidence. The list grows daily. Whether such fundamental weaknesses are extracted nicely (by Leporello) or by more direct questioning from me, you are losing very badly. Time for you to pack up? I think so. Come back in 6 months and we'll see what you've achieved.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2007)

Frasier said:


> Not true. Mr Newman is trying to present his evidence.


You said yesterday you wouldn't be contributing further to *any* part of this discussion, or did I misunderstand you? What changed your mind?

Since you boast your amateur status, could I ask you for any qualifications you may have in amateurism? I mean, do you have any recognised qualification, or are you relying merely on the manifest excellence in which you practise it here.

For example, asking for advice from other amateurs what is the best Magic Flute is about as amateurish as you can get, as the Web is full of far more reliable advice on the subject. This is just a tip, which I hope you find useful.

Thank you so much.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2007)

Frasier said:


> I don't want to go into cloistered existences here ......


I have never criticised amateurs here. I'm trying to focus my comments and questions on so-called "experts" who spout critical rubbish about Mozart and Haydn. That's all there is to it, OK? People like you make it difficult by constantly intefering with irrelevant questions, either to me or to Mr Newman.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

*~ A Brief Interruption from our Sponsors ~*

If I remember correctly, it was just a handful of days ago that the original Mozart controversy/mythology thread was shut down by management, largely because of a conversation that spiraled out of control. That conversation, if you recall, was strikingly similar to this one which is now gearing up.

This thread is entitled "Mozart and Mythology", not "Mango, Frasier, and Mythology."

So... Mozart, anyone?


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

I have no wish to get into this kind of nonsense so I'll delete all my posts on this thread. Some people need telling, though.

I've deleted all I can. Editing posts earlier than the current date isn't allowed for some reason.


----------



## Daniel (Jul 11, 2004)

Come on!
Why did this kind of conversation happen again? It should be possible to keep peace without insulting other members and to respect any mind.
If this happens again in any thread, the thread will be closed without any warning.

Kind regards,
Daniel


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2007)

Daniel said:


> Come on!
> Why did this kind of conversation happen again? It should be possible to keep peace without insulting other members and to respect any mind.
> If this happens again in any thread, the thread will be closed without any warning.
> 
> ...


Well, Daniel, as is perfectly clear, Frasier has removed all of his four slanderous posts of earlier today. They clearly breached Forum Rules as they were highly insulting and harrassing. He knows that perfectly well, after he thought about it, and that is why he has removed them.

I haven't amended or removed any of mine, as they were clearly within the rules. I know how to control myself; some others don't.

I have kept a copy of the slanderous posts. They are pretty bad. On most previous Forums in which I have participated these four posts would have occasioned an instant ban.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2007)

robert newman said:


> Well Mango, I'm not completely unknown. I've been reading/taking notes and commenting on this subject for more than 10 years. 'Respectable journals' are those which never allow the bigger picture to be examined. And, as to my knowledge being 'screwed up' there are plenty of people with knowledge out there. Besides, the general public rarely get a chance to engage on these issues. All these reasons make public forums a great way to discuss these issues. After all, what the public believe is so often the result of being wrongly taught, by supposed 'experts'. Better that they can form their own considered views.


Mr Newman, thank you.

Before you depart, here are some further comments for you to consider:

1. I have noticed that when the going gets tough you refer us to the (few) published works of your colleagues. Lately, you mentioned, for example, Taboga's article (as referenced by Morigan yesterday). If anyone hasn't read this document, I suggest they do so as assuredly they will find it most unconvincing. I've also read some material by other co-researchers to which you refer, and although it's far better written than Taboga's article, it's still very much in the sphere of pure assertion with no real evidence.

2.	The key thing is that these colleagues of yours have at least tried to go about the process of proving their case in the proper way. They have actually found journal-type outlets for their views (albeit very obscure ones) and let the professional musical world consider them. However, as far as I am aware, these views and the evidence presented have largely fallen flat on their face, being deemed largely if not wholly baseless by the experts.

3.	As you have now explained, you prefer not to publish. Given this, I wonder what your colleagues (if you still have any) think of your clearly failed alternative antics in playing about on Music Boards like this. Are they embarrased and concerned that your efforts are causing more harm than any possible good for their cause? It must be pretty worrying for them to be associated with an individual who has been banned by a string of major Music Forums, and who is constantly getting into deep trouble over the continual non-availability of decent answers, and your refusal to attempt to publish.

4.	In truth, there isn't the slightest sign that any of your activity over the past few years has produced a worthwhile payoff. All that you have possibly achieved is the drawing of attention to various anomalies in the original Koechel index, and some later problem areas, which facts nobody disputes. Mozart wrote so much material, much of it as mere child and teenager, that it's hardly surprising that controversy at one time surrounded some works. But to turn this into the huge blown-up fantasy - alleging that Mozart and Haydn wrote nothing of significance - is grotesque, and is a pure figment of your imagination. I reckon you will never prove your case to a majority, as time is ticking away, and in any event I'm quite sure that people generally are gradually losing interest in that whole era of music and moving forward in time.


----------



## Daniel (Jul 11, 2004)

Mango said:


> Well, Daniel, as is perfectly clear, Frasier has removed all of his four slanderous posts of earlier today. They clearly breached Forum Rules as they were highly insulting and harrassing. He knows that perfectly well, after he thought about it, and that is why he has removed them.
> 
> I haven't amended or removed any of mine, as they were clearly within the rules. I know how to control myself; some others don't.
> 
> I have kept a copy of the slanderous posts. They are pretty bad. On most previous Forums in which I have participated these four posts would have occasioned an instant ban.


Mango,

Actually there is no need to keep such posts, because I can view any deleted posts anyway.

I would really like to hope to live without any bans, but if things go on that way, bans have seriously to be considered; bans to whom are left open in this case, and it is not your job to think about them, Mango. This public place should no longer be spread with personal attacks. This is adressed to everyone. Please use the PM-function, because I am sure, the other members don't want to follow these debates any longer.

Thank you,
Daniel


----------

