# The Controversy over the true musical achievements of Haydn and Mozart



## robert newman

Hello there ! I'm a new member of the Forum and would like to ask other Members if they are aware of the huge controversy now surrounding claims that many works by Haydn and Mozart were, in fact, written for them by a string of other composers - a central person involved in this affair being the Kapellmeister of Bonn (between 1771 and 1794), the little known Italian composer Andrea Luchesi. 

Having studied and written on this subject myself I've found this to be a hugely controversial area of research, focusing on many aspects of music history but also on still surviving archive material, including manuscripts now at the Estense Library, Modena and also in other collections. 

The thesis is that the musical achievements of both Haydn and also Mozart were hugely inflated by the supply to them of many, many works of which they were not the true composer, this including (in the case of Mozart) a whole series of works which he claims to have written himself in Vienna and which he had entered in to his thematic catalogue. 

So far reaching are these views that they constitute a highly controversial area of research. I wonder if 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. 

That these issues are based on documentary and other evidence is not in doubt. That they are correctly interpreted is the issue. 

I am currently working on a long-term biography of Mozart which will feature some of these claims ('Mozart and the Late Holy Roman Empire') as well as involved in discussions on the possible production of a documentary programme on the same. In addition, I have been a student of Mozart for the better part of 20 years and a regular contributor to various forums on music of the late 18th century. Similar views on Mozart's career are now held by several researchers though, of course, they are bitterly resisted by tradition and by most other authors on the subject. 

Best wishes


----------



## Hexameron

I see Mr. Newman PI you're up to your old tricks again. But you know... it's just not the same without Peter or Rod offering rebuttals.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Hexameron, 

The two men you refer to are rather ignorant of the life and works of Mozart, specialising, as they do, in the life and works of Beethoven. 

As to being 'up to my old tricks again' I am more than happy to ignore such provocation and use music forums such as this to encourage conversation on the musical achievements (real or supposed) of Mozart, this being my aim among those whose attitudes and knowledge is surely more worthy of appreciation than your own. 

R.E. Newman


----------



## robert newman

Until quite recently the iconic status of Haydn and Mozart within the landscape of western classical music seemed entirely justified to be compared with two great mountains - these two composers, combined with the life and career of Ludwig van Beethoven, being said to justify an entire 'school' of composition (known to musicology) as the 'First Vienna School'. This year, 2006, is virtually 'wall to wall Mozart', for example. And the reputations of these 3 composers seems (at least) to be based on facts so solid and so often demonstrated that little could ever challenge such a view of things. 

But facts are stubbon things. In spite of a truly vast mountain of 'Mozartean' literature (and much less so on Haydn) there are good grounds to call in to question many of the most basic assumptions on the life and career of first Haydn and, later, WA Mozart. 

That is to say, that, in fact, many works currently attributed to both Haydn and to Mozart (appearing till today in catalogues of both these composers) can be shown by documentary and other evidence not to have been composed by them. Indeed, that the available evidence (from manuscipts, watermarks, circumstantial and other sources) are so suggestive of manipulation and error that a contrary view has emerged on the true musical achievements of both Haydn and Mozart. 

That works by the young Mozart were not, in fact, his own compositions (being often pastiches by others, arrangements made by his father Leopold with the assistance of his sister etc) has long been known. That a great number of symphonies and masses by Haydn were not, in fact, of Haydn's composition, is also an inescaptable fact. And, though such things may contradict the iconic status of both composers they are truths that justify a fair and honest appreciation of their scale. 

This I and other researchers have tried to do in the past few years. 

There is, today, a great deal of evidence that the life and career of Mozart was, to a very large extent 'manufactured' - in the sense that at each and every stage of his life Mozart was receiving from others (for reasons that must be argued) musical works for which he took the credit but which, in fact, he never composed. And this on a scale so massive that, naturally, a collision must (and to some extent already has) occurred with traditionalists. 

This is the true context of such studies. 

There are today at Estense Library in Modena, at Regensburg and elsewhere documents which are being flatly ignored by editors of the 'Koechel' list of Mozart's works since their acceptance would make more widely known the scale of the scandal. At Modena there are today 9 symphonies (these all traditionally attributed to Mozart) which indisputably once formed part of the music archives at Bonn (inventoried there in 1784) but which, at that time, were never attributed to Mozart. Indeed, prior to 1783, there is no contemporary reference to Mozart having written symphonies. 

These and many other areas of study are strongly suggestive of the proposition that Mozart was, in fact, largely a 'manufactured' composer (as was Joseph Hadyn) and that these two composers were being 'groomed' as glories of Vienna by deceipt and by practices that have been little appreciated till now. 

That Mozart was a great pianist and even a great arranger of music is beyond dispute. That he was the author of the 626 works found today in Koechel is, in my view, a grotesque and unjustifiable error taught only by those who cannot see further than the early (flawed) biographies of Niemetscheck and Nissen. 

To have created the icon is to allow others to criticise it. This I and others do, though in doing so we aim to argue only from what can be shown true. 

Regards


----------



## linz

Your debate seems mechanically pompous and dry, but I would have to agree that Leopold might have given some assitance to the early Wolfgang, just as prehaps Rimsky assited Galzunov on his first symphony. When it comes to the later operas, 'de ponte', 'the flute', as well as many other works the 'mozartian individualism' is overwhelmingly abundent; therefore to suggest that an entirely different composers had written the majority of staples in his repetoire is absurd!


----------



## robert newman

I don't recall saying that the 'majority of staples' in Mozart's repetoire were written by entirely different composers. 

But, since you describe 'my' debate as mechanically pompous and dry (though debates always involve more than one person, do they not ?) let me say that (contrary to your assumptions) a great number of musical works today attributed to both Haydn and Mozart are indeed works by other composers -a fact so indisputable (if you care to examine the history of Koechel, for example) that we can describe this process as a 'one way street'. In the current revision of Koechel there will be (according to its senior editor) at least another 30 works ditched from the main list. 

Now, if we are to allow ourselves honesty (i.e. if we are to deal with facts, rather than popular assumptions), we can easily show the state of things as they really are. Let's take, for example, 'Mozart Symphonies'. 

Today, according to convention, there are between 41 and 47 symphonies said to have been composed from Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Let me ask you or any other reader on what firm basis the first 22 or so of these are attributed to that composer ? Let me also point out (though it will no doubt come as a surprise to you) that close to 100 'Mozart' symphonies have at one time or another been attributed to Mozart since Mozart studies began ! Now, in simple terms, for us to correspond on such a subject without first agreeing that there is a major problem (by such statistics alone) would indeed by a dry and pointless exercise. But, how many composers do you know of whose symphonic achievements are today less than half the number once attributed to them ? None. None at all ? Except of course Joseph Haydn and a certain Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, that is. Fair point or not ? And we've only just begun. 

You've no difficulty agreeing that 'some' exaggeration features in 'early Mozart'. I honestly think you would be more accurate to describe the situation as one of 'major' exaggeration. And the same with symphonies 1-22 inclusive, all of which (but one) lack any of the sorts of evidence that would solidly support their attribution to W.A. Mozart. 

If all this is still not sufficient reason for you to question popular belief, we can move on to areas where (without doubt) you know next to nothing. (I say this with the greatest respect to you as a music lover). To discussion of the specific symphonies that were supposedly written by Mozart between, say, the 'Pariser' (No.31) and the 'Jupiter' (No.41). These 10 symphonies of Mozart's (supposed) maturity must surely be attributed correctly to him - yes ? 

No, again not so. For (I must regretfully inform you) there are good grounds for us not doing so. But these good grounds are hardly even heard. If you and I were to discuss such issues on Mozart websites we would surely have been banned by now for simply for having such a fair conversation - this on grounds that we are 'trying to diminish' the achievements of Mozart, or 'stealing the jewels from Mozart's symphonic crown' etc etc. Such a plain fact is, I regret, my personal experience. 

The Mozart industry (which really began with Leopold Mozart and which was later aided and abettted by rich patrons who manufactured myth at every stage of Mozart's life) was to be continued by his widow, Constanze, whose manipulation of historical records, of correspondence etc. and whose oversight of the first two biographies was little short of censorship, are but a few reasons why the iconic status of the composer is, in point of fact, a gross distortion of his actual musical achievements, concealing the truth that, in fact, he (and Haydn too) were being supplied choice works by others during the careers of both men, this to support a campaign to make Vienna the 'city of music'. 

To offer a brief and general overview of this case is, I think, only fair. But, from K1 to K626 we are able to trace a history of fraud, deception and manipulation so great that I think we must fairly describe the iconic status of Mozart as being one of the great myths of western civilization. (Incidentally, Mozart did not compose KV626 - a fact realised as early as 1825 by the great German musicologist, Gottfried Weber, editor of the leading musical journal 'Caelicia' of that year. (But Weber did not know, even at that time, that the signature on the score and the actual music within it is actually forged. But of the true history of that highly complex and controversial story, more later if so required). 

So, contrary to your general description of my post, may I suggest your natural condemnation of what I wrote may, if you choose, be proved to be nothing but a natural 'gut reaction' rather than a view based on evidence. 

From 1784 onwards (the time when Mozart begins his thematic catalogue in Vienna) he was being supplied works from various sources (this several years after his arrival in that city). In point of fact (and contrary to popular assumption) Mozart did NOT compose symphonies 39,40 and 41 in a mere 6 weeks during 1788. They too are not works by Mozart. But such is the enormity of the deception that this whole subject is surely best tackled on a work by work basis. 

The 18th century, of course, had no copyright laws, as such. But there is sufficient documentary and other evidence to show that he, Mozart, profited from being supplied works that were actually composed by various other composers. The same was true of Haydn. I would be pleased to provide specific examples on request.


----------



## Hexameron

Robert, I should have put some smiling emoticons in my message. I mentioned you "up to your old tricks again" in good jest. I'm actually glad to find you here. Despite all the harassment you faced in other places, I rather enjoyed following your indepth posts. You can spew off more Mozart information than an auditorium of professors. What made your Mozart/Salieri/Beethoven/Luchesi threads even better was the interaction between other members, challenging you or asking further questions. To me, that's what a musical amateur like me can truly learn from: musical debate. However, it went too far and I disagree with what happened, but by no means do I wish to expose you to any "provocation." Think of my comment as a light-hearted gesture.


----------



## linz

I see that you live in London. Shakespeare has risen to debate aswell.

The fact-of-the-matter is, the music is breath-taking. I could care less what "Disease of the Earth" spat it out his rump!


----------



## robert newman

Dear Hexameron, 

Well, I am really pleased to read your second post on this thread ! 

Yes, you're quite right that attempts to get these issues aired are not so easy when the entire 'Mozart Industry' use ground rules that are so unfairly skewed in favour of mere tradition. 

Very best regards and thank you for being so honest and constructive. 

Yours sincerely 

R.E.Newman


----------



## robert newman

Dear Linz, 

I respect the fact that you care nothing of who actually wrote the music today attributed to Mozart (or most of it). For those of us who do (and I think they care because the correct attribution matters for historical as well as musical reasons) there are issues that need to be tackled, some of them questioning things that, till now, we've always accepted on traditional grounds. 

Yes, I entirely agree that the music under examination is some of the finest written in the 18th or any other century. 

Regards


----------



## Topaz

Robert Newman

Has any reputable music journal of any description ever published your views on these matters? If so can you supply details please.


Topaz


----------



## robert newman

Dear Topaz,

Let me answer your question as well as I can.

You ask about reputable journals. Let me first give you a list of some of the publications which provide the background to this issue -

In the online Wikipedia Encyclopaedia there is an article entitled -

'Luchesi Authorship Controversy'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luchesi_authorship_controversy

You can see a list of various academic publications that are relevant to this issue. I personally provided a new English language version of a work called 'Works Falsely Attributed to Haydn and Mozart' (2005) which is not included in that list.

Please bear in mind that we are here discussing the entire life and career of Mozart - from that of his childhood, his youth, his early adulthood, his years before coming to Vienna, his arrival and marriage in Vienna, and the last 10 years or so of his short life. That's a lot of ground, you will agree !

I don't know where you stand on his early life. But it's very plain that many, many works atrributed to Mozart from his childhood were not, in fact, his own. This is a commonly known fact. Take, for example, the first 5 piano concertos. These are not compositions by the young Mozart. They're arrangements of works by various other composers. That's a plain fact. And this sort of thing happens for years.

You hear of course only one side of this story. The 'Mozart industry' is very powerful and it doesn't want you to hear the other side.

For a very long time, Austria (and the territory we today call Germany) was under the musical domination of Italians. It was Italians who had most of the music posts. Most Kapellmeisters were Italian and, of course, the invention of the symphony, the quartet, the quintet, etc etc were Italian. Those countries were part of what we call 'The Holy Roman Empire' where, up until 1773, the Jesuits (a military order of the Catholic Church) were in virtual control of music teaching. Mozart's father Leopold was Jesuit educated and Mozart himself received some academic teaching at home in Salzburg from Abbe Bullinger, himself a former Jesuit.

But in 1773 came a crisis. The Jesuits (who taught only in Latin) were officially banned. That caused a huge disruption in the musical Europe of that time in nations of the Holy Roman Empire. The Order was banished, forever, by the pope. For many crimes and for many times undermining kings and governments. So the Jesuits were forced to go underground or to emigrate. Some went to Russia (where they were temporarily accepted) and others stayed, hoping that one day they would be restored to power. 
Officially they no longer existed. The Emperor himself banned them as soon as he heard the news from Rome. And from that time onwards their future seemed to be very uncertain.

But the Jesuits (of course) did not like losing all their huge power and influence. They fought to get it back. And this they did in many ways. First, by organising schools of theory in Padua (Italy), later in places like Mannheim etc. They wanted to keep their influence, even under the table, so to speak.

And, around this time, the idea was born that what would really get them back their favour would be if native German speaking composers were to become famous. So a plan was made to sponsor people like Gluck, and Haydn. Rich patrons did so. They became very famous. Their sponsors were rich lords like Esterhazy and the Emperor's brother Max Franz (the Elector of Cologne). Soon, people began to praise Gluck and Haydn as being 'German heroes' and this, in turn, helped to make 'Vienna - the city of music'. Great prestige for the Emperor (himself based in Vienna). This great idea was further helped by the development of the reputation of the young Mozart. It didn't really matter that, in fact, many works by Haydn and the young Mozart were actually by other composers. This was all secret. But, in truth, people like Sammartini and Luchesi (not famous today, of course) wrote many, many works which today are said to be 'Haydn's'.

This fakery was highly successful. Nobody cared too much and it wasn't exactly advertised. Later (in the 1780's) this 'manufactured' situation went to another level when several publishing firms for music opened with offices in Vienna - Artaria being one of them.

Let me continue with the story if I may.

Mozart (after many intrigues) finally came to Vienna. But notice, that in his first 3 years there he did not even keep a catalogue of his own compositions. That came later, in 1784.

And, in these early Vienna years, Mozart was looking for a permanent post.

The post Mozart really wanted was to be the Kapellmeister of the second greatest music chapel of the Holy Roman Empire. It was in Bonn - the seat of the Electorate of Cologne. This post was offered to him repeatedly by Max Franz, brother of the Emperor Leopold. But there was a problem. Max Franz had to wait for the death of the existing Elector (Max Friedrich). Only then could Mozart get to Bonn.

(This is the same Bonn chapel where, of course, the young Beethoven was to go).

Finally, in 1784, the old Max Friedrich died. Here was Mozart's big chance. The new elector Max Franz arrived in the city of Bonn. Being a great lover of music he ordered almost immediately an inventory of the chapel music to be made. (At that time, the existing Kapellmeister was the Italian named Andrea Luchesi - and he was on 1 year holiday in Italy with his Concertmaster).

Anyway, the inventory was made. Other people helped in the absence of Luchesi.

Luchesi was then told to hurry back from Italy. He arrived as fast as he could in Bonn but the inventory had already been completed.

During the inventory it was found that many pieces of music had NO NAME on the manuscript. Those making the inventory did not know whose they were. (In fact they were of course music personally written by Luchesi. It was normal for Kapellmeisters not to sign their own names on music they write during their term of office - the cantatas of JS Bach, for example, are rarely signed).

This large body of music with no name was simply put in to a pile and called 'anonymous'. 
And this happened before Luchesi returned. It was spring of 1784.

Now - at this time (1784) Mozart was NOT known as a writer of symphonies. Nowhere do we find him having any reputation for writing symphonies. The two top writers of the time do NOT mention Mozart symphonies. In fact, in his entire lifetime Mozart had only ONE symphony published in his name (No.31) and it's not by him. (The Paris Symphony).

In this same year, the Inventory made at Bonn (which still survives) recorded hundreds and hundreds of pieces of music. But guess how many by Mozart were there ? The answer is NONE ! Not a single piece of Mozart was there. So you see how great the myth really is of Mozart's fame as a composer. Here is perhaps the greatest chapel in Germany at the time and not a single work by Mozart.

But the new Elector looked at this music and he noticed something extraordinary. He noticed that his Kapellmeister Luchesi was the true composer of works that were already in print in Haydn's name ! (These Luchesi had been selling to Haydn).

The new elector had a problem. He couldn't fire his own Kapellmeister and it might cause a huge scandal. Besides, he wanted Mozart to take Luchesi's place. But Luchesi couldn't be forced to resign. So a deal was made. Luchesi would from now on supply Mozart.

And that is what happened.

We know this is true. Years later the city of Bonn was occupied by the invading troops of Napoleon. But not before the music archives were parcelled up and removed from the city. Some of them eventually came to Italy - to relatives of the Elector. There they stayed, in Modena, until they were finally examined many decades later, by the librarian of the great Estense Library in Modena.

This Bonn material contained dozens and dozens of works by Haydn and Mozart !!! Many of these works had their original covers torn off and the name of 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' was now found on them. But there is no record that these symphonies ever came to Bonn during the lifetime of the chapel.

Among them are 9 'Mozart' symphonies. These include the 'Haffner' (35), the great G Minor (40), the 'Paris (31) and the 'Jupiter' (41). Symphonies that are today assumed to be by Mozart. In fact, the watermarks clearly show they come from Bonn. These symphonies are NOT by Mozart. Although they are (even in Modena) attributed to him.

Further proof is found at Regensburg. In that library you can see a copy of the symphony No. 31 ('Paris') containing the name of Mozart. But that name is written on top of a still legible name of 'Lucchese'.

I could continue for a long time. But this will hopefully be of some help in explaining the point. Others who supplied Mozart included composers such as Myslivececk, Kraus, Michael Haydn and others.

Very best wishes. Hope this helps.

Robert


----------



## Topaz

Robert Newman

I was of course fully familiar with the Wikepedia reference and the links identified thereto. With this and the additional information you have supplied I'm sorry to say that you have singularly failed to impress me. Your story sounds completely unconvincing. I was expecting you might have done far better than this.

I say this because:

1. This issue has been around for several years now and has hardly hit the big time, has it? In fact, it's got nowhere. There is no reference to it in _Groves_, one of the main classical music reference dictionaries. If they gave it any credence whatsoever it would surely have made at least a brief appearance there. Nor have I seen a refutations elsewhere on the Net. Clearly people obviously think the propositions advanced by the very small group you refer to are so ludicrous that it's not worth challenging.

2. I don't buy this facile notion that the "Mozart industry" is suppressing any debate. This seems utter nonsense. This is not Stalinist Russia. There is no censorship.

3. Musicology experts can usually tell whether a distinguished piece of music came from a particular composer's hand. Even learned amateurs can do that, especially with such famous names as Beethoven and Mozart and even more especially with their most famous works. I reckon I can tell a piece of genuine late Mozart. It has a definite feel to it. It is even reckoned babies can tell too! As for Beethoven, I agree some of the very early stuff may be a bit difficult to identify an untrained person but to an expert they should be able to tell in no time. Most pieces have a certain "fingerprint" stamped all over them. And you don't need to be that well-trained to spot it. I know, for example, that Beethoven, in his early days, sometimes accepted commisions for short pieces that were passed off as somebody else's work. Musicologists have easily sorted out out a number of these commission pieces and they are quite definite about them. This kind of "genetic" identification is far more reliable than dusty old manuscripts with watermark discrepancies that you are relying to a large extent it seems.

4. I immediately noticed that you have no qualifications, or at least none that you are prepared to divulge. Do you think people are daft? Your single (unpublished) article is inadequate testimony. I wouldn't believe what you say unless I had firm evidence that (i) you are a serious researcher with proper, recognised qualifications in music, and (ii) someone who has gained the backing of an acknowledged University musicology department. Even then I would treat it with suspicion, until at least it became a big talking point and general academic opinion was swinging in favour.

Topaz


----------



## robert newman

Topaz, 

You say 'I was OF COURSE familiar with the Wikipedia reference and the links indentified thereto'. Why do you say 'of course' - surely the vast majority of music lovers and even students of music history are NOT familiar with this material ? 

However, you are. Fine. 

I have singularly 'failed to impress you'. Fine. Allow me to do better. But who could overturn the entire iconic mythology of Mozart in a few short emails ? Surely you were not expecting anything more than a short introduction, were you ? I could do little more than lay out the case for general readers and experts alike in a very, very condensed form. So that discussion could be made. And not so much to prove the case. And I am happy to justify what I wrote at length. 

Well, I am certainly pleased you claim knowledge of the main issues. That gives us and the neutral reader an opportunity (perhaps the first online) to have substantial discussion on the main issues. Something (as you say yourself) that has hardly occurred yet (for one reason or another). 

1. Yes, the issue has been around for a few years now. Not long - but long enough (you may agree) for its outline, at least, to be familiar to you if not its substance - as I hope to show. There is as you say no record of it in Groves - true - but then, there is no record in Groves of many important matters of musical history. I could name many. There is no record there that Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was for some 10 years the main music teacher of Ludwig van Beethoven, for example. Nor any that Luchesi wrote the two cantatas WoO87 and WoO88, both wrongly attributed to Beethoven. In point of fact, German musicology would much prefer (it seems) that Luchesi never existed - it being 1937 before the first appreciation of his life and career was published. I could mention various blatantly nationlistic attempts to entirely erase Luchesi's career from Beethoven biographies, for example. Thayer is one famous example. It is not common knowledge that Luchesi gave one of his piano concertos to Mozart during one of his Italian tours, which Mozart was still performing publicly over a decade later, for example. In point of fact (rather than opinion) Luchesi was a famed writer of symphonies in the 1780's. Documentary fact. This was never said of Mozart. And so on. 

2. You have seen no refutations on the net. True. That's hardly the fault of those who bring your attention to the issue, is it ? In point of fact, it's clear evidence (as the editors of Wikipedia themselves agree in their article, that no Mozart scholar has even addressed these issues, let alone refuted them) - hardly an argument in support of your view, is it ? Start, if you are serious, with documentary manuscripts attributed to Mozart in the Estense Library at Modena if you are sure there is nothing in this issue. All 9 of them. Or let's take dozens of 'Haydn' works there also - all of them falsely attributed to those two composers. So the inaction of critics such as your goodself is surely the last thing you should be trumpeting as an argument. It might make people think you are a fair judge when, in fact, you regret that nobody has yet examined the case from your own viewpoint. What a strange opening argument ! 

3. You don't buy the 'facile argument' that the Mozart establishment is suppressing debate. Mmm. Well, the simple facts suggest otherwise. In the previous edition of Koechel the editors seem to have been struck by amnesia, in neglecting to record the fact that there is at Modena a copy of the Prague Symphony of 'Mozart' and a copy of the 'Paris' Symphony at Regensburg - both of these, in fact, works that can be shown to be by Luchesi. (In the case of the 'Paris' at Regensburg still bearing the name of Luchesi - which has been crudely removed with the name 'Mozart' written over the top of it). It must be one of those 'coincidences' that such a copy (indisputably there by 1790) has been ignored by the editors of Koechel. But an all too familiar story in the bandwaggon that is the Mozart myth. Which composers, other than Haydn and Mozart, do you know who, today, have less than half the symphonies attributed to them than have once been the case ? Surely, surely, this is a clear example of gross exaggeration, is it not ? Or statistics become meaningless. There is 'no censorship' ! No - and is it censorship that the Requiem of Mozart bears a fraudulent signature ? This little known ? What is censorship except the removal from public appreciation of facts that challenge the myth of Mozart at each and every stage of his musical career - the destruction of correspondence, the gross exaggerations and alterations to historical fact, etc etc. All of these feature at every single stage of Mozart's life and career, as they have featured ever since. If that is not approved 'censorship' (which included the first two bogus biographies - both 'managed' by Constanze Mozart but published in the name of Niemetscheck and then Nissen - the latter not writing a single word of it) well, what is that but blatant falsehood ? 

4. 'Musicology experts can usually tell whether a distinguished piece of music came from a composer's hand'. 

Well, let's take just a few examples of 'expertise'. Where was 'expertise' of the kind you describe before 1908 with Symphony No. 37 (KV444) of 'Mozart' ? It was as you will know part of the canon - approved by Mozart experts of the very sort that you praise. Where was this same Mozart 'expertise' in KV582, whose ending is forged in a hand so close to that of Mozart that the truth of it being a fraudulent end was revealed less than 10 years ago ? I could go on and on. Have you ever heard the works of Myselivececk - a composer who indisputably taught Mozart much of his style ? (In fact, a man who for the better part of a decade helped Mozart with work after work and who is the most mentioned composer in the entire Mozart family correspondence ?). Or, what of JM Kraus - a composer who wrote at least 4 works that, till recently, have been attributed to Mozart. Or, again, what of the 40 or so works today known to have come from Michael Haydn that are still in the Koechel catalogue as we speak ? Shall I continue, or do you see the point I am making ? 

There are today piano trios from Bonn which have in the past been wrongly attributed to Beethoven. I guarantee you would suppose them to be by Mozart if you knew them - and yet they are not. 

Unlike you, I did not look first for your qualifications. It's my view that a person's qualifications are the quantity and quality of their views. But (since these things concern you) I have studied music, have written on the subject for the better part of a decade, am over 50 years old, have studied the life and works of Mozart for the better part of 25 years, have even been making notes for a biography for the last 10, and am now (amongst other things) preparing with a colleague for a 2 part televised documentary on the 'Real life and work of Mozart'. 

Now, none of these things makes me 'expert'. But it does give me a little experience in the sorts of issues that are likely to resolve this area of dispute. 

Luchesi, Sammartini and others were composing works for Haydn and Mozart which these last two falsely claimed as their own. The evidence (of various kinds) is in my view compelling. So much so that, I seriously believe, there is no longer a problem if the Mozart academic establishment continue to be oblivious to modern discoveries that contradict their assumptions. 

Mozart was undoubtedly a fine pianist and a very fine arranger. But he was never, at any time, a great composer. He profited from patronisation by those who wished to make Vienna the city of music and who (in an age where there was no copyright) profited from a grossly exaggerated version of his compositional achievements at each and every stage of his career. 

If you wish to continue the discussion I will be more than pleased to sustain it . 

Best wishes

Robert


----------



## Hexameron

robert newman said:


> Mozart was undoubtedly a fine pianist and a very fine arranger. But he was never, at any time, a great composer.


Robert... I'm surprised. Do you really mean that? That comment shocks me beyond description. Unless you can refute Mozart's authorship of The Magic Flute, Don Giovanni, the last 10 Piano Concertos, Symphonies 29, 35, 36, 39, 40, the last 8 Piano Sonatas, the Mass in C minor, the two Fantasias, the Clarinet Concerto K.622, the "Hunt" and "Dissonance" String Quartet, all Violin Concertos, the 3 Salzburg Symphonies, the Rondo in A minor, the Serenade in G major "Nachtmusik," and the Ave Verum Corpus, then such a statement that Mozart was never a great composer is ridiculously, blindly, and totally false.


----------



## robert newman

Hexameron, 

Well, I am more than happy to discuss invididual works if I can first set out the general overview of the situation. As far as symphonies are concerned musicologists agree that of the first 22 or so 'Mozart' symphonies virtually none of them support their automatic attribution to Mozart. In other cases the dates have been falsified (as has been shown by detailed study). The Clarinet Concerto KV622 does not even have a manuscript and early references to it say that it was not written by Mozart at all. As for the late symphonies (e.g. 39,40, and 41) these are claimed (traditionally) to have been composed by him in 6 weeks during the summer of 1788. In point of fact none of them are by Mozart as can be shown if a special discussion was to be made of them. Mozart did not even keep a thematic catalogue until 1784 - the very year when his musical output suddenly receives a quantum boost in terms of his (supposed) compositions. Hardly surprising - this is the same year when Luchesi (now Kapellmeister at Bonn and the employee of Max Franz in Bonn) starts supply a stream of compositions to Mozart which Mozart enters in to his thematic catalogue as his. The only 'deal' was that a work had to be 5 years old before Mozart would claim it as his. (Thus, these 3 symphonies were actually composed in around 1783, though Mozart claims them as his in the summer of 1788). 

Chamber music we could discuss also separately. The score of the 'Magic Flute' was in the hands of Luchesi even before its first performance in Vienna - a fact confirmed by the Bonn publisher Simrock and recorded in 'La Jeunnese de Beethoven' by Prodhomme. 

On Mozart's death his widow Constanze had meetings with the tenor at Bonn (in Vienna) and the letter still survives. The 'arrangement' was concealed for all time (supposedly) and Luchesi (whose works have entirely disappeared for the 20 years he was Kapellmeister at Bonn) is not attributed with the very works he sold to Mozart. The same was happening with Haydn in his later years. In fact, Haydn stopped off in Bonn to receive his London symphonies, from Luchesi. 

The '7 Last Words' of Haydn was in actual fact a work by Luchesi and was composed years before Haydn claimed to have composed it. (It' s refered to by name in the Bonn inventory of 1784). 

As for the piano concertos, these all came via Salzburg to Mozart. Of this there is simply not doubt. Nannerl Mozart (at least as accomplished a pianist as Mozart himself) has never received the credit for what she, beyond reasonable doubt, provided to the fame of her far more celebrated brother in Vienna). 

And just who DID commission the last 3 symphonies of Mozart. Nobody at all. 

The set of 6 quartets by 'Mozart' dedicated to Haydn were, in point of fact, not by Mozart.

But we can discuss all of these things at length once we have agreed about the scale and context of such a discussion. That Mozart's father was involved in grossly exaggerating the supposed compositional achievements of his son (in his childhood and in his youth) is, to my view, beyond question. That Mozart was accused of blatant falsehood in his works (e.g. in his supposed writing of 'La Finta Semplice' and other works such as 'Idomeneo' is also a plain fact. 

So, in a short email, may I say that all these issues are well within our ability to discuss - and why not ? 

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Dear Hexameron, 

The 5 Violin Concertos (or is it 8 ??) were not by Mozart. If you consult 'Groves' you will see that J. Myslivececk (colleague and 'helper' of Mozart) was the most celebrated composer of violin concertos in Europe. It was he who supplied them to Mozart - and yet Myslivecek died in poverty and obscurity in Rome. Run a quick search engine on Mysliveck/Mozart and you will no doubt have further clues to the one-sided nature of their musical relationship. The career of Mozart was manufactured. 

Regards


----------



## Topaz

*Robert*

Thanks for your reply.

When I said that I was "of course" familiar with the Wikepedia reference I meant that I had looked at that source before replying to you, as that seemed to be the sensible thing to do. I was not suggesting that my knowledge in this area was any more long-standing than that. Indeed, I had not heard about it except only very vaguely from another source quite recently.

From your reply, could I please ask you to list the most important works (say the top 5 but more if you like) which in your opinion:

1.	Mozart definitely did write, with at least 95% certainty.

2.	Although credited to Mozart, you consider are definitely not by Mozart, with at least 95% certainty, together with the names of the genuine composer, if not Luchesi.

3.	Although credited to Mozart, you aren't sure either way whether Mozart was the genuine composer but he might not be, with 40-60% probability, again listing the names of the genuine composer.

4.	Luchesi wrote which are conventionally credited to Luchesi.​
In respect of categories 2 and 3, can you please describe any strictly musicological evidence - in terms of music analysis, style, composition, technique etc - which you may have to support these allegations? Would you be prepared to furnish details of this evidence for independent assessment by a panel of recognized experts drawn from well-established, reputable musicology departments? If so, and if they firmly rejected your arguments on musicological grounds, would you cease to believe your allegations, or would you still adhere to your beliefs based solely on the other evidence you believe you have collected?

In respect of category 4, how would you react if a panel of musicology experts concluded that the works are significantly different - in the sense of being unlikely to have been penned by the same hand - from those they regard as genuine Mozart.

I see that you are preparing for a two 2 part televised documentary on the 'Real life and work of Mozart'. If you manage to pull this off on a major TV network (would it be a UK network?) it should stimulate a much better public debate on the issues than the very limited exposure hitherto. Can you give any idea of the likely future timescale of this documentary? Are you planning a book in advance of such a programme, and if so you can you indicate when this is likely to appear? If not a book, can you say whether you envisage producing any further preparatory learned articles on this subject, and if so in which publication(s) they might appear?

These inquiries in no way indicate that I accept any of your allegations. They are solely aimed at eliciting further information. I trust you will appreciate that these queries are merely examples of the kind of questions - there could be many others - you will very likely face at some stage in the future if you really do plan to pursue your endeavours as far as you indicate.

Regards

Topaz


----------



## robert newman

Topaz, 

Thanks for your reply. 

You explanation for saying 'of course' is fine enough though I trust you will agree that it needed clarification - so thanks for that. 

In reply to your suggestion that I provide a list of 'Mozart' works that fall in to categories that can be judged fairly on this issue by the way you suggest, I must decline. First, you will surely agree that we would not be, in such a situation, measuring relative salinity of water or, say, the sugar content of a bar of chocolate (things on which we are able to be extremely accurate) but would be (if your method was to be accepted) reliant on the opinions of musicians whose subjective opinion would be, by definition, little more than their own personal view. Would it not be better if such matters were resolved by a more fair, straightforward and scientific method ? 

You certainly raise a very interesting point - that of 'Mozart's style'. But so universally known is 'Mozart's style' that it would surely work against your suggested method also. We think a work is 'Mozart' because it has certain stylistic characteristics - but the devil is in the detail of proving that such a work is by Mozart. (The same is true of composers as a whole). Add to this the fact that quite a few composers of the 18th century wrote in remarkably 'Mozartean' style though they are far less well known than W.A. Mozart. The minuets of Michael Haydn, for example, remain stubbornly in the Koechel catalogue as works by Mozart, but they were not written by him at all. In addition, the form of the work in question is surely important - what of opera seria, for example. Is 'Mozartean style' more prominent in, say, 'Idomeneo' and in 'La Clemenza di Tito' than in, say, the one act singspiel, 'The Impressario' ? 

Finally, what are we to make of perhaps the most striking similarity of all - the music of late Haydn and that of late Mozart - this so often commented on that it used to be a joke in 19th century Vienna that on Monday Mozart wrote like Haydn and on Tuesday the opposite was true. 

I think it would a far fairer test if I was to suggest that internationally acclaimed musicologists study a series of works in manuscript (all traditionally attributed to Mozart) which, on documentary, watermark, and other evidence can be shown to have been composed beyond reasoanable doubt by composers other than Mozart. So that the arguments for and against traditional Mozartean attribution can be considered fairly by these same experts, bringing to bear ALL the evidence on which they can impartially arrive at their verdict. 

I can think of 10 candidates straight away. The 'Mozart' symphonies in manuscript at Estense Library, Modena, Italy as follows (Koechel number and Modena Reference Number) - 

KV 320 (E-55)
KV 203 (E-158)
KV 200 (E-154)
KV 385 (E-159) 'Haffner'
KV319 (E-161)
KV201 (E-157)
KV297 (E-160) 'Pariser'
KV504 (E-162) 'Prager'
KV551 (D-640) 'Jupiter'
KV182 (E-156)

These works were untouched at Modena until the mid-19th century (at which time they were catalogued for the first time). They are a part of the Bonn music archives which were removed from the music chapel at the time of the Napoleonic invasion of the Bonn area in 1794. 

We also have (still surviving) the manuscript of the 1784 Inventory held at Bonn (during a 1 year absence in Italy of the Kapellmeister) - an inventory poorly done by others - since it was normal practice to attribute unsigned music to the Kapellmeister as a matter of course. But this never happened. 

Yes, such a list of 10 'Mozart' works would seem to be an ideal test. These are, after all, traditionally 'Mozart' symphonies. He certainly claimed to be the composer of most of them. In fact, Mozart claims to have written the 'Jupiter' with two others (39 and 40) in that 6 week period during the summer of 1788, as you surely know.

I have to hand hundreds of pages on this issue and could very easily produce dozens of other works if you prefer. 

So, yes, I think we can and should have expertise at hand on such questions. You may agree that the totality of the evidence should be presented for and against before the verdict is given (?). 

I would be happy to let you have more information on this issue if this subject is of interest, since it's only fair that you have to hand a detailed argument. Such material is now available in English though it would take me a week or so to put together. I could email it to you if you like - an essay on works falsely attributed to Mozart and Haydn. 

Regards









Regards

Robert


----------



## Topaz

Robert


Thanks for the above.

In reply, first let me be clear that I do not wish to be involved in any way in the development of your evidence. I am not trying to be “honest broker” or anything like that. I certainly do not have the resources to be able to disprove any of your allegations about discrepancies in watermarks etc. In addition, I most certainly do not intend to go off to libraries in Modena or elsewhere to do any primary research to validate or refute any of your arguments. Nor do I have any suggestions or contacts in the musicology profession.

All I am doing is posing some questions about the evidence you have presented so far from a critical perspective so that I, and possibly others reading these exchanges, may have an improved understanding of what it amounts to, and where to go next with it.

In very brief summary, you believe that there is clear evidence that many important works credited to W A Mozart were not in fact penned by him but by various others, notably Luchesi who was Kapellmeister at Bonn at the relevant time. The main/sole evidence you have for this are discrepancies in things like watermarks and dodgy-looking signatures and other normal identifiers in the original scores. You believe that it looks like these attributes have been forged in some way to hide their true authorship. You reckon this possibility of forgery was facilitated because in those days it was not normal for works of a Kapellmeister (like Luchesi) actually to sign originals of their works, so that it was possible for them to be purloined by unscrupulous others for devious purposes. You reckon that many such works fell into Mozart’s hands this way, because he was on the “up” and needed such sources (there may be other types of source) in order to sustain his career because he was not capable of writing this high quality work himself.

I suggested that a possible way of assessing this thesis would be to solicit the opinion of a body of distinguished musicologists to give a purely musicological opinion. Basically, I suggested that two control samples be formed, one (call it sample X) comprising works you agree are very likely to be by Mozart, and another (call it sample Y) where you contend watermark and other such evidence suggests otherwise, and to ask a distinguished musicology panel to see whether there is any purely musicological evidence to support the alleged differences.

However, you say that this would not be fair because (i) it is difficult to form a control sample for X since there was much copying of the Mozart style by others, and (ii) that musicology evidence is only part of the totality of evidence that should be considered, in particular that watermark discrepancies etc themselves should form part of the overall assessment.

On reflection, I agree with what you say here on methodological grounds. There is indeed a “chicken and egg” problem in identifying a suitable sample X, and I agree there are wider issues to be looked at apart from purely musicological issues, however important the latter may be. It seems fairly clear now that what is required is not to hand over the task of assessment to a bunch of musicology experts but to try to get some kind of neutral panel to review all the evidence, almost like a tribumal or "court" to reach a "verdict" based on all relevant considerations. However, that is clearly easier said than done. Who would take on the task? The issues are monumental. Would it be possible to get a distinguished group of musicologists who are prepared to have their views tested in “court” as it were, with the risk of rejection of their opinion? 

In answer to my own questions in the last sentence above, I do not think so. So I am stuck, I am afraid, pro tem. At this stage, I cannot offer much more on this but I will think about it. Meanwhile if any others reading this have any views please do not leave it to me to guess what they may be. I am sure Robert will not mind further opinion. All I would say is that I have come across cranks before and I am sure Robert is certainly not in that bracket. On the contrary, I think Robert deserves to be treated with respect because he is obviously highly intelligent and a very knowledgeable person. In saying this, I do not in any way accept on the evidence so far the validity of any of his assertions. I am only intrigued by them and I think they need to be tested more fully.



Topaz


----------



## Saturnus

This is highly interesting debate, even if I am not a great fan of Mozart and for an example don't own a single record of his work.

Currently I am in a orchestra who is rehearsing Mozart's 40th symphony and I have to say that the symphony is clearly greatly influenced by baroque music. I noticed one thing in the wikipedia article; Luchesi wrote harpsichord concertos. I have never heard of Mozart being a fan of baroque so this theory Newman is introducing doesn't sound completely absurd to me.


----------



## Topaz

Given the number of "views" on this thread, there has not been much reaction to recent posts on this subject. I guess many people may find the allegations by Robert Newman so monumental that they are rather dumb-founded. I admit that was my first reaction. However, without accepting any of the allegations I concede that there is a possibility that at least some of them may be valid, and there seems to be a case to answer. I do not pretend to have the ability to make a considered assessment. Frankly, I know that I would not get anywhere even if I tried. My expertise is not in musicology!

As I alluded to previously, what seems to be required in order to take this forward is a proper investigation without any pre-conceptions either way (rather like a court would proceed where all relevant evidence is assessed impartially). I am not so naïve as to think that anything like this could be easily set up. After all, there would seem to be enormous reluctance to probe into these hallowed shrines of musical history. Were it not for the type and scale of evidence which Robert Newman and his co-researchers have come up with, I would say it is not worth giving it a moment's further attention. However, it does seem to me that there is a case to be answered, at least as regards some of these watermark/signature discrepancies. It is also rather suspicious to my mind that no one (at least to my knowledge) has yet seen fit to produce and publish any counter-evidence concerning these discrepancies.

Regarding the general paucity of response so far, I am wondering if it might help to provide a list of *possible answers/views *that people may have, more or less spanning the spectrum from total rejection to (partial) acceptance. At least, it might help generate some consistent responses to all this. Here goes anyway:

1.	Allegations too ludicrous for words; not worth wasting any more time on. There is clear and cast-iron evidence to show all the disputed works are genuine W A Mozart.

2.	Don't know enough; would like more details of the evidence before reaching any final view, but must admit I find it rather unbelieable.

3.	Allegations unlikely to be valid because any such doubts about authenticy would have surfaced well before now, if only on musicological grounds (forget about watermark discrepancies etc). Still, am not ruling it out and accept the possibility of some truth, but would require much more wide-ranging evidence to be examined by competent authorities before finally deciding. Would not be satisfied with a mere categoric refutation by the "Mozart crowd"; instead would like to see express arguments and counter-evidence to support the view that it's all genuine W A Mozart, and why these watermark discrepancies are irrelevant or wrongly interpreted.

4.	Possibly some validity in the allegations but I don't care; I just like the music.

5.	Accept there could possibly be some validity, and can see that some kind of long-running plot to obscure the true identity of ownership is possible, but not too sure about the validity of the evidence summarily presented above. Mainly confused but quite happy to accept it if necessary given more evidence.

6.	Given this watermark/signature evidence, I agree that indeed it all begins to look fishy and think there could well be something in it, at least for some of the allegations about true ownership. Not sure exactly what should be done next to pursue the evidence. Am interested to keep in touch with the debate.

7.	I have seen enough to think it is about time there was a proper wide-ranging review of all this to sort it out. Until then I shall just hope it's genuine Mozart, but will definitely be more agnostic about the true authorship of these works until it's cleared up beyond doubt.

........

Without trying to prejudice the choice, my view is somehere around 3 above. What's yours? Variants are obviously possible.

Topaz


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

I know that publishers attributed many works to Haydn in order to sell them at a higher price. 
but many inquiries were made before the current 104 Symphonies list was made.
Furthermore, there is an obvious unity in all the symphonies I've got. 
Maybe I'll change my mind when I've got all the earlier symphonies.


----------



## Hexameron

Good post there Topaz. I would pick a combination of 2 and 3.

This issue is a little over my head and I don't know enough about Mozart to properly debate the evidence with Robert. However, I trust my aural skills and believe that some of the works I listed, which Robert made a case against, are clearly imprinted with Mozart's style. Just listening to the Piano Sonatas and then those Symphonies, or the Serenades/Divertimenti and The Magic Flute seems to provide enough connection to distinguish falsehoods on the case of any of his works. And I'm just not hearing any falsehoods in those Violin Concertos or Piano Concertos. This is an amateur talking, though, and I'd much rather hear a thorough evaluation from qualified specialists.

I've read Robert's posts at the Beethoven reference forum and the Mozart Forum for a long time, and I've found him incredibly knowledgeable. He knows a lot about Mozart, but I just don't think there will be any success at convincing skeptics unless adequate *musical* evidence is provided. When a good dozen or so musicologists confirm Robert's theories by dissecting the Violin Concertos or those last three symphonies and pick out the alien or peculiar harmonies, rhythms, and phrases that do not match with most of Mozart's other works, _then_ I think I'll be persuaded. Sure, archival research is necessary, but if someone found an old Renaissance sonnet and wanted to determine if it was Spenser or Shakespeare, the best method is getting highly trained experts (hopefully unbiased and professional) to study them and make an educated analysis based on comparison of content, style, language etc. Certainly, the same must apply to Mozart.

One or two hot-headed musicologists doesn't cut it, though. I'd like to see a general concensus from conductors, music historians, all types of musicologists, and even, like Saturnus there, some professional musicians.

Unlike other sensitives out there, I'm not offended and threatened by Robert's theories. The statement that Mozart was not a great composer is a little hard to chew, but to Robert, I say keep on it... just realize that it's going to take more than documented evidence to impress: the truth is in the music.


----------



## Oneiros

This is all very interesting. This may be a bit naive, but wouldn't it be fairly obvious from the writing style of the original manuscripts, as to who wrote them? In the same way that handwritten letters and signatures can be seen as 'authentic', since each person writes in a different way.

This aside though, what DID Mozart actually compose, as far as you can tell, Robert?


----------



## Topaz

*Phatic*

If you look back at the earlier posts, you will see that part of the conjecture is that it is difficult to be certain exactly what W A Mozart wrote. Allegedly, much was written by other composers (mainly Luchesi). In addition, even supposing there was a work which is beyond doubt the work of Mozart it does not mean that this would necessarily allow identification of other works merely because they looked similar in style. This is because other composers were copying the Mozart style. Therefore, another piece, which looked like the work of W A Mozart, could in fact have been the work of someone else, by virtue of this copying problem. At least, that is the way I understand the main allegations.

Hexameron's very useful contribution stresses the point I made of the importance of the need for further testing using musicalogical analysis. However, the more I think about this the more it seems to be a methodological minefield. I am beginning to think that musicological analysis, although highly desirable, might be difficult to pursue very far given the problems referred to above about identifying suitable benchmark material of what is conjectured to be genuine/non-genuine. I think we need a clearer steer on this aspect , i.e. how difficult it is to form this separation, albeit with the possibility of a grey area of indeterminate authorship.

Topaz


----------



## Oneiros

Hehe, I meant the style of writing, i.e. how the musical notation appears on the manuscript paper. 

I can see how it would be hard to prove anything... So I won't form any judgements. The debate will probably turn into one of those scholarly arguments that goes on forever...


----------



## robert newman

I do not wish to imply that Mozart was without musical talent. On the contrary - he was a gifted musician, a formidable pianist, a highly talented arranger. But I think questions can and should be raised on every stage of his career. The alternative is carry on with a version of this man's life and work that is largely false. 

Here is an excerpt from a letter by Leopold Mozart to his son (then in Paris) on the subject of 'Mozart's' symphonies thus far. The year is 1778 - 

'What does you no credit is better to remain unknown - for this reason I did not give away any of your symphonies, as I forsee that in a riper age, when the critical capacity grows, you yourself will be very happy they don't belong to anybody, even though, when you wrote them, you were satisfied. One grows more and more exigent' 
(Leopold Mozart to W.A. Mozart - 24th September 1778) - Mozart then aged 22 

Here is Mozart speaking to his father about the 'Haffner' Symphony (KV385). Set aside our usual version of Mozart's incredible musical memory for a moment. Letter to his father of 15th February 1783 he says of the piece - 

'I had truly worked in a great hurry and did not remember even one note of this. It must certainly have a good effect' 

(Mozart to Leopold Mozart on the 'Haffner' Symphony - No.35, KV385)

I'd like to focus on this particular symphony as a case in point. 

Mozart's 'Haffner' Symphony has always been presented in a very unfair way. The actual facts indicate this work is NOT by Mozart - 

On 27th July 1782, again on 31st July and on 7th August, Mozart sent to Salzburg some musical movements for a Serenade, this intended to celebrate the title of nobility being confered on Sigmund Haffner, and he recommended to his father in these letters to obtain a March for the serenade from his first 'Haffner' Serenade (KV250) composed 6 years earlier in July 1776. 

But this story does not add up. First because the event celebrating Haffner's nobility was actually held in Salzburg on 29th July 1782 and no other work composed by Mozart (then in Vienna) arrived by that date. (for reference see M. Solomon's 'Mozart' p.490 note 6). 

Leopold Mozart used the music of another composer in Salzburg. This explains why, when his father 'sent back' the work in January 1783 Mozart did not even recognise it as his own. To this same symphony (not by Mozart but actually by Luchesi) Leopold in Salzburg added trumpets and timpani parts, stretching it into a serenade to fit the ceremonies there. On this piece being sent 'back' to Mozart he restored the symphony version adding flutes and clarinets and even performing it in Vienna in a public concert held on 23rd March 1783 as his very own ! 

We are able to state such things with certainty because, at Modena's Estense library the version of the same symphony there (which came from the Bonn chapel where Luchesi was Kapellmeister) is seen without trumpets and timpani added in Salzburg by Leopold and without the flutes and clarinets added by Wolfgang ! 

Typically, editors of Koechel have suffered yet again from amnesia by failing to mention that the copy of the 'Haffner' in Modena is scored very differently from the 'Haffner' that we are all familiar with. At Modena this work is attributed to 'Mozart' but, in fact, (as already said) is actually a work by Luchesi. 

Here is the great musicologiist JN Forkel writing in the 'Musical Almanac' for 1789 (two years before Mozart's death) and describing Mozart's output - 

'Mozart (JJW) Kapellmeister in Vienna since 1787. The 'Abduction from the Seraglio' has been published since 1785. Since 1784 has been publicly known SEVERAL symphonies, quartets and collections of sonatas, besides concertos for keyboard'. 

(No reference to 'Don Giovanni' or even to 'Le Nozze di Figaro'). 

In contrast, here an entry from the Paris musicologist and composer J.B. de La Borde (Paris, 1780), Vol. 3 of his 'Essai sur la musique ancienne et moderne' - under the heading of Luchesi, tells us that 'the symphonies of Luchesi are in great demand with German princes for their peculiar and very graceful style'. (Nowhere in this multi-volumed work is any reference given to either Hadyn or Mozart as being writers of symphonies). 

And nowhere, at Bonn (one of the leading centres of music study in 1784) is a single musical work attributed to Mozart in the musical inventory of 1784. 

Each and every symphony attributed to Mozart from the time of his arrival in Vienna till the time of his death almost a decade later (1791) is of dubious 'Mozartean' paternity. The same is even true of the 'Paris' symphony (No.31) - a work that was not, in fact, composed by Mozart. 

I do not want to go on listing such examples (since each deserves a special explanation). I simply say the careers of Haydn and Mozart were hugely exaggerated by composers who are virtually unknown today. Both composers produced 'originals' in their own hand from works given to them by others. In the case of Haydn it became almost ridiculous. Many of his 'autograph' scores are written on paper not made till the late 1780's. (Sammartini and Luchesi were both suppliers of works to Haydn, and they were not alone). 

Haydn near the end of his career (let us say from 1797 onwards) was hardly able to hold a pen in his hand, owing to illness. Yet he is credited with many great works that he did not, in fact, compose. Many found in copies at Modena. But actually composed by Luchesi and others. 

I do understand and appreciate that such things, on such a scale, are a real shock to Mozart and Haydn scholars. Pioneering researchers in this field (such as Prof. Giorgio Taboga) have had to work against a wall of blanket denial from institutes such as the Mozarteum in Salzburg - their reactions to date being denial that a problem exists or of banning talk of such matters on Mozart or Haydn websites. 

The story IS complex. But Mozart (prior to 1784) had several times been promised the job of Kapellmeister in Bonn - a post already occupied since 1774 by Luchesi. The 'deal' was therefore struck for Luchesi to be involved in artificially inflating Mozart's musical prestige. Vienna 'had' to become the 'city of music' even if it involved commerce of this kind. Luchesi conformed. (From 1784 until Mozart's death in 1791 he sold other works publicly using the pen-name of his cousin, 'D'anthoine', all lost today but documented at the time). 

Luchesi, JM Kraus, Myslivececk, Michael Haydn and others were part of a network that supplied Mozart. The choicest works. This whole affair paid for by rich patrons. At the Vienna level finances were managed by the 'friend' of Mozart, Michael Puchberg. 

The whole story is one of twists and turns and is only recently able to be told in a reasonably coherent form. Rivalry between German and Italian composers during the 1780's features. So do intrigues between Jesuit centres of music (banned in 1773). And of course the cultivation of Mozart's iconic status that followed his death in 1792, the creation of myths, and the version of his life and works we traditionally read in most textbooks. 

It is quite sure that one huge debate will occur over these issues. But I think the evidence of many kinds is so large in favour of this version of events that nothing short of a major publication can do it justice.

In reply to the question of handwriting, the versions of 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' works now at Modena (which came from Bonn) are in the hands of copyists. Not in the hand of either Mozart or Haydn. This is normal. 

Mozart's G Minor Symphony (No.40) KV550 is based on a work written for the stage in Italy and I will end with a short outline on this famous work. 

In 1778 (a decade before Mozart claimed this work as his) a new comic stagework was written for the San Moise, in Italy by Traetta. It was 'Knight Errant' and its libretto was by Bertati. It was, itself, a radical revision of a still earlier work, 'Stordilano, Prince of Grenada', a work written in Parma 18 years before. But 'Knight Errant' has been the subject of great discussion in recent years, (especially in Italy) - not so much for its musical content and dramatic value but for its astonishing similarities to features found in 'Mozart's' G Minor, KV550 symphony, whose 'composition' date was still 10 years ahead !

Further evidence is in the fact that Traetta was a friend and colleague of Luchesi - was visited by him during Luchesi's 1 year in Italy (1783) and that Luchesi had taken Traetta's place at a performance of 'Antagona' in the Padua New Theatre. So the connections are already clear. 

Add, to this, we know two versions of 'Mozart 40 exist' - one without clarinets (the original that Luchesi wrote) and another that Mozart in Vienna scored with clarinets in his own hand before claiming authorship in his thematic catalogue of summer 1788. The myth that Mozart wrote these last 3 symphonies in 6 weeks is, in fact, false. 

Sorry to be so disjointed in this reply. I hope it gives some idea of the scale on which these issues are able to be discussed.


----------



## Topaz

*Robert*

Thank your for your further clarifications.

Could I ask you a few further questions about your claims in relation to W A Mozart and Beethoven?

1.	Luchesi died in 1801, i.e. 10 years after W A Mozart. Why do you think that Luchesi did not lay claim to any of the works you allege that he wrote but which are credited to W A Mozart?

2.	Is there evidence of any payment, or any other form of consideration, being paid to Luchesi by Mozart (or the latter's family) for any of the works you reckon were written by Luchesi? While it is conceivable that the odd one or two works may have been purloined by W A Mozart in the manner you sugest, surely a whole raft of very high quality works could not have fallen into Mozart's hands without some kind of consideration showing up in the records somewhere. If such evidence exists, could you you please present it.

3.	Beethoven was a student at the court chapel of Luchesi in Bonn from 1779-1792. After this, Beethoven moved to Vienna where he continued his studies under Haydn. During his time in Bonn, Beethoven worked primarily under his composition tutor, C. G. Neefe. I understand that there are no records of Beethoven ever attributing any significant tuition to Luchesi, at any stage in Beethoven's career. Is this your understanding too?

4.	Close involvement or not, if Luchesi was that good a composer - so good that he was allegedly the actual composer of many very fine works attributed to W A Mozart - would you not expect Beethoven to have appreciated this greatness while Beethoven was a student at the Bonn court?

5.	If the answer to (4) is "yes," why did Beethoven decide to go to Vienna in 1792 to seek to devote himself to further study under Haydn, when the obvious thing to have done was to remain in Bonn, under an even better master, Luchesi, if the allegations are valid? Is it not much more likely that Beethoven realised that Luchesi had limited abilities and that is precisely why he went to seek tuition from Haydn, before pursuing his composing career per se?

6.	Why were records and scores of works attributed to Mozart - records that finished up in Modena, ex Bonn - kept of works that were reputedly given/sold to Mozart? Does this concept of keeping records and scores of works that were destined to be passed off as works by someone else not seem to contradict the whole notion of wanting to falsify or cover up true authorship of those works? It seems quite incredible to me that W A Mozart, or any agents acting on his behalf, would have gone to the trouble of securing works from Luchesi without ensuring conclusively that all other copies had been destroyed. Indeed, if Luchesi had somehow managed to retain a secret copy of these works, for what purpose did he do so? He evidently had no intention of ever revealing the identity of those works, assuming your allegations are valid, because he failed to do so at any stage in his 10 year life span after the death of W A Mozart.

7.	How do you know that the Modena records, on which you rely so heavily, have not been falsified subsequently? For example, have you or anyone else had any sophisticated, scientific dating tests carried out on any part of the documents you rely upon, to ensure that amendments and anomolies were actually carried at the appropriate times, and not subsequently?

8.	Are there any major areas of this entire research into Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven on which you disagree with Taboga (your Italian co-researcher colleague), and if so can you please clarify the main areas? If these disagreements are significant, does this not cast doubt on the basic allegations that you both adhere to?

Topaz


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

I'm a fan of Haydn & I read a bit about his life & compositions (& Mozart's). 
I knew there are some dubious things in the works of both composers. 
But, as you can guess, I'm not completely convinced by your post. 
I think both versions of History contain a part of truth. Don't you think so?



robert newman said:


> Both composers produced 'originals' in their own hand from works given to them by others. In the case of Haydn it became almost ridiculous. Many of his 'autograph' scores are written on paper not made till the late 1780's.


I don't really understand the problem with this. Tell me more


> (Sammartini and Luchesi were both suppliers of works to Haydn, and they were not alone).


From the biographies I read, he never tried to affirm every works he made his orchestra play were his works. He got many from other composers and never tried to hide it.
Esterhazy orchestra was not dedicated to his works only. 


> Haydn near the end of his career (let us say from 1797 onwards) was hardly able to hold a pen in his hand, owing to illness. Yet he is credited with many great works that he did not, in fact, compose. Many found in copies at Modena. But actually composed by Luchesi and others.


There are only 17 works he wrote after 1797 :
3 piano trios (1797)
6 quartets op.76 (1797)
_The Creation_(1798)
Nelsonmesse(1798)
Theresienmesse(1799)
2 quartets op.77 (1799)
Harmonie-Messe
Schöpfungmesse(1801)
_The Seasons_(1801)

It's very well-known that it was difficult for him & took him a very long time.
Regarding the Creation & Seasons, the process of composition was very well followed & documented. Everyone who wanted knew he was making it and also what part of the work he had completed so far. 
After the Schöpfungmesse, he lived 8 more years without giving a name to any piece of music except an unfinished quartet. He could have done it, couldn't he?
Or someone could have attributed a work to him.


> I do understand and appreciate that such things, on such a scale, are a real shock to Mozart and Haydn scholars. Pioneering researchers in this field (such as Prof. Giorgio Taboga) have had to work against a wall of blanket denial from institutes such as the Mozarteum in Salzburg - their reactions to date being denial that a problem exists or of banning talk of such matters on Mozart or Haydn websites.


I guess, i confess it does not please me either. Nevertheless, I'd like to find the more information I can. Are there books? Where have you found your information?

I read in your Wikipedia link that the "London" symphonies were Luchesi's. 
The matter is that there's a strong unity between the "London" & the "Sturm & Drang", 
I'm just listening his symphonies 44 & 95, they're so similar in many points.
The "London", like the "Parisian", were ordered to Haydn for larger orchestras than ever. Do you think Haydn immediately ordered such works to Luchesi?

Maybe I'm wrong but, so far, I don't believe all Mozart's last symphonies and the "London" were composed by the same person. 
In Haydn and Mozart's works, there's a real coherence, in term of evolution and improvement. I don't think it's an illusion.

But don't worry. I consider this problem seriously. I can believe some of their works were in fact Luchesi's. I just think the new hypothesis is exaggerating as well. 
I can change my mind.


----------



## robert newman

Sinfonia espansiva wrote about Joseph Haydn so it's good to reply first to this. It will be a quite lengthy post. 

In the musical inventory made at Bonn (during the absence of the Kapellmeister Luchesi) during 1784 (and overseen by G. Neefe) symphonies were attributed there as follows - 

8 Symphonies in the name of 'Hadyn'
11 in the name of 'Heyde'
28 were grouped together anonymously and labelled 'de differents auteurs' and a further group of 10 symphonies were also grouped together anonymously and labelled 'de differents auteurs' - these two groups being recorded on different pages on the final inventory document 

There were therefore, at Bonn, in 1784 a total of 58 Symphonies in the Music Archives of the Chapel at that time. 

Today, at Estense Library in Modena (Italy) from the Bonn archives we find (in terms of symphonies) - 

34 Symphonies entered under the name of 'Haydn'
4 symphonies marked 'returning' (Haydn and Mozart)
6 'symphonets' attributed to Haydn
9 symphonies attributed to Mozart

Thus, again, a total of 58 Symphonies

In such a short space let me touch on a few Haydn pieces. 'The 7 Last Words of our Redeemer on the Cross'. The copy of this work today at Modena has been given a reference there of Mus-D-167 and it, according to convention, was composed by Haydn in 1787. (It was certainly published as his that year by Sieber in Paris and by Forster in London - the latter under the title of 'Instrumental Passion'). 

But there are major problems. First is that the copy now at Modena was written on Italian paper. Secondly, Hadyn scholars such as Robbins Landon have been highly selective about the evidence. They forget to say that in the Bonn Inventory of 1784 we have a specific reference to a church work by Luchesi entitled 'The 7 Last Words of our Redeemer on the Cross'. It was THIS work which is today at Modena because it's one and the same as the work claimed by Haydn in 1787.

In 1801 Haydn ignored the true origins of this work and claimed he composed it himself for festivities in Spain during 1787. (Far less known is that Haydn's brother Michael transformed this INSTRUMENTAL work in to the oratorio we know today, co-operating with the Passau Kapellmeister Friberth to do so. Joseph Haydn himself had nothing to do with composition of the piece. He limited himself, much later, to crudely adapting the already published work to a quartet version of the original orchestral version. 

In the biography of Haydn by Rosemary Hughes (revised by Dent in 1989) a footnote says of this same piece - 

'The Cadiz cathedral chapter commissioned Haydn in 1786 the set of instrumental variations known as 'The Seven Words of the Saviour on the Cross'. It also says, 'In its original form the work was orchestral'. (p.49). 

The copy of this work now in Modena is not even mentioned by researchers such as Robbins Landon. Nor in the Haydn 'Hoboken' catalogue. Yet another example of the amnesia that seems to affect writers of Haydn and Mozart ! (By the way Haydn's own much later quartet version of this work is riddled with musical errors). `

The subject is Haydn Masses is just as filled with contradictions. For example, at the British Library is a set of parts of the 'Nelson Mass' that, according to Carl Maria Brand in 'Die Messen von J.Haydn' (Wuerzburg 1941 p.320 n.47) is written in the handwriting of Joseph Elssler senior, a copyist who is know to have died inm 1782 ! The three 'Haydn' masses at Modena ('Nelsonmasse' - which he claimed to have composed in 1798), the 'Scheopfungsmesse' (1801), and the 'Paukenmesse' (1796) are all scored for instruments including a Bach trumpet - an instrument that Haydn never used in his entire life. The watermarks of these 3 Haydn masses are Dutch or Swabian and are guarantee that they were written before 1794 (i.e. before the Bonn chapel ended) and in a Rhine country. At Bonn, Dutch and Swabian music paper was in common use. These same manuscripts also give us a particular organ accompaniment which was a known trait of Andrea Luchesi. 

There is convincing evidence that Luchesi himself conducted the 'Paukenmesse' in Bonn on 8th May 1784. Haydn, 12 years later, claims he composed it and it entered the 'Entwurf Catalogue' for the first time only in 1798-9. 

I hope this is at least a very brief description of the sorts of issues that surround many, many works 'by Haydn'. The situation with regard to virtually every 'Hadyn' symphony is chaotic. Sammartini and Luchesi both supplied works to Esterhazy that Haydn received credit for only at the time of his retirement. During his time at Esterhazy there is no document attributing Haydn with dozens of symphonies. And we have a great deal of evidence that Sammartini was selling symphonies for German princes, including Esterhazy sometimes at the rate of one a fortnight.

I hope I can return to this subject another time to show how, in later years, Haydn had no idea which symphonies he had supposedly written. And to show how he attempted to create 'autographs' of works which were, frankly, never his. This occurred at Esterhazy. 

Regards

p.s. From the same Haydn biography we read - 

'In all his business dealings Haydn shows himself shrewdly aware of the merits and saleability of his works, quick to stand up for his rights and NOT ABOVE THE OCCASSIONAL PIECE OF DOUBLE-DEALING. HIS SALE OF PUBLISHING RIGHTS OF HIS Opus 33 QUARTETS AND ALSO OF THE '7 LAST WORDS' TO BOTH THE VIENNA PUBLISHER ARTARIA AND TO FORSTER IN LONDON AT THE SAME TIME GOT HIM IN TO TROUBLE WITH BOTH FIRMS, AND COST HAYDN HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH FORSTER. Despite this, HE SOLD TO YET ANOTHER ENGLISH PUBLISHER, BLAND, WHILE IN LONDON, A TRIO WHICH HE HAD PREVIOUSLY ALREADY SOLD TO ARTARIA. (ARTARIA HAD SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR SOLE RIGHTS). (p.50)


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

robert newman said:


> The score of the 'Magic Flute' was in the hands of Luchesi even before its first performance in Vienna - a fact confirmed by the Bonn publisher Simrock and recorded in 'La Jeunnese de Beethoven' by Prodhomme.


This is not one of your best arguments. I'm sure many people had the score of 'Carmen' before its first performance.


> The same was happening with Haydn in his later years. In fact, Haydn stopped off in Bonn to receive his London symphonies, from Luchesi.


I read he even stopped in Bonn in both trips to London. 
But isn't there another city where he stopped both times. 
Didn't all people travelling from Vienna to London stopped in Bonn? It's clearly between the two cities.
I hope you've got stronger evidence of Haydn coming to Bonn to receive his symphonies.



> That Mozart's father was involved in grossly exaggerating the supposed compositional achievements of his son (in his childhood and in his youth) is, to my view, beyond question. That Mozart was accused of blatant falsehood in his works (e.g. in his supposed writing of 'La Finta Semplice' and other works such as 'Idomeneo' is also a plain fact.


I agree with this. But where are your really serious arguments?



> Here is an excerpt from a letter by Leopold Mozart to his son (then in Paris) on the subject of 'Mozart's' symphonies thus far. The year is 1778 -
> 
> 'What does you no credit is better to remain unknown - for this reason I did not give away any of your symphonies, as I forsee that in a riper age, when the critical capacity grows, you yourself will be very happy they don't belong to anybody, even though, when you wrote them, you were satisfied. One grows more and more exigent'
> (Leopold Mozart to W.A. Mozart - 24th September 1778) - Mozart then aged 22


This letter you quoted tends to make me think Wolfie did compose those symphonies.

Regarding the Haffner symphony, I'm not completely convinced. How do you know it's Luchesi? Just because it was in Bonn?
Why an arrangement by Mozart is a proof that the original is not his?

I'm hungry of more precise arguments. Can you give them to me? 
Is there a place, book or website where I can find them?

It won't be easy to convince me. But I'm going to check objectively, trust me.


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

Your arguments about the 7 last words are convincing. For sure. 
But it's also because this work is musically strange in Haydn's production. 

What I would need to be convinced of a massive trickery, are proofs (or very strong arguments) about the symphonies. Especially the "London". 

Don't tell me about haydn's morality. I know he was not as good & innocent as he's often claimed to be. I know that he was a "clever" businessman. 

What CDs of Luchesi should I purchase? This could be really helpful.

Could the attributions of the symphonies of Modena not being unfair? 
Why? When & how was it done?


----------



## robert newman

Topaz, 

Q1-8

1. Wow, that question would take a day to answer in real detail. 

Briefly, prior to 1773 (the year in which the Jesuits, acknowledged teachers of music throughout the Holy Roman Empire were banned), there had been moves within the Catholic Church to escape from Gregorian chant and barogue music. This fashionable movement for new music was best perhaps described as 'pastoralism' or 'neo-classicism'. It had the approval of church authorities in Rome. It urged for a return to simpler themes, these often based on classical writers of antiquity. This movement (which has as its most famous expression the creation of the Arcadia Society with many branches throughout Italy) focused on simpler, shepherd-like themes. 'Mozart's' early opera 'Il Re Pastore' is such an example. A leading centre of this new style (which saw itself as the opponent of Baroque music) was in Padua. It also attempted to degrade rationalism. Some of these Italian 'arcadians' were based in Bologna and devoted themselves to Petrach. Elsewhere, a type of 'pastoral/gesuitica religiosita' was expressed by writers in Padua and elsewhere. Musical theorists of the time (such as Valloti) worked with this movement. Luchesi, as a youth, studied under this movement. And from this Catholic movement came librettists such as Metastasio, who lived for a long time in Vienna. The idea was to revolutionise stage music using this new 'pastoral style', this as a counter to the ideas of the German baroque under, say, JS Bach and his contemporaries. German composers increasingly came to Italy to study this new approach. Hasse, JC Bach etc. etc. And the move to introduce this style into Germany/Austria had powerful supporters, such as Count Durazzo (later employed in Vienna). 

It was in this context, with the Jesuits still effectively dominating large areas of musical Europe, that Luchesi was chosen by the then Elector of Cologne, Max Friedrich, to become the new Kapellmeister. Luchesi, one of the most talented of the young musicians/composers of Italy was selected in an attempt to revive the fortunes of the Bonn Principality, whose reputation had fallen greatly under the wayward leadership of Beethoven's grandfather. 

So, with Luchesi's arrival at Bonn in 1771 all looked well. Luchesi had no real enemies. He was simply acknowledged to be one of the best men for the job. 

But then came major change. 2 Years after Luchesi's arrival came the shattering news that the Jesuit Order were no more. (That their order had been dissolved, by the pope himself). This decision, which had long been expected owing to the huge number of their supposed abuses., threw many schools and colleges in to a state of virtual chaos. 

The ban had, to some extent, been anticipated. In fact, there is evidence that it was quite well known in some administrative circles that the Jesuit dominance of music teaching was about to end. 

1773 is the year when the official existence of the Jesuits in European classical music 'goes off the radar screen'. But, in reality, its influence as an order (though shortly afterwards officially bannned in the Austrian Empire) continued. And, to ensure that Jesuit musicians and Jesuit hopes of revival were not crushed, evidene suggests that a network was established BEFORE the ban, in which a prominent role (administratively) was given to a largely unknown Jesuit-educated musican, later known to music history as Abbe Georg Vogler. Vogler's role (privately) was to create and maintain a network of composers who would work to ensure Jesuit/Catholic influence in the arts and in theatre. Vogler at Mannheim established a theory school. He published books on music theory. And he travelled very widely. His entire career (behind the scenes) was to preseve the old order of things. And part of this network was now to be Luchesi. Other Jesuit educated composers were to include JM Kraus, Mysliveck, Michael Haydn, and others. All could be depended on, if the need arose, to work for a common goal - the restoration of the Jesuits as the 'schoolmasters of Europe' and this against growing criticism from secularists and from other influences such as that of Bach etc. Out of this 'undercover' movement (and especially once it became clear that Latin could no longer be used as the 'lingua franca' of musical instruction) the Jesuits tried to endear themselves to the Emperor in Vienna (who was both Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and also Emperor of the Austrian/Hungarian Empire) to support new, indigenous German talent, such as Haydn and Mozart in particular. 

The glory that would come to Austria if Haydn and Mozart were trophies of the Empire was very real. Austria had dismally failed on the battlefields of Europe. But now Haydn, and then Mozart, were portrayed as making Vienna the 'city of music'. 

Such an idea came gradually. It became obvious that the move towards German nationalism was probably unstoppable. It also became obvious that the Jesuits (now officially banned by the Empress Maria Theresa and by her son Joseph 2nd) had to tread carefully. 

So the Jesuits (with what influence they had left) appeared to switch allegiance. They began supporting Haydn and Mozart in particular. Again, to endear themselves to the Austrian rulers. To regain lost prestige and, hopefully, to secure for themselves their own restoration as an order of the Catholic Church. 

Luchesi, still in Bonn, was aware that the idea of only a few years ago, of 'pastoralism' and revived classicism was really not going to work for long. And now, being Kapellmeister of one of the most prestigious chapels in Germany, his role became more clear. It was obvious that he could not be fired from his post. Such posts were for life. He was retained (at reduced salary) but now started to 'assist' Mozart's career in the same way that he had been doing (with Sammartini) for Hadyn. From 1784 onwards the qualitative leap in 'Mozart's' music is extraordinary. The year when Mozart began his thematic catalogue in Vienna. They year when the new Elector of Bonn (Max Franz) arrived to take up his post. 

Max Franz was a brother of the Emperor. He knew Mozart from years before. (They were the same age). And Max Franz had (foolishly) many times offered Mozart the post of Kapellmeister at Bonn. This, he could not do. For Luchesi was well in his post and was already locally married. He also had no great need of money. And his works were in great demand in Germany. 

This is really why Luchesi agreed (with Max Franz's knowledge) to help the reputation of Mozart. And why the 'deals' remained virtually unknown. Mozart and Haydn would become the musical darlings of the Austria and also of the late Holy Roman Empire. Who would know ? And all this would be achieved by pulling the strings behind the scenes. By a movement that began in Rome and in which Luchesi, George Vogler and others were increasingly involved. 

Note - Kapellmeisters were forbidden to compose/sell music in their own name. But it was far from unknown for them to do so using a 'pen name'. This is exactly what Luchesi had done, even before 1784. He used the pen-name of his own cousin (a dilettante musician named D'Anthoine) and his works were famous. Up until 1784 - at which point much of his output went directly to Mozart. On Mozart's death (Dec. 1791) the same 'D'Anthoine' begins composing again, with a string of stage works for Bonn - all lost - as were ALL 'D'Anthoine's' other works. They like the works of Luchesi, disappear. For the simple reason that Luchesi IS 'D'Anthoine' and Luchesi is supplying his choicest works (as are others) to fuel the reputations

2. Between 1784 and his death in December 1791 we have various proofs that Mozart earned very large sums of money. He was hugely popular as a performer in the series of piano subscription concerts that featured in his early Vienna career. He was very often in demand at the homes of the nobility. Works by Mozart were published by the new branch of Artaria (many of them not even his !) and, in addition, he had access to various sorts of credit. The 'begging letters' of Mozart to Michael Puchberg, Vienna merchant, conceal the fact that, in reality, Puchberg was acting as a virtual banker for these transactions on behalf of rich patrons such as Max Franz in Bonn, and others. Mozart's known earnings in 1789-1791 made him among the most well-off of families in Vienna (with the exception, of course, of the nobility). But Mozart and the truth of his finances has always been a subject concealed behind concreted myths. There still exists a page in Mozart's hand in which he estimates his earnings for one year and in which he writes of the sum needing to be divided equally in to 5 equal parts !! Why this ? Such a damning piece of paper has hardly attracted much attention till recently. But the fact is that Mozart, as a pawn in a game,profited from his meteoric rise to fame, just as he was under strict instructions to play it to perfection. The little known prosecution of Mozart in the final years of his life (by Count Lichnowksy) is a subject that can be discussed. It's a factor. 

The payments to Mozart by Puchberg have always puzzled biographers. In fact, Puchberg extended credit to Mozart, but only within the strict parameters of the system that he was part of. 

So, in answer to your question, there is no direct evidence of such payments. There is instead a mass of evidence for manipulation of what 'Mozart' wrote, a series of blatant contradictions in his financial status, and a whole series of highly suspicious events - all of them suggestive of what his career being falsely 'manufactured'. 

- SEE NEXT POST -


----------



## robert newman

FOR TOPAZ =- CONT'D

3. No, it's not true that 'Beethoven worked primarily under C. Neefe while he was at Bonn'. In fact, Neefe was appointed temporary Kapellmeister to the Bonn chapel for only 1 year (1783) during the time when Luchesi was on leave for family business in Italy. Prior to that date he had been court organist. Neefe also acted as keyboard player to the Grossmann theatre group (associated with the Bonn chapel up until 1784, at which time they became more independent). So it's simply not true that Neefe was a major teacher of the young Beethoven. In point of fact, the first piece attributed to Beethoven was a funeral cantata on the death of the English envoy, George Cressner (1781) which Thayer records was finished only with the assistance of Andrea Luchesi. And Luchesi (unlike Neefe) was accomplished in ALL forms of composition. In addition, there is a long list of known pupils of Luchesi at Bonn. Beyond reasonable doubt Luchesi (as Kapellmeister) was the true and only main teacher of the young Ludwig van Beethoven. It was later in this schooling that he, Beethoven, assisted in the two great state cantatas WoO87 and WoO88 (both by Luchesi) which have falsely been attributed to the young Beethoven himself. The plain fact is that teaching music to chapel students is one of the chief tasks of a Kapellmeister. The fact that this virtual decade of Beethoven's young life virtually excludes the name of Luchesi begs an explanation. Beethoven did not refer to Luchesi, most probably because the truth is that his own family were for years financially helped by funds that came through the Kapellmeister Luchesi's budget. The drunkeness in the family virtually ensured that the Beethoven's were dependent on this 'pension'. It was a painful upbringing for Beethoven. One can understand his reluctance to speak much of this arrangement. The finances themselves came from the English ambassador George Cressner. And they lasted for years. It was Luchesi who, in 1774 (already 3 years in Bonn) who was confirmed Kapellmeister. This too must have hurt, since at no time was Beethoven's father under serious consideration for the post. 

Some of Beethoven's Conversation books are lost. Perhaps they dealt with this 'silent period' more fully ?

4. Yes, certainly, but let's look at the dates. By the time Beethoven became a pupil at Bonn most of Luchesi's output was in the name of 'D'Anthoine'. In 1784 he wrote almost exclusively for Haydn and Mozart. If Beethoven knew these works they would have been works attributed to 'Haydn' and to 'Mozart', but not to Luchesi himself. 


SEE NEXT POST


----------



## robert newman

FOR TOPAZ - CONT'D

5. Well, I see it a little differently perhaps. I think the evidence is that Haydn's visit near Bonn (en route to London) was the time (winter of 1790 ?) when the young Beethoven first met Haydn. It was at a breakfast. On that occasion it was Hadyn himself (not Beethoven) who made the offer of teaching the young composer on his return from England, yes ? And what does Beethoven say of this 'teaching' from Haydn ? He says 'from Haydn I learnt NOTHING'. 

The truth is of course that Beethoven was recognised to be extremely talented. Who would turn down the chance to be 'taught' by the great 'Papa Haydn'. The ceudos was great. And Haydn benefited too (up to his eyeballs in fakery and false attributions). Needless to say Haydn did not such thing as teach. So much for his 'offer'. And studies of his work under Albrechtsberger etc. show a young man impatient with the old studies that were the 'strict counterpoint' of Viennese conservatism. He (Beethoven) knew rather better and was shortly to show it. Treatises by Fux etc. were already at this time pedantic and of little real relevance, even in counterpoint. 

But there is a final reason to take all this with a 'pinch of salt'. Beethoven was clearly being 'groomed' by the very elite establishment who oversaw Mozart. You remember the parting letter for Beethoven to receive the 'spirit of Mozart' etc etc ? But Beethoven had other plans and he broke free of this deference. In the early years he paid lip service to it but was destined for greater things. 

So I can't agree that the usual biographies accurately reflect Beethoven's abilities or his own real beliefs. All the signs are that he wanted little to do with elistist salons and wanted solely to be his own man. Far more so than Mozart, creature of the establishment.

What is it that stamps itself most heavily on us of Beethoven, than his great and essential individualism ? He is, as a composer and as a human being, comparable to the declaration of independence, in music. Yes ? His father was no Jesuit educated collector of religious icons. Beethoven was no Jesuit. No trembling devotee of images or servant of Colloredo. Beethoven was, well, Beethoven ! As he said himself to members of the aristocracy in the presence of Goethe - 'You are merely princes. And there are many of them. I am Beethoven and there is but one of me'. This was no Mozart. 

6. It's an excellent and obvious question. I think the answer if more good fortune than design. Some of the Bonn archives arrived at a relative of Max Franz after his death, in Modena. Nobody was specially interested in them. They were works from the Bonn music archives that were attributed to Haydn and Mozart. But by that time they were known as such anyway. So they lay there for decades. In the earlier part of the 20th century the suggestion was even made (by writers such as Robbins-Landon) that these were early 19th century copies made in Italy and not even from Bonn. But, on closer study it became plain that they had, in fact, come from Bonn and had last been archived in 1784. They seem to have been singled out in 1794 (at the time the chapel closed) because they were potentially damaging to the Haydn/Mozart myth. That is why they were sent to Italy with other Luchesi material etc. They would represent no great threat - especially if their covers were removed and any possible trace of their true provenance. Or so it was believed at the time. 

In addition, who would have the heart (in Modena) to tear to pieces these great works ? So they remained, unstudied, till the 1840's. Until, finally, early attempts were made to study the life and career of the last Bonn Kapellmeister, Andrea Luchesi. And until people actually started to examine these works in the detail they truly deserved. Here, in fact, are works as they were originally scored. But not by Mozart or Haydn. By Luchesi, principally. 

It's an amazing story, for sure. And it will take quite a while before Mozart scholarship gets busy checking the evidence for themselves. But it will not come too soon. 

Regards

R


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

I've searched some more information on the net. Why don't you make a detailed website?
Because what I found was really poor, even in italian. 

Arguments like "it's unlikely that Mozart composed his last 3 symphonies in 2 months" are not really arguments. 
If the answer is "yes, he could", no problem.
If the answer is "no, he lied"... so what? It just means he didn't composed them in 2 months; there's no Luchesi involved. 

Regarding Haydn coming to Bonn to take his symphonies, I didn't find any arguments. The fact that he came to Bonn is presented as an argument in many sites. It's not helping you because it surprises no one than one could stop in Bonn when going from Vienna to London. There was no plane at that time, and Bonn is on the road to London, clearly. 
Really, it's on this particular case that I would like to read arguments. Maybe you can give me the references of some books.

If Mozart & Haydn were not symphonists before 1780 (was it 1784)
How do you explain the story of Haydn's 45th symphony, occurred in 1772? 
It's the most famous example, but if you make researches, you'll find details about the story of many of his symphony. 
Was it all invented? When? 
Regarding Sy 45, great imagination. 

Anyway, it's always good to challenge supposed truth. I thank & encourage you.


----------



## Topaz

*Robert*

Just to say a quick thanks for your replies. I haven't had time yet to read them, but will do so in the next few days. Can I take it you reckon you have answered all the points I raised?

I see that SE has taken an interest too, which is very good.

Can you indicate how far away from publication of these views you are? Also it would useful if you could provide a reference to a piece(s) on a CD written by Luchesi, and published in his name, which you consider demonstrates this man's composing prowess.

Thanks.

Topaz


----------



## robert newman

Topaz,

I think I've given a fair reply to the points you've made but not (of course) in the detail that it would require to convince you. As a general overview I think it's OK. 

You ask how near/far away publication is on these issues. I think my priority (when I have time) is to give more flesh to these bones. There is such a lot of information to be collated and one can become very involved in simply justifying the broad outlines. I think that it will be a few years before such things are widely spoken of. In the meantime research continues. There are several researchers in Italy who are very active in this area and elsewhere. I've been involved in this area of study for some 10 years and have tried to keep a balance between research and posting to forums etc. 

You ask of CD's by Luchesi. The situation with regard to Luchesi's music (i.e. to the period of real interest, c.1780-1794) is dogged by the fact that many of his works are today known as works of Mozart. The 'official' line is that Luchesi's works have disappeared. And that 'D'Anthoine's' works have also (mysteriously) disappeared. It is, without doubt, one of the strangest stories of music history - how a Kapellmeister of one of Germany's greatest centres of music could be in his post for some 20 years, be contemporary with Haydn and Mozart, be a teacher to Beethoven, be credited in publications for his expertise in all areas of music, and yet be virtually unknown to textbook writers on late 18th century music. 

That the careers of Hadyn and Mozart were 'cultivated' by the Jesuits during the late 18th century (this as an attempt to revive their own fortunes) sounds amazing. But I think it's the correct approach and I see lots of evidence supportive of it as a basic motivation. Music was potent propaganda, of course. The idea of a grey messenger arriving at the home of Mozart with a commission for a Requiem - this sort of thing was typical of propaganda in the late Holy Roman Empire. And typical too of the mythology that developed after his death in December 1791. Aided and abetted at every stage by Constanze Mozart, her ecclesiastical friends, and by early biographers. 

Mozart (for reasons that have not been discussed) fell foul of the very system that brought him such emminence. So there is a case for saying that a new biography of Mozart may be the best way to approach this subject. But, working against this is the life and career of Haydn. 

So, all things considered, exchanges such as this have their value, if only to look freshly at basic assumptions. You might care to hear the 6 sonatas for violin and keyboard (known as Op.1) which Luchesi had published at Bonn in the early 1770's. These amazingly anticipate Beethoven, a decade and more before ! (That publication was the first music ever printed at Bonn). Those sonatas are available on CD. 

Regards


Robert


----------



## robert newman

Sinfonia espansiva, 

Yes, you are right. The material available online is generally not very good. But this is an entirely new field and most researchers in it are really busy researching. It can be time-consuming and repetitive to debate online if the critic has already made it clear that he believes in convention. But in your case (as a person who is fair and open-minded on these issues) I think you may be interested to know that there are several academics who are deeply involved in these issues. In recent years, in Italy, there has been a real attempt to study Luchesi in greater detail and there has been a spate of recordings of Luchesi works. Unfortunately most of these are of music composed prior to 1771 (for reasons that are obvious - since the thesis is that his music from 1771 to 1794 is today largely attributed to others). 

I entirely agree that an argument needs to be made of Luchesi obtaining music from Bonn for his English tours. None was offered. Yes, I will see what I can do about this. These things all take time as you will appreciate. I was merely sketching an outline. But I will try to justify this in some detail in a later post. 

You may be aware of the writings of G. Carpani ? He wrote about Sammartini's huge supply of music to Germany. 

Do you read Italian ? If not, I can get you some detailed information regarding Haydn (symphonies and masses) in English. 

None of us are experts. We just keep finding new things all the time. Pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that just keep fitting. Prof. Giorgio Taboga is a specialist on the life and works of Luchesi. I am more interested in the context within which Haydn and Mozart lived. So we share a great deal in common even if, sometimes, we have differences of emphasis. To me, the key to solving all this is in the contexts of those times.

By the way, as far as the stylistic basis of Mozart's style is concerned (which really only emerges around the late 1770's/early 1780's) may I recommend that you listen to some music by Myslivececk ? 

Best regards


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

Yes, I do read italian. 
I think I would even have the courage to read a book in italian. But it does not seem so easy to find books on the topic. 
But I don't trust the objectiveness of italians on the subject. 

Did de la Borde wrote more than 1 sentence about this? His testimony is interesting.

I believe in Luchesi having composed works that disappeared. But were they all given to Mozart and Haydn? My reaction is to believe it's a bit more complicated. 

You understand it's quite difficult for me to believe That the same guy composed both Mozart & Haydn last symphonies. 
I believe he could be a genius. But when I hear the difference of style between both musics, It makes me think that such a guy would have done 2 careers as a musical genius (at the same time).
I'm going to buy his music anyway. I know it will be only his early works:angry: .


----------



## robert newman

I agree there's risk of these things degenerating into an 'Italy versus Germany' debate. That would be unfortunate since nationalism is one reason for omissions in the past. (In the romantic period German musicologists praised indigenous genius almost to the exclusion of all others). The same can be said of nationalism amongst various Italians (whose massive and indisputable achievements speak for themselves). So, yes, I agree we need to be objective.

It's also fair to point out that if these things are true Luchesi, Sammartini and others contributed to their own anonymity by writing for others.

I'd like to post here on watermarks - specifically on symphonic manuscripts attributed to Haydn in the collection at Modena, Italy (those which came from the Bonn chapel in the early 19th century). These are important too -

WATERMARKS 

One particular watermark (known as 'Nic Heisler') features prominently in music from Bonn now in Modena. This watermark belongs to paper made in the Rhine Valley. Paper using such a watermark is unknown before 1750 and it's not known to have been manufactured later than 1788. So 'Nic Heisler' in this collection at Modena comes from a time when Luchesi was a composer, conductor, teacher and chapel master in Bonn. We know from other sources that at Bonn paper of Dutch, Italian, and Swabian origin was also in use at this time.

Works on Italian paper are equally interesting. Some symphonies written on Venetian paper are today automatically described as early 'Haydn' but they remarkably correspond with Luchesi being in Venice himself at this time (1763-5). Thus, we have the following -

1. SOME SYMPHONIES (ON VENETIAN PAPER)

MODENA REFERENCE  'COMPOSER'  USUAL REFERENCE

Mus-D-142 'HAYDN' Hob.13
Mus-D-143 'HAYDN'  Hob.31
Mus-D-144 'HADYN' Hob.35
Mus-D-147 'HADYN' Hob.70
Mus-D-149 'HAYDN' Hob.22
Mus-D-154 'HAYDN' Hob.28
Mus-D-155 'HADYN' d.1 (Not listed in Hoboken)

There must surely be a strong possibility that the above works were amongst those that arrived with Luchesi in Bonn in 1771. They are nevertheless attributed to Joseph Haydn at Modena and were attributed to him before they arrived there.

2. 'Haydn' symphonies written on 'Nic Heisler' paper at Modena that correspond with the years 1764-80 are the following -

MODENA REFERENCE 'COMPOSER' USUAL REFERENCE

Mus-D-131 'HAYDN' Hob.75
Mus-D-133 'HAYDN' Hob.42
Mus-D-137 'HAYDN' Hob.74
Mus-D-138 'HAYDN' Hob.50
Mus-D-148 'HAYDN' Hob.55
Mus-D-150 'HAYDN' Hob.24
Mus-D-151 'HAYDN' Hob.44
Mus-D-156 'HAYDN' Hob.71

3. 'Nic-Heisler' paper is used exclusively for works in this collection for the years 1761-69 -

Mus-D-134 'HAYDN' Hob.64
Mus-D-135 'HADYN' Hob.53
Mus-D-139 'HAYDN' Hob.48
Mus-D-140 'HAYDN' Hob.36
Mus-D-141 'HAYDN' Hob.51
Mus-D-152 'HAYDN' Hob.52

After 1775 it seems Nic Heisler was mostly used in Bonn by copyists for instrumental parts though this needs to be more closely examined. It is certain that in the years 1779-80 we find it used alongside Venetian and German paper and that after 1783 it virtually disappears.

Since all the above symphonies are today in Modena, being in Bonn before Luchesi left for 1 year in Italy (April 1783) and were in Bonn for the Inventory made there on 8th March 1784 it can perhaps be understood why conventional writers on Haydn (e.g. Robbins Landon) have found it so hard to accept the implications of these watermarks. Robbins Landon even suggested these manuscripts must have been produced on paper made in ITALY in the 19th century that used 'NIC HEISLER' ! (He later argued the same with other Haydn works).

For example, in 'Hadyn Symphonies' he describes D-642 (Hob.63) at Modena as 'NIC HEISLER WATERMARK OTHERWISE FOUND ONLY IN MODENA - SOURCE PROBABLY ORIGINATED IN MODENA WITH THE AUSTRIAN ARCHDUKE'S ORCHESTRA C.1820' (Robbins Landon 'Haydn Symphonies' p.710)

Such a description is clearly wrong. He goes on to say of other works attributed to Haydn, 'MANY OTHER SECONDARY SOURCES FOR THIS WORK, (AS FOR INSTANCE GENOA, MODENA, NAPLES ETC.) ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT TO BE WORTH INCLUDED HERE'.

Again, Robbins Landon, in describing D-656 at Modena (Hob.62) states that there are 3 copies of this work at Modena, one of them unattributed and one of them incomplete. As a matter of fact, there are only two copies of Hob.62 there (Mus-D-643 and Mus-D-157) - AND THESE EVEN BEAR ON THEIR COVERS 'DE ANNO 1783' - wholly contradicting his claim that they are written on paper from Italy of some 50 years later.

The Modena copy of Hob.53 'Imperial' (D-657) is again described by Robbins Landon (p.695) as written on 'A SOURCE OF LOCAL ORIGIN - MODENESE - OF THE END OF THE 18TH CENTURY OR SOMEWHAT LATER' - again on the basis of it being written on Nic-Heisler paper ! But this paper is Bavarian in origin. There were at no time paper mills in Itay producing such paper.

It is clear that all of the above works were in Bonn on 8th May 1784.

Regards


----------



## Topaz

Robert

Thanks for your reply to my questions. If I may, I should like to ask a few more:


Can you please provide a detailed picture of Luchesi's character. I have no idea whether he was an ebullient, self-confident man, or a withdrawn, unassuming person, or somewhere in between. This is important, as if he had been the former type it is much less likely that he would have co-operated in the kind of complex fraudulent plot that you envisage. It is surely normal human nature to want recognition for one's achievements, especially ones made to help others over an extended period. However, even if he was the shy and compliant type, it would still be odd behaviour because intelligent, extremely capable people who shun publicity are not normally keen for others to take credit for all their endeavours. Whatever type he was, if he was a religiously inclined man - as I believe he was - I wonder how he reconciled this alleged skulduggery with his conscience.

If it is true that Mozart and Haydn were weak composers, why did they have such a high regard for each other? Are you saying that neither was aware that the other was in receipt of an alleged supply of material from Luchesi and others? That would be very strange, as one might have expected that either Mozart or Haydn would have guessed that the other was in on the same game. This image of two charlatans greatly admiring each other and enjoying spectacular public success over many years, all at the expense of some poor chap in Bonn who was long under the influence of the conniving Jesuits, would sound like a Monty Python sketch to a cynic. It is even more odd if the poor chap's boss has just reduced his salary, and really wanted to replace him by an allegedly weaker composer (Mozart) he is supplying with high quality material. No scriptwriter would ever come up with such a complex plot.

In fact, the alleged motives for Luchesi going to all this trouble merely to help the Jesuits, sounds suspect. What possible gain could Luchesi have made, even if the Order had been re-established soon after their demise in 1773? Luchesi had no higher musical ambitions, did he? So, what was in it for him? If it was merely the satisfaction of seeing the Jesuits back in favour, this approach seemed a ling-winded way of doing it with a highly uncertain pay-off.

How did Luchesi manage to change his style to match that of both W A Mozart and Joseph Haydn? If he could do it for these two people, why not for three, or four. Indeed, why did the Jesuit mafia not try to set up other "Mozarts" to enable Vienna really to hum with "talent"? Poor old Luchesi must have been extremely busy churning out all this material even for two hungry clients. Eyebrows have been raised at the spectacular output of Mozart and Haydn individually, but to have produced the output for both seems super-human. It is all the more amazing given that Luchesi had a year's holiday in year up to April 1784, when all this subterfuge allegedly started. Meanwhile, what were Mozart and Haydn actually doing in Vienna, if all the hard slog of composing was going on apace in Bonn? If they were just sitting around with their feet up, don't you think their circle of friends and colleagues might have spotted a few things that did not seem quite right about all their spare time? It is a very weird picture indeed.

Why should the new Elector of Bonn, Max Franz, who took up his post in 1784, wish to get rid of Luchesi to replace him by Mozart, who on your view was not much good as a composer? Indeed, if the Elector knew that Mozart was not much good as a composer - as presumably he did, ex hypothesi, if he arranged for Luchesi to supply Mozart with quality material - why did he (the Elector) want to replace a known performer with a dud? This really does not make any sense. I gather it was not just a one-off job offer by the Elector but one repeated several times. 
You say there is no direct evidence of payments from Mozart to any third party for any of these works allegedly supplied by Luchesi, but that he (Mozart) seemed to get confused with money problems. Given how busy Mozart was in the musical sense, is it any wonder he got into muddle at times with money? He was not an accountant was he? If his main aim was mainly to produce crowd-pleasing music, why should he take much notice of the day-to-day finances? 
As an idea, is it conceivable that Mozart and Haydn occasionally bought in partly worked-up pieces from others, including from Luchesi, and then worked on them to bring them up a much higher quality? Or didn't such music production lines exist in those days. Indeed, is it possible that Mozart and Haydn may have actually started the sketching of major works, and then got a variety of minions to fill in the minor details? Alternatively, is it conceivable that they sent off more or less finished works to Bonn for the boffins there to check things over and suggest possible enhancements? If any of this is possible, then it might account for a lot of the alleged suspicious activity you think you have discovered. 
Do you credit Mozart with any major works? If so, how do you reconcile this with his alleged weak ability as a composer?
Are there any works by Luchesi published in his name, or attributable to him beyond reasonable doubt, that were produced between 1784 and 1791? If not, why not? Are you saying the whole of this man's output went to Mozart and Haydn? That fact alone is highly suspicious. Wasn't he supposed to be producing for the locals too? 
Beethoven, of all people, must have known how clever Luchesi really was, and it seems incredible that he did not refer to it at any stage. The suggestion that he (Beethoven) felt somehow awkward about ever discussing it because of previous family connections with the Kapellmeister post held by his grandfather sounds implausible to me. If indeed Beethoven was prepared to dish out the insults regarding Haydn (i.e., saying he learned nothing from the latter), you would think that he wouldn't have any qualms about saying the opposite of Luchesi, if it were justified? After all, Beethoven had kind things to say about Schubert, and they only met briefly.

I can see why Beethoven may have been disappointed with the tuition he received at Esterhazy, but it still doesn't alter the fact that he left Bonn to work under someone he must have considered a worthy teacher. Are you really suggesting that part of the plot by the Jesuits/Elector was to send Beethoven to strengthen further the reputation of Vienna? If so, is there any evidence or this mere conjecture?

Even if there is some truth in your suggestion that Beethoven was somehow roped into helping the Jesuit "cause" in Vienna, why did he actually have to go work with Haydn first? He had spent 12 years reputedly in the best chapel in Europe, under the most startlingly brilliant composer the world has ever seen. What could Haydn teach him? Indeed, why send Beethoven, of all people? If your allegations are correct, Luchesi and the Elector must have known, after all these years training in Bonn, that Beethoven would probably learn nothing from Haydn, and even if he did would probably not toe the line (if there was a "line" to toes) because of his individuality and wish to break away.

As opposed to your sinister views about why Beethoven moved to Vienna in 1792, is it not far more likely that he picked up all the essential composing skills he needed from the Bonn school and merely wanted to go to Vienna because he realised that was the true centre of excellence? While he may have recognised Luchesi as a good composer, is it not far more likely that he was not in the super-league bracket of Mozart? I realise that Mozart had died by the time Beethoven arrived in 1792, but by then Vienna's reputation had been established and Beethoven's move may have been somewhat pre-planned.

You say some of the Bonn archives arrived at the home of a relative of Max Franz after his death in Modena, but by this time they were works that were attributed to Haydn and Mozart, and hence nobody took any interest in them. You say the original covers, showing Luchesis's name, had been removed, and Haydn's and Mozart's name somewhat crudely substituted. I do not understand this. It does not answer why, in the first place, records were retained in Bonn of works sold or otherwise provided to Haydn and Mozart. Why keep copies of incriminating evidence? Why was Luchesi's name on the documents in the first place if they were supposedly anonymous? Does this not contradict the whole idea of trying to conceal identity? How do you know Luchesi's name was removed, or was it merely over-written? This whole part of the story needs clarifying, i.e. how Luchesi's name later got to appear on the works in the 1784 inventory that were unsigned.

You appear not to have answered my question how you know that the Modena records, on which you rely so heavily, have not been falsified subsequently. For example, have you or anyone else had any sophisticated, scientific dating tests carried out on any part of the documents you rely upon, to ensure that amendments and anomalies were actually carried at the appropriate times, and not subsequently?

Finally, you have not answered my question whether there any major areas of this entire research into Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven on which you disagree with Taboga (your Italian co-researcher colleague), and if so whether you could clarify the main areas? If these disagreements are significant, does this not cast doubt on the basic allegations that you both adhere to? The reason I ask this question is that I understand that you disagree with Taboga that Joseph Haydn wrote virtually nothing himself, and that Mozart was not the author of some of the operas. Is that correct?
Thanks.

Topaz


----------



## robert newman

Hello Topaz, 

Sorry, I can't provide much of a picture of Luchesi's character. He's so far proving to be almost as elusive a person/personality as, say, a Homer or a Shakespeare. The only known portrait of him is itself disputed. (It has until recently been described as a portrait of G. Neefe). You can see it on various Luchesi websites online. From what little I know (i.e. from the facts of his life etc.) he seems to have been a very meticulous sort of person. Not hugely ebullient or extrovert. Highly competent in a pratical and academic sense. To have been a Kapellmeister in Bonn for virtually 20 years is quite a feat in itself. 

I must admit, the more I've looked at this subject the more intriguing it has become. Even his death is extraordinary. As a man who had been in such a high profile job for so many years there appears to be no record of his funeral or of any ceremony involved in it. We do not even know the precise place where he was buried. We know only that he was married locally, had several children who were musical, that he was able to buy 2 large houses in Bonn (one of which he sold in his final years) and that he almost certainly got involved in theatrical productions in Bonn between 1794 and the year of his death. 

There seems to be very little about this case that is free of enigmas. 

You ask how he could reconcile skullduggery with his own conscience. I can only suggest that there are certain people whose lives are spent in 'service' to one cause or another who may spend their entire careers without getting much recognition for their work, and who died in virtual obscurity. (One can think of intelligence officers or spies etc. - or those who worked with secrets). But yes, such a career sounds bizzare. I really do not know what motivated Luchesi to do what he did. Whether he was a Jesuit (even a lay-Jesuit) I do not know also, although there is no doubt that during his youth he moved in academic circles that were Jesuit. He also had a didactic and artistic relationship with the mathematical family of Riccati (one of whose sons, Vincenzo, who was a Jesuit). 

Luchesi's name appears at the head of no less than 20 Cologne court calendars. He is praised in Italy even before he arrives in Bonn during 1771. We know that his music is in great demand etc etc. 

There are works by Mozart which are very poor indeed. The same is true of Haydn. What of the one act singspiel, 'The Impresario' (this written within months of the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro') and yet remarkably poor. Or, again, what of the string quartets KV168-173, which are so poor that many commentators have described them as a backward step in Mozart's progress. The Koechel list is stuffed with works that are musically bland, even taking in to account the fact that much of his childhood and youthful music was indisputably 'aided' by others. 

No, of course 'Papa' Haydn and Mozart knew exactly where they stood. They knew very well that each of their careers were being artificially 'massaged'. It actually explains their relationship. The image of two charlatans 'greatly admiring each other' is as suspect as the image of Mozart 'enjoying spectacular success over many years'. If I am not mistaken, Mozart's Vienna career mainly focused on concerts given for the nobility in private homes and by way of subscriptions from rich patrons. This gave him status. Later (around 1786) we saw the opening of several music publishing firms in Vienna such as Artaria (a publisher whose strange relationship with Constanze Mozart begs an explanation). The fact that many works appear to have flowed from Mozart's hand during the Vienna years is not really too surprising if the basic outine is correct. 

Why didn't Mozart keep a thematic catalogue until 1784 ? For it's at this very time that his music appears to have received a quantum boost.

Yes, I truly do believe that both Haydn and Mozart were, to a very great extent, 'manufactured' composers. Skillful players, arrangers, opportunists etc. but not the men that tradition gives us. 

You ask how Luchesi managed to change his style to both both that of Mozart and Haydn. Well, I think most people would agree that the 'distinctive' Mozartean style arrives surpisingly late in his career. In stage terms it perhaps arrives very suddenly - with the two unfinished stage works of 'L'oca del Cairo' and again with 'Lo Sposo Deluso'. (Neither of these works were actually commissioned). But, prior to this time, we would be hard pressed to hear distinctively 'Mozartean' themes in his output. 

It is as if these two fragmentary stageworks (both of them written between 'Idomeneo' and 'Le Nozze di Figaro') suddenly finds 'Mozartean' music, stylistically. Where is the Mozartean style in 'Idomeneo' ? (In fact, there were accusations of Mozart stealing music from Handel to write 'Idomeneo' and the March from it was, beyond reasonable doubt, actually composed by JM Kraus (1756-1792) since the latter used it himself (again) in music written years later for the Swedish government. The relationship between Kraus and Mozart is effectively hidden. But Kraus (himself a Jesuit educated composer) was to have a major part in Mozart's career - especially in 1786 with 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. 

And what too of Myslivececk ?If any one composer taught Mozart his distinctive 'style' it was surely J. Myslivececk. That man is refered to more in the Mozart family correspondence than any other musician. He was a friend of the family for virtually a decade. His surviving music is amazingly 'Mozartean'. And Myslivececk was, also, a Jesuit educated composer. There is a strong case for saying that he, Myslivececk, was the true composer of the 5 Violin Concertos today attributed to W.A. Mozart. (In 'Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians' Myslivececk is described as being one of the leading composers of Violin Concertos of the 1770's). Were you to hear arias by this man you would be amazed by their 'Mozartean' qualities. Here, surely, is the final gloss to the 'Mozart' output. But, again, Myslivececk, like Kraus, like Luchesi, or Sammartini, or M. Haydn, or various others - they are made to have a very minor position at the expense of Mozart's iconic status. 

There is a letter still surviving from JM Kraus (dated late 1785) written in Paris to his sister, saying that Mozart is writing 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. But how could this possibly have been known to Kraus if, as tradition says, Mozart wrote this secretly ? Furthermore, Kraus came to Vienna and is known to have lived within a few hundred yards of Mozart. Yet, officially, they never once met. The March from 'Idomeneo' which (according to 'official' music history Kraus stole for Sweden - how did Kraus get hold of it in the first place - since 'Idomeneo' was not published until both Kraus and Mozart were both dead. And so on. There is no record of Mozart receiving any payment for writing 'Idomeneo' despite being commissioned by powerful men to write it. Nor is there any commission known for 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. How could Mozart have been writing that opera in Vienna when, at the time, Beaumarchais play was still officially banned in Vienna ? And what would have motivated this hater of Voltaire, Mozart, to have taken unto himself the writing of the most controversial and revolutionary stage work of the 18th century without any permit from the censors in Vienna, and without any commission ? The facts of that opera simply do not add up. It's supposed 'librettist' Lorenzo da Ponte' had not, in 1786, written even a single opera libretto at the time. Yet he is credited with writing no less than 3 in that same year ! Was Lorenzo da Ponte Jesuit educated - again, yes. 

Cont'd..........next post


----------



## robert newman

To Topaz, cont'd.....

The career of Mozart was 'stage managed'. Literally. 

You ask why Max Franz, the new elector of Bonn, wished to rid himself of Luchesi and replace him with Mozart if the latter was no great composer. Well, the relationship between Mozart and Max Franz went back to their childhood. Max Franz had once paid a visit to Salzburg at which time the young Mozart presented him with a stage work in honour of his visit. But that work (greatly helped by the Salzburg Kapellmeister Fischietta) had already been set to music many times, even by Fischietta himself. So, again, the falsehood continued. Max Franz knew that Mozart was (because of his childhood tours and his promotion by his father in the courts of Europe) a useful tool for Austrian glory. And he wanted to exploit it. Besides, they were the same age. In 'Thayer's Beethoven' we see this subject of Mozart being repeatedly promised the Bonn post by Max Franz discussed. We even have a letter from Mozart himself, written at the time when his hopes were dashed. In which he insults Max Franz. 

So these things are explainable. The best that could be done was that which happened - Mozart's reputation had to be 'helped' in some other way. It was. And that is what we are here discussing. 

Mozart's main aim was, yes, to write music that made people happy and which sustained him and the people who he loved. Surely, yes. 

The idea that Mozart and Haydn took works from others and made clever arrangements of them is very, very near the truth. One of Mozart's real talents WAS as an arranger. We can see this clearly in the history of several serenades which he (Mozart) turned in to symphonies. We can see it again when we compare the 'Mozart' symphonies at Modena with the versions we today are familiar with. So, yes, Mozart, a great and highly talented arranger. 

Do I credit Mozart with having composed any major works (?). Really, of the works I have personally studied (which do not include the piano concertos, 'Don Giovanni', 'Cosi Fan Tutte' or 'Die Zauberflote') I can say that I know of very few. 

It does indeed seem incredible that Beethoven did not refer to Luchesi. But, again, it's incredible that virtually NOBODY did. Full stop ! In fact, it's scandalous. In the case of Beethoven (who surely worked closely with Luchesi in the production of the works we know of as WoO87 and WoO88 - cantatas for the death of Joseph and the cantata for the state accession of Leopold) any reference Beethoven may have made must surely have been removed from the record in the lost Conversation books. For, surely, these are works of state (for Frankfurt) - works which, in the normal course of events, would have been written by the Kapellmeister. Not by Beethoven. But Beethoven definitely seems to have been involved in getting them ready for performance as a task of him finishing his music studies. (In a letter written by Haydn to Max Franz the latter states clearly that, in Vienna, Beethoven had still only written 4 works - and they were definitely not either of these two major works). 

You are right. Beethoven was not 'sent' to Vienna. He (like all composers of the time) wanted to go there. Urgently. But what I said was that the talent of Beethoven was very real, even in Bonn, so he was nurtured by the 'establishment' - Lichnowsky, Waldstein and others - in the same way that had happened to Mozart years before. He (Beethoven) had to go through the motions of musical 'education' in Vienna. But, in truth, (as anyone who met Beethoven must have realised) that young man was a fully developed composer and performer by the time of his arrival there. These were mere social formalities and Beethoven knew it. 

There was nothing 'sinister' in Beethoven's move to Vienna. He had finished his studies and was now leaving for the city. Simple. 

You are right in asking about names/attributions on documents at Bonn. The common practice in chapels was for a register to be kept of incoming music. This was normally done by the Kapellmeister. But, at the same time, works written by the Kapellmeister were normally NOT signed with any name. This for several reasons. First, because a Kapellemeister would often work on a composition for many years, sometimes even up to the time of his retirement or death. Secondly, works by a Kapellmeister were not for commercial sale. They were the property of the chapel. Again, when Bach was at Leipzig very few of his church works were signed. Everyone knew they were the music of the Kapellmeister. The same as at Bonn. 

In 1784 Luchesi was not present at the time when the old elector died. He had still not returned from Italy at the time when the new elector ordered an inventory of all the chapel music. He, Max Franz, would not wait for Luchesi's return. He therefore asked the temporary Kapellmeister Neefe etc. to start the inventory. This they did. But in their haste to finish this huge work they failed to attribute unsigned music to Luchesi. And this is why the inventory document shows dozens of symphonies attributed to nobody, anonymous, or 'de differents auteurs'. This silly mistake by Neefe (if that is what it really was) later led to these pieces being attributed wrongly to Haydn and to Mozart. They were, in fact, not by either of those two composers. 

It's not so much that I am 'heavily reliant' on the Modena records. It's just that as far as tangible evidence is concerned Modena is the chance to test and prove the basic truth of these issues. You ask about sophisticated dating. Well, we have watermarks. That tells us a great deal as you can see from my post above on Haydn. (I will post shortly on watermarks and the 'Mozart' symphonies at Modena). But other tests can and should be made. Handwriting, the identification of copyists, numbers on these documents etc etc. There is still a lot to do. I urge Mozart scholars and Haydn scholars to be fair in actually studying this material - something they have shown no real wish to do in such detail so far. 

I am not aware of any amendments or anomalies occuring to this collection at Modena. On the contrary. It took decades for Modena to study it in any sort of detail. It lay there untouched until the mid-19th century, and even then it was only the church music that had interest at that time. The symphonies remain, as of today, virtually unstudied. And yet they are, I do believe, the versions on which Haydn and Mozart created their own in many, many cases. 

Sorry I didn't answer your original question - whether there are major areas of disagreement between myself and Taboga (my Italian colleague). I must answer you honestly by saying that Taboga has not entirely agreed with the thesis of a Jesuit-led plan to supply Haydn and Mozart. He is much more involved in reviving the reputation of Luchesi. So, I think it fair to say, our perspectives and priorities are complementary but different. From my perspective, i think the existence of such a network (particularly after 1773) is the correct solution for this situation. It is entirely consistent with the view that a network existed whose aim was to further the careers of Mozart and Haydn, and which, simultaneously, would ensure (as actually happened) that the Jesuits and the Catholic church would maintain influence even during a time of collapse in the Holy Roman Empire. If we have a few days together to discuss all these issues I am quite sure that we would be remarkably at one on these general and specific questions. 

You are right. In the beginning of my research I was as startled as you by the claim made by Prof. Taboga that Haydn wrote NO symphonies. It seemed ridiculous. One of the first things I did was to see how I could prove that Tabogas thesis was false. The obvious answer was the use by Haydn (in many works) to use folk melodies from his native land in the Minuets of many of his symphonies. So I posted online to say this. Only later did I realise that, in fact, the writing of Minuets is no great hardship for any composer of average ability. And this made me think again. 

So, in reply, I have learned more. I today believe that at least 2 composers (and others) supplied Haydn with his symphonies. Sammartini first. Then Luchesi. If Haydn wrote symphonies it would interesting to see the evidence. I do not say he did not. I simply say there is a case for saying that many, many works attributed to Haydn were NOT by him, Haydn. 

You can appreciate just how much ground this thesis attempts to cover. I think, myself, it will be a subject of considerable study for many years more. But as to the broad outlines (as far as Haydn and Mozart are concerned) yes, I think, that in a public forum, a debate, the case would prove itself worthy of belief even despite the fact that a great deal more study needs to be done on the subject. 

Regards

Robert


----------



## Topaz

*Robert*

Thanks. I will read your post in more detail and respond later.

Meanwhile I just couldn't resist this:

Scene: Vienna Christmas morning 1785, W A Mozart (Wolfie) and J Haydn (Papa) 

Wolfie: _What did you get from Santa then, Papa? (nudge wink)_

Papa: _I got a symphony, called "101", what about you, Wolfie (nudge wink)?_

Wolfie: _Oh I got one too, mine's in G Min apparently. What's that mean, Papa?_

Papa: _Dunno Wolfie. Don't worry about it. _

Wolfie: _Oh god, it's got "Luchesi" written here, Papa, what am I gonna do?_

Papa: _Don't worry, give it, [quick rubbing out sound]; there, Wolfie, fixed._

Wolfie: _Great you're a real mate; have a mince pie._

Papa: _Yeah, I know. Thanks. Can't wait for the turkey._

Wolfie: _Sssch, the wife's coming._

.............

Topaz


----------



## Topaz

*Robert*

I hope you and others did not mind my joke above. It was actually designed to re-focus readers' minds on the central issue, because much of the material heretofore has been quite dense, and I can imagine many people having lost the plot. I think this little sketch above broadly summarizes the key point of your thesis that Mozart and Haydn knowingly and secretly accepted high quality material from Luchesi and others to further their careers as they themselves were incapable of producing such masterpieces.

Bach to the detail, let me reiterate that all I am aiming to do is to present questions and counter-arguments that you will probably eventually face from a wider audience, if ever this research gets that far. I am sure you already realise many of the problem areas of this whole thesis, but there may be others that have not occurred to you, or if they have you might not have attached too much significance to them. I do not wish to pursue any of this except through this forum. In that spirit, I put further questions to you in the hope that you may be able to clarify some of the key problem areas, at least to my reckoning. Before doing so, I confirm that I am not convinced by your arguments, although I accept there is a possibility of some truth ("some" is deliberately vague).

*Luchesi's character* - It is a shame that no further information is available about the man. If it turns out that he was the author of these splendid works it is going to make rather dull reading. At least Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven had interesting lives that forms part of the mystique of a great composer. From what you say, all we know is that Luchesi seems to have been a very meticulous sort of person, not hugely ebullient or extrovert, but highly competent in a practical and academic sense. We do not know about the depth of his religious convictions or the extent of his involvement in church affairs. None of this points either way as to whether he was likely to have complied, in a senior manner, with some grand plot to promote the reputation of Haydn and Mozart. I still put it to you that the behaviour that Luchesi allegedly pursued is a highly exceptional human trait. I can think of no-one in my career who remotely approximates this type of behaviour.

*Quality of Genuine Mozart's works *- You say that some of Mozart's (and Haydn's) works are poor quality. You refer to Mozarts KV 168-173 as an example. You say you know of very few works of high quality. Can you please name these few high quality works? You say you have not studied the piano concertos, 'Don Giovanni', 'Cosi Fan Tutte' or 'Die Zauberflote'. Why have you or Taboga not studied any of these specified works? Do you intend to do so? Why did you not study all the works before pronouncing on the authenticity of some? If these specified works were genuine Mozart works, would you concede that Mozart was a very great composer who could in principle have created all the other works that you consider were written by others?

*Haydn & Mozart knowing about their common supply of material *- You say that Haydn and Mozart knew exactly that each of their careers was being artificially 'massaged'. They both realised that they were pawns in some grand game designed to glorify Vienna, German language composers and "pastoral" music as opposed to baroque. They knew that all the clever stuff was being composed elsewhere by a variety of composers. In the case of Haydn it was, principally, Sammartini and then Luchesi. In the case of Mozart, you say his suppliers were mainly Myslivececk, Kraus and Luchesi. You believe there is a strong case for saying that Myslivececk was the true composer of the five Violin Concertos today attributed to W.A. Mozart. What is this case?

*Max Franz wish to recruit Mozart as Kapellmeister at Bonn *- You say that Max Franz realised that Mozart had little ability but he still wanted to use Mozart as a "tool for Austrian glory". In what capacity could Mozart have fulfilled this aim if he was no good as a composer, especially in relation to the alleged superiority of Luchesi? Is it not far more likely that Mozart was the true genius, and Luchesi had outstayed his welcome for some reason? Surely, you would agree that this is by far the most logical way of seeing this. If so, it completely ruins your whole thesis of course. Alternatively, is it possible that the new Elector realised that he could not provide a post for Mozart (given Luchesi's entrenched position and job for life status) but nevertheless, as a subsitute, arranged for Mozart to educate/enrich the Bonn court's musical prowess by providing feedback on initial drafts/sketches of various works of students there? Or possibly Mozart may have produced a first sketch himself of some pieces and got the students (including possibly Luchesi as well) to look at it and comment. These latter alternatives are possible, are they not?

*Music production line *- Are you saying you accept that a "production line" of sorts was normal, recognized and quite legitimate procedure of producing big works at this time? Or are you saying it happened to be a devious way of working merely to enable Haydn and Mozart to "work the system", given the alleged plot they were involved in? Is it conceivable that these two actually produced the greater part of the value added, rather than the other way round as you suggest? If so can you offer any concrete proof that they added very little to the final products.

*Beethoven *- I am very glad that Beethoven at least that comes out of all this unscathed. The minor issue of a few disputed WoOs is immaterial to me. It's obviously still bad news though for Mozart and Haydn based on your view.

*Modena* - Sorry to be a bore but I still do not understand exactly what you think happened to these works from 1784 to the time they reached Modena. I do not understand how Mozart's or Haydn's name ever got on these documents in the first place. Why did Neefe and his other indexers in 1784 put Mozart's name of anything, or if they didn't but someone else did later who did it, when and why? Mozart wasn't sending material to Bonn, was he? This is at the heart of your thesis, and I reckon that if I am confused, others may be too. It would be good if you could take us through all this very slowly, in steps, warts and all, not making any assumptions that we know about these arcane procedures for categorizing works of a chapel or how they got to Modena. If you like, take us through the "life" of a typical work you consider was written by Luchesi prior to the 1784 audit and which is now credited to Mozart. What would its front cover have looked like then, how did it get changed, when, who allegedly did the dirty deed, and what does the cover look like now? Can you please plot this history through at each stage, in really simple terms.

*Haydn* - After earlier doubts, you are saying you now think there is a case for believing that Haydn probably wrote no symphonies at all. How strong do you consider that case to be? Does Taboga think the case to be much stronger than you do? Is it likely that further research will ever clarify this, or will it forever be shrouded in uncertainty given the nature of the historical records?

*Jesuit plot *- Are you saying that Taboga does not wholly agree with your view that the whole thing was a Jesuit plot? If so, how much credence does he attach to your view? If he disagrees with you to a large extent, what is his view as to the basic rationale of the plot to manufacture the careers of Haydn and Mozart?

Thanks and regards

Topaz[/SIZE][/FONT]


----------



## robert newman

Thanks Topaz, 

No, I find your little ‘Christmas sketch’ of Mozart and ‘Papa’ Haydn very amusing. I think anyone who studies in these areas for any period benefits from laughing about the different scenarios that crop up. And why not ? It sounds ridiculous, preposterous, that the life and careers of two of the greatest composers in western musical history were, in fact, products of fakery and of fabrication. 

I would just like to explain, briefly, how it came about that Prof. Taboga and myself first got in to contact. 

We were (till a few years ago) working completely oblivious of each other. Both of us finding things about Mozart’s career that were strange, challenging, even amazing. Taboga at this time was mainly interested in getting more information on a little known Italian composer (Andrea Luchesi) – someone I had never heard of myself. I was involved in making early sketches for a Mozart biography (something I wanted to tackle from a new perspective, ‘Mozart and Music of the late Holy Roman Empire’). It seemed to me the one angle that had not really been dealt with in detail. 

I’d made some postings on ‘Mozart’s Requiem’ which were quite controversial – pointing out that the official story of that piece was filled with falsehoods, false assumptions and even fakery (e;g. the forged signature of ‘Mozart’ on the title page) and pointing out the German musicologist Gottfried Weber had declared the whole work to be a clever forgery in the mid 1820’s. That series of posts drew a response from Prof. Giorgio Taboga in Italy. It was through this that we began detailed correspondence. 

He shared a great deal of information with me. I was hugely surprised by the depth of information he had to offer. Luchesi was totally new. And he had the benefit of having actually studied in detail (for perhaps the first time) the musical works from Bonn that are now in the Estense Library at Modena. I received from him (some weeks later) a work of his own entitled ‘Works Falsely Attributed to Haydn and Mozart’ – a work I later rewrote in a new format for him in appreciation. 

Ever since then (and despite having been banned from a prominent Mozart forum for ‘stealing the crown jewels of Mozart’s achievement’ etc. we’ve kept in close touch. And our studies have been extended to cover both Haydn and Mozart. Since both composers, personal friends, were involved. 

The creation of the ‘Weiner Klassik’ is to a very great extent founded on the supposed achievements of these two composers. But even here it’s possible to see how the Italian contribution to the two careers of these composers has been largely ‘airbrushed’ out of popular textbooks. 

We, today, still work independently but keep in close contact with each other. I know for sure that Taboga is working in different areas than myself. But, from time to time, we compare notes on a specific issue. And, meanwhile, there are others who are involved in these areas of study. There is today, for example, a growing interest in these issues within musicology generally. A series of recordings have been made in recent years of Luchesi works but not (I regret) yet on the versions of symphonies attributed to ‘Haydn’ and ‘Mozart’ at Modena. 

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Topaz, 

I appreciate your more detailed letter asking for justification on various points. 

It may be best to answer you in two posts rather than one. The reason is that the basic outline needs to be more strengthened by facts not so far presented on both Haydn and Mozart. This deserves a post of its own. Then I will try to answer the various points you've just made. 

It would be logical to show beyond reasonable doubt that there really is a problem worth studying in the life and careers of these two men before suggesting how it might be solved. So two posts, rather than one, seem to be correct. Hope that's OK.


----------



## Topaz

*Robert*

Thanks for the further explanation of your cooperation with Taboga.

As far as I am concerned, you can take as many posts as you like. I am particularly keen to understand better the facts which I raised under "Modena". I reckon if you could explain this in very clear terms, as an issue on its own, it would be helpful to all readers (there are clearly quite a few judging from the number of "views").

I'm not so much interested in a full listing of all the disputed works, but more in gaining a clear understanding of the processes of indexation at the time of the the inventory in 1784, and details of the type of anomolies found later. Coupled with this, the issue needs to be addressed of why you reckon copies of works written by Luchesi which were allegedly supplied to Haydn & Mozart were retained in Bonn. What do think was the purpose in retaining copies? Might it have been simply to allow Luchesi to know what he had composed, for future reference in creating more symphonies?

Thanks and regards.

Topaz


----------



## robert newman

Topaz,

Thanks for this post. OK I will try my best here to deal with events between 1784 and the arrival at Modena of this 'Haydn'/'Mozart' material (only a small part of the entire Bonn archives) as well as I can within a short space.

First, after the Inventory document of 1784 had been officially completed and handed to the new Elector by Neefe/Fries (with Luchesi hurrying back fast from Italy), we saw the arrival of Max Franz in Bonn. During the following decade (1784-1794) Max Franz is known to have added to these archives by donating his own music collection. In addition, of course, were new, incoming, works. And, thirdly there were new works being added to the Bonn archives composed by various members of the Bonn chapel. So, by 1794 there was a huge collection of music in Bonn. This, by the time the Napoleonic armies were approaching, was deemed too important to fall in to French hands. Secondly, Prussia (the enemy state of the Emperor in Vienna) could easily have claimed these archives as their own had they remained in Bonn. So a plan was made to evacuate them. This took place in 1794.

The first attempt to explain the fate of these huge archives (which ended up being split up) was an article written by Dr S Brandenburg, then Director of the Beethovenhaus in Bonn for the 'Beethoven Yearbook' of 1987 (pp.7-47). Also, of relevance are other articles such as A. Sandberger 'Die Inventaere der Bonner Hofkapelle' in 'Ausgewaelte Aufsatze fuer Musikgeschichte' - Drei Masken - Munich - 1924 - p.109-130). And by A Chiarelli (of the Modena Library) 'The Collection of Archduke Max Franz, Elector of Cologne- outline for an enquiry into the Estense sources' - 1992 p.84.

An important point. The Bonn archives were not, in fact, the personal property of Max Franz. They were property of the state - the Austrian/Hungarian Empire of the Habsburgs. As such, they should have been returned to Bonn chapel.

We know that in the early 19th century various attempts _were _made by the state to get these music archives back to Bonn chapel. (Attempts by the Prince Wittlesbach, for example). This failed but it clearly shows that, legally, these were property of the Principality, but not of Max Franz or his successors. As government property their removal from the chapel in October 1794 was done in expectation that they would soon be restored to Bonn once the French occupation army left. A further reason for their removal was the territorial threat of Prussia. Max Franz definitely did not wish these archives to fall in to Prussian hands.

We have SOME facts. We know that in the last will and testament of Max Franz (dated 24th July 1801) -

'Max Franz, fully conscious, nominates as his sole and universal heir, the third son of his dearest brother, Grand Duke Ferdinand, his beloved nephew Maximilian, the Grand Duke of Austria who had welcomed and accepted him into the Order of the Teutonic Knights and to whom he has given his name. The Grand Duke (Maximilian Joseph) as the son of Ferdinand, from the Hapsburg-Este offshoot of the family, was let his uncle's material property in cash, capital etc AND ALSO HIS RICH COLLECTION OF MUSIC. .....'

Also that when a full inventory was made of Max Franz's estate mention is made of 'nine packages of authenticated music, and one of non-authenticated music, SENT TO VIENNA by order of his Royal Highness'

In short, the music archives of Bonn chapel went first in 1794 from Bonn chapel to the residence of Max Franz. The castle at Bad Mergentheim. There they stayed until they were sent at some unspecified date to Vienna. It was from Vienna, eventually, that the pieces in question went to Modena.

S. Brandenburg suggests in his article of 1987 that the Modena material 'finally *reached Modena in around 1836'.*

But, unfortunately, S. Brandenburg has been unable to say WHY he believes these musical works arrived so late in Modena. (This despite being asked many times). So a mystery remains. We know this material went first to the castle of Bad Mergentheim. We know it was sent from there to Vienna. Before finally arriving (partially) in Modena.

We also know that between 1784-1794 works coming in to the Bonn chapel were recorded in various catalogues. Only one of these still survives (known as C.53.1 at Modena). Its a catalogue of instrumental/orchestral music. The other catalogues from this period have disappeared. C.53.1 (now at Modena) records several works being officially attributed to Mozart between 1784-1794. In fact it records 14 symphonies - though 10 of these can be shown to have been recorded as 'by different aueters' in 1784. We know, therefore, that the attribution of the 10 symphonies now at Modena to Haydn and Mozart occurred after 1784 and before 1794. That same catalogue records Beethoven's earliest works for Bonn chapel. This document was definitely kept up to date by the Kapellmeister and others and was being used up to at least 1792 and possibly later.

//

Given the fact that many 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' works now at Modena have had their covers removed or have been mutilated in various ways (this to remove various traces of identity) there are grounds for saying that these particular manuscripts were sent to Modena, to a 'backwater', so as to avoid any possibility of their true origins being discovered. Such is the view of Prof Taboga and, on balance, I tend to agree with him.

'Mozart' and 'Haydn' works from the Bonn archives are at Modena for some special reason. (Works by other composers are in various other places). The watermarks on these pieces plus clear evidence of covers being removed, title pages being ripped off, names altered etc etc. - all these things - indicate that this collection of symphonies and masses is worthy of much closer examination. Taboga also points out the curious fact that reference to these particular copies has often been repeatedly and apparently overlooked or marginalised by editors of Haydn and Mozart publications.

So, on balance, I think the case is strong for saying the Modena material deserves fair and impartial study. To date, Taboga has worked almost alone in this field.

//

As to why Luchesi should have retained copies of works at Bonn which he may have made first available to Haydn and Mozart, I can only suggest if such commerce was regular he (Luchesi) would naturally have kept a copy of each for his own reference, or made provision for copies to be made for him by those to whom he sold them.

I am personally not yet convinced that all these 'Haydn'/'Mozart' copies at Modena came exclusively from the Bonn archives. However, this too can, with detailed study, be proved one way or the other.

(I know this is not much but..........)

Regards


----------



## robert newman

This will be my last post on this thread for a while. It's a short article on a few symphonies falsely attributed to Mozart. Focusing mainly on the manuscripts at Modena but also others. (Many similar could be presented).

The very existence, at Modena, of 'Mozart's' Prague symphony KV504 and also 'Jupiter' KV 551 are sufficient reason for questions to be raised about the true origin of these works. Neither had yet been composed ('officially') in 1784.

But it we turn to other symphonies we find the same problems.

For example 'Mozart's' KV 203 is at Modena. It's known there as Mus-E-158. Detailed study of its contents give us valuable information. This work (like others) was first written by another composer and began it's life as a 'Mozart' work first as a Serenade. Only later did Mozart convert it back in to a symphony with new, added orchestration.

Here is one writer commenting on KV203 - one who assumed Mozart was it's true composer -

'The inclusion amongst the Mozart symphonies of this work, comprised of the 1st, 6th, 7th and 8th movements of the earlier D Major Serenade was afterwards adapted to this symphony. The Serenade itself had probably been written for the name-day of the Archbishop Colloredo....At Modena, in the Este Library is a copy of the time in which the work has no concertante movements and no second minuet, so it's in 4 moments with the explicit title of 'symphony'. Another copy of this same symphony was found in 1982 in the basement of the Odense Municipality in Denmark'. (Note - That Danish copy was found together with a copy of KV16a, a symphony falsely attributed to Mozart in the past). 
(Luigi della Croce)

Thus, the Modena work predates even the Serenade. It is definitely a symphony. And it's attributed (falsely) to Mozart. It was the work on which the Serenade was first based and the much later symphony.

KV297 'Pariser' 

The 'Paris' Symphony (31) has always occupied a curious place in lists of Mozart's symphonies. But, contrary to popular belief, it was NOT composed by Mozart in Paris. Mozart obtained this piece from elsewhere in Mannheim before he left for Paris in April 1778. He recopied it with his own hand on paper that arrived with the work in Mannheim (little realising that the paper on which he wrote it newly bore watermarks of the 'Nic-Heisler' kind - a paper from the Rhine area in common use at Bonn, and probably enclosed by its true composer with the package sent to Mozart in Mannheim).

The original symphony had a different slow movement to the one we usually hear today. The different versions are still extant - e.g. in the Harburg/Wallerstein collection (andante 6/8) and in the Thurn and Taxis collection at Regensburg (andante 3/4). In Paris, Joseph Le Gros asked Mozart to provide a substitute slow movement and it was then that Mozart provided the 3/4 version, selling it all as his own work.

But the truth of this symphony was quickly realised in Paris. By 25th September Le Gros had already informed Mozart's Paris patron Baron Melchior von Grimm and the baron, very angry and threatened with scandal himself, immediately sent Mozart away from Paris 'by the first available coach' to Strasbourg and breaking off direct relations with Leopold Mozart. In his letter to Mozart from this very time Leopold Mozart writes to his son -

'I still do not understand why Grimm has compelled you to leave in such a shameful way. It would have been good for you to stay some days longer' (Leopold to Wolfgang 19th October 1778)

Multiply such cases by dozens and we begin to see what Mozart's widow meant when she wrote -

'We do not want and must not publicly show our hero, as perhaps he would have described himself in the intimacy of domestic evenings. To say all the truth might do harm to his fame, to his respectability - to the success of his very music' 
(Preface to Mozart biography written by Constanze Mozart's second husband George Nissen - of which he, Nissen, wrote not a single word).

The same pattern of behaviour affects early operas, symphonies, chamber works, sonatas and virtually every major work.


----------



## Topaz

*Robert*

Thanks for your further posts. I am afraid that I am still unclear about the different types (in terms of authorship) of music identified in the 1784 inventory, and how they were labelled at that time. You skate rather too quickly over all this. In particular, I am struggling to understand how Haydn's and Mozart's names ever got to appear on these works.

Keeping things very simple, as I understand it, the main history and allegations are as follows:

(i)	Luchesi (1741 - 1801) was an Italian composer who was appointed official court Kapellmeister at Bonn in 1774, upon the death of the previous holder who was Beethoven's grandfather. Luchesi actually started there in 1771 on a three-year contract. Before 1771, Luchesi had already established a good name for himself in Italy. Prince Elector Archbishop of Cologne, Max Friedrich, made the appointment in 1774. Luchesi remained in that position until 1794 when the Bonn Chapel was closed down resulting from Napoleon's invasion.

(ii)	As Kapellmeister at Bonn, Luchesi's job was to teach students and to run the music-making machine.

*Works: 1774-1783*

(iii)	From 1774 to 1783, Luchesi's music making activities operated under a deal he had struck with the Elector that he could produce three types of work (using my symbols for simplicity):

•	Type A: material to be sold exclusively to Joseph Haydn. The practice by Luchesi of supplying Haydn may have started well before Luchesi's arrival at Bonn (Taboga suggests from as early as 1763).

•	Type B: material to be sold to unspecified third parties under the pen-name of Luchesi's brother-in-law, Captain D'Anthoin. It is not known whether any of these works also found their way to Joseph Haydn, in addition to the Type A works above.

•	Type C: this is traditional material of a Kapellmeister that, by convention, would remain anonymous until his death or resignation. It was used purely for local purposes. Presumably, such works were labelled as "works by Kapellmeister", or such like terminology.​
(iv)	I understand that all or most of Type A material had the name "Haydn" (or some such descriptor) clearly labelled on the front cover, or near the front cover, of each piece. A copy was supplied to Joseph Haydn and another copy was normally retained in the Bonn Chapel.

(v)	I understand that none or very little of Type B material has survived as such.

(vi)	As regards Type C, several such works have survived which we know of today as Luchesi's works.

*Works: 1784 - 1791*

(vii)	From April 1783 to May 1784, Luchesi was absent from Bonn in Venice with his family. He left Neefe (his deputy) in charge of the Chapel. In early 1784, Elector Max Friedrich died and was succeeded by Max Franz, the latter being the brother of the Emperor in Vienna. Max Franz was also a friend of W A Mozart. Upon succeeding to Elector, Max Franz wanted to get rid of Luchesi and replace him by Mozart as Kapellmeister at Bonn. It is conjectured that this is because the Elector and the Emperor together were involved in a grand scheme - aided and abetted by the locally defunct Jesuits since 1773 - to promote the musical supremacy of Austria/Hapsburg composers, Haydn and Mozart, while downplaying Italians like Luchesi.

(viii)	The first thing that Max Franz did upon taking up his post as Elector was to order an inventory of all musical works in the Chapel in early 1784. In Luchesi's absence, Neefe organised the task. This inventory was completed in May 1784, just before Luchesi returned from Italy. Presumably, this stocktaking showed:

•	Works of Type A, B, C above.

•	Works of other Bonn Court composers (including possibly works of previous Kapellmeisters); call this class of works Type D.

•	All other works, call it Type E: i.e. works written by sundry external composers to the Bonn Chapel, which were bought-in or deposited there for one reason or other.​
(ix)	From this inventory of Types A - E material, Max Franz was embarrassed to find out that Luchesi had been engaged in the sale of material to Haydn (i.e. Type A). However, he found that he could not get rid of Luchesi - with a view to replacing him by Mozart - because of his job-for-life status, and that it might have caused a scandal exposing the fact that the Elector's family, including the Emperor, had been involved in a long-standing deal to supply a flow works to Haydn.

(x)	As a compromise, the Elector did a deal with Luchesi whereby it was agreed that Luchesi's pay/remuneration would be reduced, and Luchesi would henceforth supply (mainly or solely?) Mozart rather than Haydn, on the same basis as he had previously supplied Haydn. Luchesi would cease to write under the D'Anthoin name, and would write only under the name of Mozart (call it Type F material).

(xi)	I am not clear as to whether, during this period, Type F works were clearly labelled "W A Mozart" at the time they were finished and handed over to Mozart. Or is the view that the name of "Mozart", as the paying customer, was somehow concealed originally; and if so, is it considered that Mozart's name was added later (perhaps 10-50 years later, or whenever)? If the latter, exactly how would these works have been labelled in terms of authorship at the time of their first completion in Bonn?

*Works: 1792 - 1794*

(xii)	Mozart died in December 1791. Luchesi stopped producing Type F works and resumed the D'Anthoin name (i.e. Type B works), until the latter's death at the end of 1793. In 1794, the Bonn Court folded and all the Bonn Court records and documents were transferred to Bad Mergentheim castle to save them from approaching French troops. Most of these documents eventually ended up by 1836 at the Estense Library (Biblioteca Estense) in Modena, Italy. After 1794, Luchesi's name largely fell into oblivion, as this was probably deliberately part of the grand scheme to bury his name and his previous involvement in these shenanigans.

See next …

Topaz


----------



## Topaz

*Robert*

cont.

Arising from my previous post immediately above, I am not sure whether my understanding is fully correct. If it is not, I trust you will make any necessary corrections.

Assuming it is broadly correct, I have the following further questions please.

1.	Does the Modena Library contain actual copies of any Type A material, i.e. with Haydn's name written on it? Is it exactly the same material as we now know these works, or are there any significant compositional differences compared with the current scores as used?

2.	Does the Modena Library contain actual copies of any pre 1774 material written by Luchesi and supplied to Haydn, with Haydn's name on it, as alleged by Taboga?

3.	If Type A material originally had, and still has, Haydn's name on it, how can you explain that Luchesi's name was allegedly on it at one time and was subsequently replaced by Haydn's? This is central to my failure to understand any of this. My repeated efforts at seeking clarification on this issue have not thus far produced an answer.

4.	If Luchesi had this "little earner" of supplying Haydn going since 1763 as alleged by Taboga - i.e. well before the collapse of the Jesuit Order in 1773 - does this not cast doubt on your theory that the sale of music to Austrian composers started after 1773 as an integral part of an alleged plot to reinstate the Jesuits after their demise when the Order was dissolved (for various misdemeanours) upon the instructions of the Pope? Alternatively, are you alleging that this selling practice was rife anyway, and that the Jesuits merely adopted it, and extended it for their own purposes, in collaboration with the Austrian Emperor and his family?

5.	Why should Elector Max Franz have felt embarrassed at finding out that Luchesi had been engaged in the sale of material to Haydn? Did he not know of such practices? If not, why not if it was, ex hypothesi, a known practice? Was the purpose of requesting the inventory while Luchesi was absent more likely to have been in order to identify Luchesi's work for the purpose of seeing how good it was, or to assess how far to cut his salary with a view to a re-focusing of his efforts at assisting Mozart, with consequently less time spent on Court work, per se? Indeed, is it possible that Mozart may have asked the Elector for it to make this assessment?

6.	Was any of the work supplied to Mozart in the period after Luchesi's return to Bonn in May 1784 the result of previous endeavours by Luchesi - i.e. Type B - or was the only work you allege was supplied to Mozart post May 1784 work of Type F?

7.	Similar to Q.1 above, does the Modena Library contain actual copies of any Type F material, i.e. with Mozart's name on it? Are these works the same compositions, as we now know these works, or are there any material compositional differences compared with the current scores? If this material originally (i.e. from the time of first composition in the period 1784 - 1791) had, and still has, Mozart's name on it, how can you explain that Luchesi's name was ever on it, and subsequently replaced by Mozart's? It does not make any sense to me.

8.	If, on the other hand, Type F works supplied to Mozart did not originally contain Mozart's name, but Luchesi's instead, why was Luchesi's name put on them when this practice was supposedly non-customary. This whole area remains very confusing, and I am afraid that neither you nor Taboga have explained it from the material I have seen. In fact, Taboga's article (the one in the mathematical journal) is rather badly translated into English with all manner of unclear phraseology, allowing all manner of possible interpretations in key areas.

9.	Depending on the answers to the above, would you not concede that the evidence is equally, if not far more, suggestive that Mozart was indeed the brilliant composer, and that Luchesi was merely retained to work further upon the works of Mozart who supplied a lot of material to the Court for analysis or possible educational aids or whatever? This might explain how Mozart's name is found on various Bonn documents (if that is the case), and offers a far more plausible explanation of why Luchesi was happy to continue working there, rather than facing the "boot", despite his alleged job-for-life status, which sounds a bit implausible to me. Those were the days when people lost their heads at the drop of a hat, were they not? This interpretation obviously turns everything around and puts Mozart in the clear, and casts Luchesi as a good but inferior composer. He may well have got involved in supplying several early/mid symphonies to Haydn earlier on (before 1784), but these works are, with respect to Haydn fans, in a different league to most of Mozart's post S 25.

10. I realise from your last post that you may not be able to respond for a while. Later, I wish to explore further the separate matter of authorship of Mozart's late piano concertos (19-27). These are monumental works which you say you have not examined, along with a few others.

Regards

Topaz


----------



## robert newman

Topaz, 

Your last two posts show you understand the outline quite well. But you finish it by saying - 

'I am struggling to understand how Haydn’s and Mozart’s names ever got to appear on these works'. 

In reply, we are all struggling. However, it is quite obvious Haydn and Mozart's names were associated with thes symphonies in their name at Modena AFTER 1784 and before they actually arrived in Modena. That is 100% sure. 

Let me illustrate how this must be true. 

Take as a specific example Mozart symphonies now at Modena - 

1. Absolutely NO works by Mozart were at the chapel in the 1784 Bonn Inventory. Yes ? 
2. We know 10 symphonies from the Bonn archives are today in the name of Mozart at Modena. Yes ?
3. We know various symphonies (e.g. 39.40, and 41) were claimed to have been composed by Mozart himself in his own Vienna thematic catalogue in the summer of 1788
4. We know from Catalogue C.53.1 at Modena (begun at Bonn in 1784 after the Inventory) that no less than 14 Symphonies in 'Mozart's' name are refered to - a catalogue that was kept up to date virtually till the chapel closed in 1794. Thus, the attribution to Mozart of 'his' symphonies in Bonn began only in 1784 and was last made in 1794 at the latest - as far as Bonn is concerned. Yes ?

If we assume Mozart was honest, the 3 symphonies 39. 40, and 41 cannot possibly have arrived at Bonn chapel prior to summer of 1788 ? Agreed ?

But the catalogue C.53.1 lists not 10 bu 14 symphonies of Mozart. 10 are today attributed to Mozart in Modena, remarkably corresponding with a group of 10 un-named symphonies of the 1784 Inventory. Likewise, 28 Haydn symphonies are today in his name at Modena corresponding to a further 28 un-named symphonies in the 1784 Inventory. Yet another remarkable coincidence. Yet there are, today, no unattributed symphonies at Modena or anywhere else from Bonn. 

So it seems obvious that between 1784 and their arrival in Modena these 38 'un-named' symphonies have become 'officially' symphonies attributed to 'Haydn' and to 'Mozart' - though at the time of the 1784 inventory they were not attributed to anyone. Today, at Modena, as just said, there are NO un-named symphonies. 

By simple process of elimination, the 14 'Mozart' symphonies listed in Catalogue C.53.1 at Bonn MINUS the 10 now in Mozart's name at Modena indicates that 4 were, actually, admitted in to the Bonn archives in the name of 'Mozart' prior to 1794 - the other 10 being officially attributed to him only in C.53.1 and before their arrival in Modena. We do not know the date when the 14 symphonies were entered in to C.53.1 - we know only that it occurred between 1784 and closure of the chapel in 1794.

Not for a moment do I underestimate the complexity of this problem. But the simple fact is that many works written on Bonn paper now at Modena came from the Bonn chapel and Mozart's name was not once refered to there in 1783. It is no coincidence also that the Modena collection shows many signs of having its jackets and front pages ripped out or altered so as to remove vital information. 

In short, there are many reasons to doubt the automatic attribution to Mozart of the 10 symphonies now in his name at Modena. 

On these grounds alone (which I certainly agree are not conclusive evidence of fakery) there is a good case for saying these works may indeed be works falsely attributed to Mozart. Watermarks and other lines of evidence add to this possibility. 

But let me now try now to deal with your second letter. 

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Topaz, 

In continuation of the above - 

I really do appreciate you staying with this. Let me try to deal with you second post. 

You ask - 

Q1. Does the Modena Library contain actual copies of any Type A material, i.e. with Haydn’s name written on it? Is it exactly the same material as we now know these works, or are there any significant compositional differences compared with the current scores as used? 

A1a. The Modena library today holds 38 Symphonies in Haydn's name from Bonn. This corresponds exactly with two piles of UN-NAMED symphonies from the official 1784 Inventory at Bonn of 28 symphonies and 10 symphonies respectively - i.e. 38 Symphonies. 

and, by remarkable coincidence - 

A1b. The Modena library today holds 10 Symphonies in Mozart's name from Bonn. This corresponds exactly with one pile of UN-NAMED symphonies from the official 1784 Inventory at Bonn. 

Thus, the remarkable correspondence of un-named symphonies at Bonn and named symphonies at Modena is suggestive of these works having been attributed to Haydn and Mozart AFTER the Inventory of 1784 at Bonn. 

A1c. In the Inventory at Bonn of 1784 there were 8 symphonies attributed to 'Haydn' and there were 11 symphonies attributed to 'Heyde'. But of these 8 plus 11 NONE of these are today at Modena. 

A1d. In the Inventory at Bonn of 1784 there were NO symphonies attributed to Mozart. 

Q2. Does the Modena Library contain actual copies of any pre 1774 material written by Luchesi and supplied to Haydn, with Haydn’s name on it, as alleged by Taboga? 

A. Where does Taboga allege this ? 

Q3. If Type A material originally had, and still has, Haydn’s name on it, how can you explain that Luchesi's name was allegedly on it at one time and was subsequently replaced by Haydn’s? This is central to my failure to understand any of this. My repeated efforts at seeking clarification on this issue have not thus far produced an answer.

A. Perhaps the central issue is that. to date, researchers have not bothered to study the actual manuscripts now at Modena which bear the names of Haydn and Mozart ? Those who supplied Haydn with symphonies (e.g. Sammartini, Boccherini, Luchesi, etc.) did so anonymously by definition. Do you expect them to sign their names to a symphony if the deal was to supply it to them secretly ? Sorry, but you confuse me with this question. Perhaps you can clarify it ? 

Q4. If Luchesi had this “little earner” of supplying Haydn going since 1763 as alleged by Taboga - i.e. well before the collapse of the Jesuit Order in 1773 - does this not cast doubt on your theory that the sale of music to Austrian composers started after 1773 as an integral part of an alleged plot to reinstate the Jesuits after their demise when the Order was dissolved (for various misdemeanours) upon the instructions of the Pope? Alternatively, are you alleging that this selling practice was rife anyway, and that the Jesuits merely adopted it, and extended it for their own purposes, in collaboration with the Austrian Emperor and his family?

A. I don't think it casts doubt on the theory at all. In the 18th century (a time when there was really no copyright) works were attributed to Haydn which Esterhazy received to boost him and Haydn's reputation, though they actually came from Sammartini, Luchesi etc. Such a thing was almost undetectable and it accounts for Haydn's confusion about what he had written and what he had not - a confusion that he lived with for decades. Such practices (which brought glory to German music and which increasingly 'airbrushed' out the truth, was simply expanded in the case of Mozart. Mozart and Hadyn were both groomed falsely, being supplied a steady stream of works which boosted their own fame and that, increasingly, of their patrons. In the case of Mozart we see this 'management' very clearly in the works of his childhood. It began with his Jesuit educated father. It continued in to his youth (by him being aided and abetted from Salzburg), and it continued beyond 1773 behind the scenes. 

Bear in mind that Salzburg was not part of the Austrian/Hungarian Empire during Mozart's lifetime. It was a Principality of the Holy Roman Empire. It was Mozart's base up till the time when he came to Vienna in the early 1780's. Up until this time his career was very largely stage-managed by the Jesuits of Salzburg. From 1781 onwards (when he came to Vienna) the Jesuits were now officially banned, and their manipulation of this situation continued, but increasingly to bring glory to the Austrian state. No longer from Salzburg but through a network which existed from just before the official ban on the Jesuits. That is, from around 1772 onwards. 

Thus, I suggest, Mozart's real career is one of continuous fakery. It divides in to two parts - 

1. The fakery of his productions prior to around 1772 (mostly controlled from Salzburg)
2. The fakery of his productions from around 1772 onwards (till his death in 1791) mostly controlled by a network created around that year which was adminsitered by Abbe Georg Vogler, but also still involving Salzburg. 

Q5. Why should Elector Max Franz have felt embarrassed at finding out that Luchesi had been engaged in the sale of material to Haydn? Did he not know of such practices? If not, why not if it was, ex hypothesi, a known practice? Was the purpose of requesting the inventory while Luchesi was absent more likely to have been in order to identify Luchesi's work for the purpose of seeing how good it was, or to assess how far to cut his salary with a view to a re-focusing of his efforts at assisting Mozart, with consequently less time spent on Court work, per se? Indeed, is it possible that Mozart may have asked the Elector for it to make this assessment?

A. Max Franz was a brother of the Emperor. He was not a Jesuit. He was raised in the family of the Empire who were increasingly anti-Jesuit. It was his own mother who was glad to enforce the ban on the Jesuits in 1773. He seems to have had no idea that the career of Haydn had been grossly falsified prior to 1784. But he discovered this for the first time in 1784 when he took personal interest in the situation at Bonn. Yes, he did know of many 'deals'. But he seems to have had no idea of the sheer scale of the 'Haydn' situation. Perhaps he was naiive ? In any event, he soon found out. 

Mozart, at this time (1784) had been kicking his heels in Vienna for several years with no official post. As you know, he really did expect to get the Kapellmeister post at Bonn. He had the promise of his childhood friend, Max Franz, made repeatedly. But that, of course, proved to be impractical. The discovery of Luchesi being involved in Haydn's ouput was, of course, sure to have been a shock. But by 1784 there was little he could do that would avoid real embarrasment for the Austrian state, which was already glorifying Haydn as one of their 'great musicians'. All that could be done was reach some accomodation with the reality of the situation. And that is what occurred. From that time onwards (1784), and in some sort of compensation for broken promises, Mozart was now to be a major recipient of these works. 


6. Was any of the work supplied to Mozart in the period after Luchesi's return to Bonn in May 1784 the result of previous endeavours by Luchesi - i.e. Type B - or was the only work you allege was supplied to Mozart post May 1784 work of Type F? 

A. This is a difficult question because there were times when the general rule was not followed. In general terms, it seems to have been agreed that if a work was 5 years old it could be (and was) claimed by Mozart as his very own. So it is that in the summer of 1788 (for example) Mozart claims authorship in his own thematic catalogue of 3 symphonies (39,40 and 41) which had actually been composed some 5 years prior, by Luchesi). This 5 year period seems to have been the general rule in such commerce. Again, the '7 Last Words' of Haydn is officially a Haydn work only 5 years after it was already in existence at Bonn. This 5 years seems to have been the working agreement. In that 5 years the piece seems to have remained the private property of the true composer. It could be sold in a handwritten copy by the true composer but not published, according to the verbal agreement. And if 5 years elapsed with it still unpublished then, at that time, its rights could be and were sold to Mozart/Haydn. 

Again, I do not say this was always the case. It simply seems to have been the general rule. In some cases a work could be specially composed for a particular composer. So the rules were flexible. 


cont'd ..........

r


----------



## robert newman

Topaz....cont'd

7. Similar to Q.1 above, does the Modena Library contain actual copies of any Type F material, i.e. with Mozart’s name on it? Are these works the same compositions, as we now know these works, or are there any material compositional differences compared with the current scores? If this material originally (i.e. from the time of first composition in the period 1784 – 1791) had, and still has, Mozart’s name on it, how can you explain that Luchesi's name was ever on it, and subsequently replaced by Mozart’s? It does not make any sense to me. 

A. The works at Modena today attributed to Mozart (for example) are symphonies in their original scoring. Usually minus clarinets, trumpets etc etc. These versions are the originals (I suggest) that Mozart used for his 'own'. 

In reply to your question of how any work originally had Luchesi's name on it - please bear in mind that in such cases (e.g. the Paris Symphony now at Regensburg) this seems to have been sold as a handwritten copy to the aristocracy there by Luchesi within the 5 year period. Luchesi had the right to sell such handwritten copies despite not publishing them in his name. But at Modena there is no symphony with a Luchesi signature. And, once the 'Paris' symphony was actually published in Mozart's name then, at that time, the name of 'Lucchese' was rubbed out in Regensburg and the name 'Mozart' replaced it. 

Q8. If, on the other hand, Type F works supplied to Mozart did not originally contain Mozart’s name, but Luchesi's instead, why was Luchesi's name put on them when this practice was supposedly non-customary. This whole area remains very confusing, and I am afraid that neither you nor Taboga have explained it from the material I have seen. In fact, Taboga’s article (the one in the mathematical journal) is rather badly translated into English with all manner of unclear phraseology, allowing all manner of possible interpretations in key areas. 

A. Yes, you are right about the various online articles about this controversy. I myself have often struggled to understand clearly what is being said. In a nutshell, we are talking here of a trade in music - this being manufactured and published to falsely inflate the compositional achievements of Haydn and Mozart. We are not yet at a point where this can be conclusively proved. But I do think we, if our job was to make such things understandable to Italians, would have the same sort of problems. I do think that, despite its many shortcomings, these posts by enthusiastic Italians, at least convey (or try to) the huge significance of these issues. As such, they represent a real attempt to get a basic message across, this despite stone-walling and flat denial by the 'Viennese' musical establishment. 

9. Depending on the answers to the above, would you not concede that the evidence is equally, if not far more, suggestive that Mozart was indeed the brilliant composer, and that Luchesi was merely retained to work further upon the works of Mozart who supplied a lot of material to the Court for analysis or possible educational aids or whatever? This might explain how Mozart’s name is found on various Bonn documents (if that is the case), and offers a far more plausible explanation of why Luchesi was happy to continue working there, rather than facing the "boot", despite his alleged job-for-life status, which sounds a bit implausible to me. Those were the days when people lost their heads at the drop of a hat, were they not? This interpretation obviously turns everything around and puts Mozart in the clear, and casts Luchesi as a good but inferior composer. He may well have got involved in supplying several early/mid symphonies to Haydn earlier on (before 1784), but these works are, with respect to Haydn fans, in a different league to most of Mozart's post S 25.

A. Well, that's an interesting counter-suggestion and one worthy of consideration. Was it not for the fact that Mozart has a track-record of such falsehood I would be tempted to agree with you - to say, yes, this is a real possibility. But you are assuming a musical genius which, I honestly believe, does not bear scrutiny even in the years leading up to 1784. That is why I think your interesting suggestion is probably not right. I will post after this on two early 'Mozart' operas to illustrate this point. 

10. I realise from your last post that you may not be able to respond for a while. Later, I wish to explore further the separate matter of authorship of Mozart's late piano concertos (19-27). These are monumental works which you say you have not examined, along with a few others.

A. In my view the Mozart piano concertos came to Mozart in Vienna from Salzburg and are the product of a great deal of non-Mozart output - including that of his own grossly ignored sister who had at least a hand in their arrangement. She taught piano in Salzburg as you may well know. 

No, as stated, I have not specifically studied the history of these concertos. But several people have. It is clear that their earliest form was made in Salzburg, and not by Mozart in Vienna. 

Having said it would be difficult to post in the near future, I will still do all I can to reply if you have further points of questions on these issues. 

I really do appreciate your input on these issues and will now post here on a typical case - two operas today attributed to Mozart. 

Best regards

Robert


----------



## Topaz

Robert

Thanks for all this. I probably will have some follow-up questions but I'll leave it for a week or so as I gather you will be unavailable for a while.

I wonder if anyone else has any questions.


Regards


Topaz


----------



## robert newman

Readers of this thread will be pleased to know work has virtually finished on producing MIDI sound files of several priceless symphonic manuscripts attributed to Mozart now at the Estense Library in Modena, which are known to have arrived there in the early 19th century after having been evacuated from the Bonn chapel in 1794. These include versions of the 'Prague' Symphony and the 'Jupiter', both of which exist at Modena in slightly different forms and scoring than we are familiar with but none of which have yet been recorded or heard. 

Some of this material will be freely available online within the next week or so and there are plans to also make photographic images of these same Modena scores available for general viewing. 

We already know several of these 10 'Mozart' symphonies at Modena exist in versions that predate the symphonies we are familiar with. Some musical content is different from that with which we are familiar. This promises to be a remarkable development in studies of these famous works. 

Colleagues in Italy and elsewhere realise that the 'Mozart establishment' has dragged its feet for many years on dealing with the implications of this collection at Modena. It has for example done virtually nothing to study or discuss this material in many years. It has repeatedly avoided listing various works in this collection in the Koechel catalogue, for example. Hopefully the release of these versions for public study online will prove to be the best response to such attitudes. 

It's my considered opinion and that of several other researchers in this field (based on the available documentary and circumstantial evidence) that many symphonies traditionally attributed to W.A. Mozart were not, in fact, composed by him and that Andrea Luchesi seems to have been their true composer. 

Thus, the Haydn and Mozart material at Modena could prove to be some of the most significant musical material of the late 18th century and has the potential to overturn more than 200 years of tradition. Whether it does so remains to be seen. But at least the process will be public. 

Watermarks indicate this material did come from Bonn. But there are significant numbers of works in Modena in Haydn and Mozart's name which are also written on Italian paper. Some of these could be explained as having been composed by Luchesi prior to his arrival in Bonn in 1771. But other evidence from these manuscripts demands caution. Some Haydn masses, for example, bear written attribution to Haydn in English language, though the paper on which the writing is found is Italian. 

So, it is hoped, lovers of music can shortly have what we would all wish - a fair and open opportunity to study this Modena material online and to bypass literally decades of 'stonewalling' by the 'Mozart'/'Haydn' establishment. Putting this material online for anyone to study might give these works the exposure they deserve and I hope members of this forum welcome this process. 

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Those interested in hearing world premiere MIDI files of some highly controversial musical manuscripts from the Estense Library at Modena (including versions of symphonies traditionally attributed to Mozart) can now hear some of them by visiting the website ItalianOPERA.org - These symphonic versions (which include the 'Jupiter') have never been heard for over 200 years. (In the past few days the release of the first few of these works in their unique versions has attracted almost 8,000 people to listen to them, worldwide). The site also contains a few short articles on each piece. 

I post this here because it's obviously related to this thread. Hope you enjoy these versions. 

Regards


----------



## Guest

Please excuse me for interrupting LOL, Bringing us back to the original thread.
Having read through Mr Newmans posts I come to the conclusion that there is an abundance of information that must be accepted [or not], he has taken considerable time to do the research and has presented his theory, 
to argue against that you must do the same research and say why he is wrong, Which some of you are doing, from my position being such a broad canvas I have neither the time or inclination to do that, however knowing human nature, I consider that it is more than likely that he is correct!! who would benefit from adding to the Mozart works? Mozart and/or the publisher, Money is a very strong motive, and from what I have read of Mozart it was mostly in short supply?

To take one movement of one Symphony and dissect it on this forum even with the manuscript and recordings to analyse I doubt it would produce a result one way or the other, best left to the musicologists and academia to fight over it,

However if the interest is strong enough to do this then perhaps we could take just one popular work that is attributed to Mozart [ one that we would all have in our collection] but which Mr Newman would claim is not Mozart, and run a thread just on this one work and see where it leads, being just a single work those with the time could research it in some depth and make their findings or questions known on the post with Mr Newman advising and commenting along the way. A free acc could be opened with someone such as phoptobucket and Mr Newman could make the manuscript or part off available to make his points and for us to scrutinise, 
I think it would have to be a separate thread to this one, so is anyone interested to that extent?


----------



## robert newman

Dear Andante, 

Thanks for the post. 

I am not sure we could deal in detail here on the theory that most of Mozart's reputation was artificially created, although that is certainly the theory I and others subscribe to. 

Money was not the only motive. A project such as the creation of 'Mozart' began first as a campaign to bring prestige to the 'Holy Roman Empire' and it continued for decades as a triumph of genius after his untimely death in December 1791. Many people were involved - most unknown to others. But at every single stage of his life and career there was blatant fakery, deception and downright falsehood. 

Consider, if you will, the history of music attributed to Mozart over the past 200 years by authorities such as Koechel (although, of course, his first edition appeared literally decades after Mozart's death). We are dealing here, really, with a network that existed in the late 18th century (overseen by powerful people/patrons/churchmen) to falsely create the illusion of Haydn and Mozart as independent, largely self-taught, German/indigenous musical geniuses - with all the political/religious and cultural spin offs that came from creating such an illusion. This twin foundation (largely created on the secret supply to both composers of many, many works they did not actually compose) was sufficient to construct the '1st Viennese School' into which, later, Beethoven, a virtually innocent member, became it's third foundation. 

Can we really shrug our shoulders at the fact that dozens and dozens of works attributed to Haydn were, in fact, secretly supplied TO Haydn throughout his entire career ? And the same to Mozart ? From Italy and other places ? These composers lived at a time when copyright hardly existed. And they lived/worked and died within the context of an entire empire 'The Holy Roman Empire'. 

Italy and things Italian had virtually dominated the German musical scene for so long that a movement easily grew to develop and praise composers such as Hasse, Gluck, Haydn and Mozart and to downplay the true value of Italy and foreigners on their reputations. The rise of German nationalism is clearly seen in the rivalry between Italians and Germans, even in Mozart's Vienna career. 

But it isn't simply a Germany versus Italy debate. It is to set the record straight - to say that, in fact, MOST works today attributed to Mozart were not, in fact, composed by him, and that an alternative explanation exists supported by documentary and other sorts of evidence. It is not enough to say that Mozart did not compose the Requiem KV626 (with its fake signature and its long history of lies, errors and deceptions) since, it seems, facts alone do not seem to be enough to counteract mythology. It does not seem to matter how many symphonies Mozart actually composed. Again, the sheer scale of his iconic status seems to survive even plain facts. 

But discoveries have forced things to come to a point now (I mean in the last few years) where the evidence of fakery and deception is so great that we can, confidently, honestly, begin to sketch an alternative picture of these two men's lives and careers - one in which 'Mozart' and 'Haydn' were willing pawns in a game. The creation (mostly falsely) of reputations which have never been and never will be justified by the actual evidence. 

Opera after opera, symphony after symphony, sonata after sonata, concerto after concerto, we find only fakery and deception. The same is true of early 'Mozart' biographies and in dealing with tangible evidence that contradicts the myth. 

That Mozart's music (the music today attributed to him) is often wonderful is not disputed and I hope never will be. The issue is whether facts, actual facts, matter. 

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Dear Andante, 

If anyone wishes to examine a single case we could begin with the so-called 'Paris' Symphony KV297 if they like. There is plenty of documentary and other evidence on which a neutral person can judge whether Mozart is or is not its true composer. In my view (and those of others) this symphony is definitely not by Mozart. 

Regards


----------



## Guest

Thank you for the reply Mr Newman,
Your comments certainly make sense to me and I would be delighted to see, and even partake in an in-depth investigation [for want of a better word] of The Paris Sym, but only if a number of others are similarly interested. Regards Andante

So is anyone else interested??


----------



## Topaz

Robert

*MOZART SYMPHONY No 41, "Jupiter" K551*

Rather than choose Symphony No 31 (Paris) for further study, may I suggest instead that you take us through the situation as you see it regarding Mozart's Symphony No 41, Jupiter, K551? This is because, as you know, there is now an audio transcription of the corresponding version of this Symphony, found at the Estense Library at Modena, available on the following website, run by _Italian Opera_:

http://www.italianopera.org/luchesi/luchesijupiterE.html

If I give a quick summary of the allegations and general position as I understand it, perhaps Robert could make any corrections and any supplementary observations that he sees fit.

•	The above website contains various articles (including two by Taboga and two by Robert Newman) and music files relating to the allegations concerning the acquisition of various music works, written by Luchesi and others from the Bonn Chapel, by Joseph Haydn and W A Mozart who passed off these many works as their own.

•	One of these works is known later as Mozart's Jupiter Symphony, K 551. This Symphony was supposedly composed by Mozart in mid 1788, along with Symphonies 39 and 40, in quick succession over 6 weeks.

•	It states on the website that the manuscript of this score exists at Modena in a unique version written before 1784 - i.e. more than 4 years before Mozart entered it as his own composition in his thematic catalogue in Vienna. It attributes this work to Andrea Luchesi (1741 - 1801) who was Kapellmeister of the Bonn Chapel between 1773 and 1794. The Bonn Chapel came under the jurisdiction of the Elector of Hanover. The Chapel was one of 23 in Germany at the time, and was ranked very highly. Its former Kapellmeister was Ludwig van Beethoven (snr), i.e. LvB's grandfather.

•	Luchesi was an Italian composer of some repute and began to work at the Chapel from 1771. He was not appointed to the post of Kapellmeister until the death of LvB (snr) in 1773. Among his duties was the teaching of students, the most famous being LvB (1770-1827) who was there from 1781 to 1793.

•	The website gives four MP3 files containing the various movements of what purports to be Symphony No 41, recorded at 24 kbps (hence very low quality sound). At present, it is the only symphony for which an audio transcription exists, but there are a few other works included there. More works are planned to be added later.

•	I have listened to this audio transcription of "Jupiter" and to me it seems unambiguously to be the same work, or is as close as makes no difference.

•	Note the text in the top left corner of the screen of this website, alleging that the name of "Luchese" has been erased on the front of the manuscript, and the name of Mozart substituted.

•	Between 1771 and 1774, Luchesi was allegedly supplying works incognito to Joseph Haydn who was passing them off as his own. This practice of supplying Haydn is said to have first started in 1763. However, from 1774, shortly after Luchesi became Kapellmeister, until 1784, he continued to supply Haydn but under the assumed name of his brother-in-law, Ferdinand D'Anthoin.

• Elector Max Friedrich died in early 1784. He was succeeded by Maximilian Franz who immediately ordered an inventory of works of the Chapel. This occurred near the end of Luchesi's absence for a year in Italy. Upon Luchesi's return in April 1784, a deal was struck with the new Elector whereby Luchesi would continue the practice of supplying work under his pen-name of D'Anthoin, but instead of Haydn the primary customer was to change to W A Mozart. This was because W A Mozart was known to be incapable of writing any sophisticated, high quality works but there were grand plans by the establishment, of which Max Franz was part, to bolster Mozart's reputation by supplying him with a flow of high quality music. This practice continued until Mozart's death in 1791. I understand that some 9 or 10 symphonies from the Bonn Chapel were supplied to Mozart over this period.

•	It asserts that some of these works were actually written prior to 1784 and thus implies were held in some kind of store for later release. The website is not specific that all the works supplied to Mozart were all written by Luchesi. It suggests the majority "probably are" by Luchesi.

• Luchesi became the owner of two rich houses in the city, of a farm and of a vineyard purchased with the money collected from the selling of his music.

•	The Bonn Chapel was closed in 1794 because of the advance of Napoleon's troops, which caused the Elector to make a forced escape. The music files were also removed and eventually reached the Estense Library at Modena many years later, home city of a relative of Max Franz who died in 1802

*Questions for Robert include*:

1.	Whether he agrees with the above account. Does he consider Luchesi or anyone else was the true author of this work sitting in the Estense Library?

2.	Can he add anything specific to this case to make it more convincing by way of any supplementary information? For example, can he point to any work, which is known beyond any doubt to be that of Luchesi, which contains similar techniques to this work?

3.	Why Luchesi's name was on this work in the first place, since this practice seems to contravene the convention that Kapellmeisters did not lend their name to any work, which they produced in their lifetime.

4.	Does he agree this work was probably written before 1784, as alleged on the website? What is the evidence for this? Does it state anywhere when it was actually written? Might not the early 1784 inventory have been added to by later works appended to that inventory? If later works were added, among them Jupiter, how do we know that Mozart's actual Jupiter was not copied by Bonn, i.e. the very reverse of what is alleged?

5.	If all or any of the works were written before 1784, this was before the date when it was allegedly agreed to supply Mozart with any such works (i.e. after April 1784). If this is so, were these stockpiled works any that might otherwise have been sold to Haydn if Mozart had not entered the picture, and if so are they sufficiently similar in style to be reconciled with other material allegedly supplied to Haydn before 1784?

6.	If Mozart became the acquirer of these works, who supplied Haydn after 1784?

Topaz


----------



## robert newman

Dear Topaz,

Many thanks. Yes, I'm happy to provide an outline as I see it of the symphony normally known as Mozart's 41st, KV551, 'Jupiter'.

You've asked me to make any corrections/alterations to the outline you first kindly provided. Well, there are few -

You wrote -

1. 'Note the text in the top left corner of the screen of this website, alleging that the name of "Luchese" has been erased on the front of the manuscript, and the name of Mozart substituted''

Yes Topaz, the substitute name of 'Mozart' is surely there for everyone to see but the photograph you are refering to happens to be a copy of the 'Paris' symphony, KV297 that can still be seen today at the library in Regensburg in Germany. If you click on that photograph you can see the same photograph taken in infra-red film etc. It's placed on that website to prove the signature addition and to (again) remind Mozart researchers this particular manuscript seems destined never to be mentioned, discussed or appreciated in the official Koechel catalogue. (It, like several 'Mozart' manuscripts simply does not officially exist. The same is true of the copy of the 'Jupiter' symphony and that of the 'Prague' copy at Modena because they too have never had official recognition of their very existence in the Koechel catalogue).

Also -

2. You refer to the audio quality of files currently available - these made at only 24 kbps (hence very low quality sound). Yes, Topaz, they're deliberately of low quality sound because there are discussions still going on with various people about having these versions from Bonn faithfully recorded and made commercially available. This unique version has however been heard by many thousands of people since it was posted there some weeks ago.

Next, you write -

3. (The website) asserts that some of these works were actually written prior to 1784 and thus implies were held in some kind of store for later release. The website is not specific that all the works supplied to Mozart were all written by Luchesi. It suggests the majority "probably are" by Luchesi.

Well, it's important to clarify this point. The number of people who supplied music to Haydn during his career is not known. It certainly included Sammartini and Luchesi for many symphonies and many masses. The number who supplied Mozart is surely closer to 12 ! (In the first 4 pastiche piano concertos, for example, are works by at least 4 composers, none of these credited in Mozart's own lifetime by him, his father (who wrote some himself), some to Nannerl - though none were credited to them in early editions of Koechel). In addition, literally dozens of works remain in the Koechel list that are today widely agreed to have come from Michael Haydn, from Joseph Myslivececk, from JM Kraus, from Knecht, etc. and then many which should by any fair reckoning be attributed to Andrea Luchesi. (To name but a few).

I know that 18th century protocol does not exist today but it surely merits saying that at that time all works unsigned in a chapel music library were automatically works attributed to its current Kapellmeister. On this ground alone Luchesi deserves consideration for these symphonies now at Modena.

In my personal opinion Luchesi is not the sole candidate for having written these works. He is a strong candidate for all 10 of these works. But there are no grounds to be dogmatic on this. It would be fair to say (I believe) that in several cases other candidates (including some of the above composers) also have a claim. That Mozart did not write them seems to me quite sure.

So, at the present time, this subject of correct attribution has not been settled and I don't want to give the impression that it has. The 'Jupiter' is a case in point and I want to be fair.

THE JUPITER SYMPHONY 

The 'Jupiter' Symphony is world-famous. Entered in to his thematic catalogue in Vienna during the summer of 1788 it is regarded as the third of a trilogy of symphonies written by him that same year and is today known widely as KV551 in Mozart catalogues. It is also regarded as Mozart's last symphony.

The version of this symphony now at Modena is known as document D-640. It is scored differently in this version than the one we normally hear. Firstly, it uses natural trumpets. Secondly, it fails to get any mention (yet again) in the Koechel catalogue of Mozart's works - 6th edition of 1964. It (like the 'Paris' copy at Regensburg) does not officially exist. (The same is true, as said, of the 'Prague' version also at Modena).

The version at Modena is written by copyists on paper that is Dutch/Swabian in origin - a kind known at Bonn.

So, officially, we have this trilogy of Symphonies 39, 40 and 41 ('Jupiter') which, tradition says, Mozart composed in virtually 6 weeks. (Known widely as KV 543, KV550 and KV551). There is no proof that any of these 3 were actually performed in Vienna or elsewhere during Mozart's lifetime. Nor (with the exception of the fact that '40' is available in Mozart's hand in different versions with/without clarinets) is there any indication of any or all of them being commissioned by anyone.

(Again, copies of 39 and 41 exist today at Augsberg (having come there recently from the former library collection of Oettingen/Wallerstein) but these too fail to merit any reference in the 6th edition of the Koechel catalogue).

Interestingly, KV550 (40) is not refered to in catalogue C.53.1 at Modena. So, as far as Bonn chapel was concerned, they did not know it in Mozart's name during his whole lifetime). The addition by Mozart of clarinets is not disputed. KV550 was first published by Andre 3 years after Mozart's death.

The fact that handwritten copies of 'Mozart' symphonies such as KV543 and KV551 are being sent to princes (e.g. to Wallerstein around 1788 and to Thurn and Taxis at Regensburg - during Mozart's lifetime) is consistent with the known fact that the same Wallerstein was regularly buying handwritten copies of 'Haydn' works also. But in both cases sent not by Mozart or Haydn personally but by another party.

Considered as a whole, the symphonic achievements of Mozart are riddled with contradictions and glaring contradictions. No individual case is sufficient to overthrow tradition but, collectively, they present a case that is strongly suggestive of manipulation and fakery. On the plus side is the fact that these great works have survived for posterity despite them now being subjected to intense scrutiny.

The Bonn archives at Modena (that part of them which was eventually sent there) may well, in the near future give meaning to the words of Constanze Mozart -

'We do not want and we must not publicly show our hero, as perhaps he would have described himself in the intimacy of domestic evenings. To say all the truth about him might do harm to his fame, to the success of his very music'.


----------



## Topaz

*Robert*

Thanks for the above. As I rather feared, I am not sure it makes much sense to isolate any single work, as any one work is only a small part of the overall picture, and it does not seem to shed much light on the bigger picture.

I can see that the picture anyway is not fully clear to anyone as there is still much further research to do. However, I have a feeling I am getting confused again. For my benefit (and possibly others who may be following this, or at least trying to) let me ask some further specific questions, involving some repeats of previous ones. I will number them and hopefully you can pick up each one and give an answer specifically on that point only. I appreciate there may be some uncertainties and possible gaps.

1. In the latest edition of Koechel, can you say exactly which works are replicated in the Estense Library at Modena? I presume the scores of alleged Mozart works are all (without fail) written on the special Dutch paper which identifies the Bonn Chapel as the likely source. Is that correct?

2.	Can you identify exactly which of these Modena scores, and their numbering as listed there, are regarded as Mozart symphonies? I am especially confused about Symphony 40 (G Minor). Is a version of this symphony held at Modena, or not? If not, why not?

3. Apart from scores, does the Modena Library contain the actual complete inventory drawn up in 1784, or only parts of it?

4.	Are you saying that this inventory (complete or otherwise) contains only works existing at the time of the early 1784 inventory (i.e. as carried out by Neefe prior to Luchesi's return from Venice)?

5.	Was the inventory a complete record of all works held at that time, or were any works excluded? I recall a vague reference on the _ Italian Opera _ website suggesting that it may not have been complete, but I am not sure about this.

6.	Does the inventory contain any later works, which were added after Luchesi's return from Italy in April 1784, whether (i) newly written works written after his return, or (ii) pre-existing works written before 1784 but added to the inventory after his return?

7.	Can you explain the aspect that part of the deal between Max Franz, Luchesi and Mozart was that Mozart could not claim any of the Bonn-written symphonies until they were 5 years old? What is the logic of this, and why 5 years? If this part of the deal was actually carried out faithfully, the three symphonies Nos 39, 40, 41 must have been written before mid 1783. Is that agreed? Was Mozart supplied with any Bonn material as from 1784, i.e. works written before 1779, consistent with the 5 year deal? If so which works?

8.	You are now saying that there is no concrete proof that Luchesi wrote any or all of these 9/10 symphonies, but instead they could have been written by others e.g. Michael Haydn, Joseph Myslivececk, JM Kraus, Knecht? If so, why are you and Taboga laying firm claim to Luchesi's greatness? Is it merely because he was the Kapellmeister? What actual hard proof is there that he was a super-brilliant composer if there is doubt about his authorship of any of these works?

9.	If in fact composers other than Luchesi were the true authors of these symphonies, were they all affiliated directly to the Bonn Chapel? If not, how did their works become listed in the 1784 inventory? Was it necessary that only works written by Bonn-affiliated composers could be added to any inventory of the Chapel there?

10.	Regards the version of K551 held at Modena - or indeed any of the 9/10 symphonies - does it contain a date of composition or any attribution as to authorship?

11.	If all works at Modena are works written before 1784 (likely before mid 1783), do you agree that this was before Mozart entered the picture as the final customer?

12.	If Mozart had not entered the picture at all, who else might have been the customer other than Haydn, the previous main customer? If these works (by Luchesi, alia D'Anthoin) had been supplied to Haydn instead, are they sufficiently close in style to Haydn's previous symphonies, as to appear consistent?

13. According to the records, Haydn composed 78 symphonies up to about 1782. From 1784 onwards, he composed a further 25. Where did they come from, if not from Bonn? If his supply had been cut off from Bonn, might he not have felt aggrieved that Mozart was now the new beneficiary? Or did he simply switch supply from Bonn to another
source, and if so what source?

14. For whom was Luchesi writing works after his return from Venice in April 1784, if there was a 5-year waiting period in place? He presumably had little firm idea, as life expectancies in those days were not as now.

15. Who wrote:


Piano Cons 19-27 (from 1784 to 1788)
Opera: Marriage of Figaro (1786), Don Giovanni (1787), Cosi Fan Tutte (1789), Magic Flute (1791), La Clemenza di Tito (1791)
.............

I think these are the key questions that need further clarification.

Regards

Topaz


----------



## robert newman

Dear Topaz, 

So much for the 'easy' questions !!! (Just joking). 

I will answer each of these as well as I can later this evening. 

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Dear Topaz, 

A1. There are today 10 symphonies attributed to Mozart from Bonn at Modena. In the last Inventory of Bonn (1784) there were NO symphonies (or any other music for that matter) attributed there to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. A startling fact. But a fact nevertheless. 

In fact (rather than in popular fiction) Mozart was unknown as a symphonist prior to 1783/4. 

The single exception is the highly disputed KV297 'Pariser', published in Paris, though it's a work that can be shown by many lines of evidence NOT to be by Mozart but one he (Mozart) tried to falsely use as his own there during 1778. 

In answer to your question of which symphonies are today attributed to Mozart from Bonn at Modena (though I must repeat this) - there are 10 --

KV320 Swabian
KV203 Nic Heisler
KV200 Swabian
KV385 Italian
KV319 Nic Heisler
KV201 Italian
KV297 Nic Heisler
KV504 Nic Heisler
KV551 Dutch/Swabian
KV182 Swabian

(Paper types above). 

Q2. Answer as above. A copy of the 'Mozart' G Minor KV550 IS at Modena but it is a quite separate work from those listed above. It's history seems to be different. It may have been supplied by its true composer TO Mozart specially and it was not (unlike other symphonies above) generally sold to princes. 

Q3. No, Modena does not hold ALL the music inventoried at Bonn in 1784. It holds only a small part. And of this small part much is still missing. Other parts of the Bonn music archives are in different German libraries. But symphonies and masses attributed to 'Haydn' are at Modena. So are symphonies attributed to 'Mozart'. And some of Luchesi's church music. 

Q4. Yes, the music now at Modena was in Bonn at the time of its last music inventory in 1784. We know this because the paper is in many cases of a type not made after 1788 and because these versions are different from those we are familiar with. These versions are indisputably early versions of famous works. 

The Inventory of 1784 at Bonn did not include chamber music. 

Q5. I think I've just answered this in answer 4. Luchesi, a known writer of symphonies, has none attributed to him at Modena. But Mozart now has 10. Suggestive of an obvious error of attribution perhaps ? 

Continued in next post. 

Robert


----------



## robert newman

Dear Topaz, 

In answer to your questions - 

Q6. Well, your question suggests there was an inventory at Bonn after 1784. There wasn't. There was instead only catalogue C.53.1 which records the fact that by 1794 a total of 14 symphonies were already being publicly attributed to Mozart - i.e. between 1784 and 1794 Mozart is suddenly a great writer of symphonies. But (as we see) many of these are traditionally claimed to have been written BEFORE 1784. 

We can therefore say that, rightly or wrongly, Mozart is credited with 14 symphonies by the time the Bonn chapel closed its doors in 1784 but not credited with any at the time of the 1784 Inventory. 

Q7. Perhaps I didn't explain this well in my first attempt. Kapellmeisters of the 18th century OFTEN sold music to third parties as a way to increase their income. And rich patrons were willing to credit them to their own composers. It furthered their status. But this process (which existed widely) operated at a time when there was no copyright. 

In the case of Luchesi he sold works prior to 1784 using a pen-name. 'D'Anthoine'. From 1784 to 1791 he no longer sold works in this way. He sold them directly to Haydn and Mozart. The name of 'D'Anthoine' therefore disappears from German music in 1784. Remarkably, it surfaces again from 1792 (i.e. from immediately after the time of Mozart's death). It continues as is linked with a series of stage works performed in Bonn. These are now entirely lost. By a remarkable coincidence all of D'Anthoine's symphonies are also lost ! And, even more amazing, all of Luchesi's symphonies are also lost - though (as you can see) in the early 1780's his symphonies were already noted and were in special demand. 

This, plus a whole string of other facts are highly suggestive of Luchesi being a major supplier of symphonies to Mozart - a view that is doubly reinforced by the documents now at Estense Library in Modena. 

Q8. 'Concrete proof' - I am not sure what you mean by this. Let us say that if you and I were presenting our case today before a neutral audience for/against Mozart being the composer of the 41 or so symphonies normally attributed to him, the audience would like to see what 'concrete proof' supports Mozart ? Either Mozart and Haydn's reputations were being grossly exaggerated or they were not. Without being dogmatic I think a fair minded person, judging the evidence before them, would conclude that here is a track record of gross misattribution, further supported by documents at Modena and elsewhere. In fact, if 'fair and reasonable doubt' is important then, I think, it's fair and reasonable to doubt that Mozart really wrote most of the music which is traditionally attributed to him. 

Again, which composer can we compare him to (other than Haydn) in having today less than half the symphonies which were at one time or another credited to him ? Just how many more works must be ditched from Koechel before we appreciate the sheer scale of this fakery ? 

So, though we can't offer 'concrete proof' I think we can offer in a willing, open, attitude a determination to allow the public to judge for themselves from watermarks, history, circumstantial and other evidence. That seems fair enough to me. It's a challenge that at Modena (for example) we see unanswered, year by year. 
So much for 'expertise', yes ? 

Q9. Works could be entered in to the Bonn music archives if they were deemed to be of a musical value great enough to be acquired by the chapel. Plainly, in 1784 Bonn Chapel did not think much of Mozart's music. This was about to miraculously change, of course. 

Q10. The symphonies at Modena are not dated. But they are written on paper that has watermarks. These are very useful. 'Nic-Heisler' paper was not made after 1788. In fact, it was rarely used after 1783. Plus, of course, these versions are (as said before) often different in many respects from the more famous versions of the same works. 

Cont'd 

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Answers for Topaz (cont'd)

Q11. No. Not exactly. You see, Mozart was supplied by Luchesi during a tour of Italy by a piano concerto. He was also supplied by Luchesi with various symphonies prior to 1784. (The same as Luchesi was supplying Haydn). But by 1784 Luchesi's output was exclusively offered to Haydn and to Mozart. Furthermore, by 1784 a whole network of composers were now involved in augmenting the reputation of Mozart, these largely through Bonn. 

It is entirely possible that from 1784 Luchesi wrote only symphonies for Mozart and others wrote other things. It is equally possible that others of the same network wrote symphonies too. But a network suggests organisation. The role of Luchesi is now under active study. 

Symphony 37 (KV444) is attributed not to Mozart but to Michael Haydn. So too many, many minuets. Once again, we cannot be dogmatic. We can only say that Luchesi was definitely one of the major suppliers of music to Mozart (and to Haydn). 

Q12. This is a good question - that of style. Bear in mind that a composer of fairly average ability could turn a work he had just bought exclusive rights to in to his own style easily enough. And that the styles of Haydn and Mozart are far, far closer than between two other 18th century composers that we might choose at random. Is it mere coincidence that the two men were fast friends and very close together in their careers ? Both of these rising to iconic status within the history of music ? 

Q13. Haydn had been supplied from early years by symphonies from various Italian sources including Sammartini, Boccherini and (later) Luchesi. In later years he used Luchesi in Bonn. Or so says the evidence. The same is true for masses.

Once again, the sheer number of works at Modena suggests Bonn was a focal point for the careers of both Haydn and Mozart. It does not categorically prove that Luchesi wrote all their music. But it indicates that Bonn was in some way the main source of their supply. 

Why Bonn and not some other place ? There are reasons that can be explained in another post if you wish. It was not simply Luchesi. It was a matter of protocol within the Holy Roman Empire. 

Q14. I assume you are talking of Luchesi's orchestral music after 1784. Well, he was able to supply works to Haydn and Mozart if they needed them. They would be able to publish them within 5 years as their very own. How much Luchesi wrote after 1784 is unknown. That he wrote several works for Haydn after that date is fairly certain (judging by Haydn's official ouput after 1789). 

I will answer your last question in a separate post. 

Regards

Robert


----------



## robert newman

Dear Topaz, 

You asked - 

'15. Who wrote:

Piano Cons 19-27 (from 1784 to 1788)
Opera: Marriage of Figaro (1786), Don Giovanni (1787), Cosi Fan Tutte (1789), Magic Flute (1791), La Clemenza di Tito (1791)' 

Major question, yes ? 

Well, I can't answer all of this. Some of this is work in progress. I can, however, suggest that if the early, middle and later period of Mozart's reputation has been as 'manufactured' as it seems there is a strong possibility that we will find the same right the way through his official Vienna career - let us say, from 1784 until the time of his death in December 1791. Such a thing would be almost predictable, yes ? But let me give my personal view work by work -


1. The Piano Concertos 19-27

I honestly believe that these Piano Concertos were first completed probably in Salzburg and sent from there to Mozart in Vienna. We hear them today and assume they are truly by Mozart. In point of fact, many years passed after Mozart's death before they were ever published by Andre. During those years many strange things happened with them. 

Secondly, many of the autographs have disappeared. 

Thirdly, those which do exist and which were written before 1787 often show Leopold Mozart's hand. Fourthly, Nannerl (who has simply never been appreciated as a composer and creator of any part of Mozart's music) was alone, isolated and largely ignored in Salzburg despite (beyond reasonable doubt) being involved in the creation of these pieces, either at Salzburg/St Gilgen or, years later, at Offenbach, where the Mozart scores were taken by Andre in the years prior to their first publication. 

Judging by the plain fact that a forger was involved in making 'Mozart' manuscripts (even within Mozart's lifetime - as in the case of KV452 etc) - a forger with handwriting remarkably like Mozart's, I mean, we may be best to leave this subject of his later piano concertos for further study. I strongly suspect that Nannerl had as much to do with their genesis as Mozart himself, if not more so. But time will tell. Perhaps, one day, we will start to examine the watermarks on the Mozart correspondence and, even, question the entries of the thematic catalogue itself. Why not ? 

OPERAS

'The Marriage of Figaro' is a phenomenal work. I think most music lovers agree. But whether it was actually composed by Mozart is another question. It has always been attributed to him, for sure. But it was not commissioned. Strange that, yes ? It was a banned play at the time. So why would Lorenzo da Ponte have collaborated in it ? These are two obvious questions. Da Ponte claims it was written in 6 weeks. This is simply a lie. We have a letter from Paris saying Mozart was writing the opera in late 1785 - many, many months before. Da Ponte at this time had literally NO experience in staging or writing librettos for opera. Yet, in 1786 he is credited with writing no less than 3 in a single year. And there are dozens of other reasons to doubt that Mozart, a highly conservative composer and a child of the establishment, would ever have supported Beaumarchais. It was Mozart who (officially at least) is such a hater of Voltaire. 

I believe this opera was not written by Mozart. But I believe the same of Idomeneo and also of Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail. Each of these would take long posts to justify. 

DON GIOVANNI 

I have not studied this opera in detail. It's libretto was NOT, however, written by Da Ponte. That is certain. 

COSI FAN TUTTE

'Papa' Haydn went arm in arm with his great friend Mozart to hear rehearsals in Vienna for this opera. I do not know who wrote it. I suspect it was yet another 'supply' to Mozart. 

THE MAGIC FLUTE

Well, same as Cosi Fan Tutte. The history of the libretto is again a tangled mess leading nowhere. We know for sure that it was an Illuminati opera. That its symbolism was also designed to support the status-quo (the Habsburg elites). So it was the product of a time when the Austrian/Hungarian empire was under threat from revolution. By this time (1791) those controlling Mozart's career were in a position to do a deal with the rulers of that empire. And they did so. It preserved the status quo. But it also led to a repressive state soon afterwards. A virtual police state followed the death of Joseph 2nd. Pergen and others ensured that. The banning of the Freemasons was another example. But this too was a tactic of the Illuminati movement - to infiltrate and destroy the 'threat' from secular freemasonry. The whole subject is well worthy of deeper study. And this is currently ongoing. It's well recognised in Mozart research that the opera was the product of great manipulation and change. We know too the score arrived in Bonn even before the premiere. The Overture's famous theme is derived from a work of Clementi. etc. 

LA CLEMENZA DI TITO

This opera, of course, was not even intended for Mozart. It was begun by Salieri. But he, being busy with other things, offered it to Mozart. (Or so the story goes). 

Once aqain, I cannot answer as to it's true provenance. It's an opera that had been set many, many times before. 

But in the near future I think we will be able to answer this (and the others) with some certainty. 

I suspect that here, as elsewhere, Mozart was not the true composer of these great works. 

Best wishes

Robert Newman


----------



## Guest

I think I will let Topaz do all the work on this, he is more familiar with all the various sites, and I can just about keep up with you both, except that the fonts are too small for me to read direct in one sitting, one of the drawbacks of ageing!! I do have a comment or two but I can wait as they are not important and you will probably cover them in time.Regards * A*


----------



## robert newman

I should add that in Mozart's lifetime only 7 of his supposed 27 Piano Concertos were actually published. 

There is evidence many works by the very gifted blind Austrian pianist Theresia von Paradis (virtually all of them 'lost') are somehow involved in the modern 'Mozart' list. Paradis left Vienna to tour round Europe around the very time Mozart was holding very successful series of keyboard concerts with new material (1783), is known to have travelled to see the Mozart family in Salzburg and has traditionally been described as commissioning Mozart for his 18th Piano Concerto. It's more likely Paradis IS the true composer of that concerto. (She is recorded as playing a new concerto at the Concert Spirituel in Paris during 1784). She had an immense reputation as a pianist and composer and it's said she had a phenomenal memory for over 60 concertos. She and Nannerl Mozart may prove (eventually) to have played vital roles in the creation of the 'Mozart piano concertos'. 

This too is an area now under active study.


----------



## Topaz

*Robert:* Thanks for your replies. I hope to get back onto this topic again in a few days.

Topaz


----------



## robert newman

Dear Topaz, 

Fine. If you would like to have direct contact with other researchers who are now very active in this field of research I'd be very pleased to provide email addresses etc. These include musicologists Pei Gwen South, Luca Bianchini, Anna Trombetta, Giorgio Taboga and numerous others including myself. 

Precise details of the outrageous deception that was involved in creating the ‘official’ careers of Joseph Haydn and W.A. Mozart will no doubt be the subject of intense study by many different sorts of people for many more years. But it’s already clear that Giorgio Taboga, by his pioneering studies of the ‘mozart’/’haydn’ archives at Modena, Regensburg and other places, his determination to have the life and career of Andrea Luchesi justly recognized after more than a century of virtually total deletion, (plus his achievements in being first to give a brave, coherent, detailed and written thesis on the Haydn/Mozart subject) already justify describing him as the real pioneer in these areas of study. The equivalent of a Champollion, who first made the breakthrough in areas thought to be beyond solution by decipherment of the Rosetta Stone. I think, even at this early stage, of Taboga's work in these areas of music history being one of the great intellectual triumphs of our times. Certainly one of the great achievements in studies of musical history. 

Others will strongly disagree, of course. The idea that Mozart and Haydn were 'manufactured' composers sounds absurd. It did to me when I first heard of it. But detailed study continues and it all points in that same direction. 

Regards


----------



## SANAFABICH

Dear Robert, 
I for one don't mind if they are not the true composers of all those simphonies. The music will still be there, that can't be taken away from us. Music has a life of its own, a great simphony (or any piece of music for that matter) it is such because it appeals to many listeners. It won't lose its value just because it wasn't created by mozart or haydn


----------



## Topaz

Interesting point above. I would guess most people would like to know who composed the work they are listening to. If some of these disputed works eventually turn out to be more likely by other composers (and I stress "if", as I making no presumptions) I would imagine they would lose some "value". That's the way the world is: fakes lose value, no matter how much people may previously have liked those works. How much value is difficult to say, but some might be regained if a new kudos can be built up around the composer who actually may have written the work(s), assuming they can be identified.



Topaz


----------



## SANAFABICH

Dear Topaz,
Those people to whom the simphonies will lose value, are called SNOBS. If you really love music, you will love music, and admire its creator. IF other composers created the music we're talking about, then they deserve credit, and our admiration.


----------



## robert newman

p.s. I might add that few biographies of Mozart deal in any depth with the fact that fakery and forgery were plain facts of Mozart's public career, even during his lifetime. Even during the decade or so after Mozart's death, (at a time when Mozart's widow was busy negotiating sale of her late husband's manuscripts with several publishers) these things just continued. Here is one of numerous examples -

7 years after Mozart's death (1798) the German composer Anton Eberl, by this time resident in St. Petersburg, caused a sensation. (Some years before he had participated in a successful musical tour of Germany with Mozart's widow - a time when all seemed to be going well). But by 15th July 1798 Eberl was very unhappy. He placed a notice in the Hamburger unpartheiischer Correspondent, warning readers that "the new publishers of Mozart's complete works" are not to include 3 of his own musical compositions that had previously been published as works by 'Mozart'. (Eberl had learned a painful lesson - one of his sonatas had been wrongly published no less than 14 times in 'Mozart's' name before it was finally withdrawn without apology). Eberl wanted no more of this. So he repeated the same appeal 6 weeks later in the Leipzig newspaper Allgemeiner literarischer Anzeiger. Its Editor, in a footnote, added his own statement -

_'We are publishing this message, which is of interest to the entire musical public, . . . hoping that it may cause others to expose publicly such musical piracy This is all the more necessary because Mozart's widow seems to have so little respect for the ashes of her husband that she willingly participates in such illegal activities. What is more, she had the temerity to make similar offers to a famous composer, right here in Leipzig'_.
RN


----------



## Topaz

SANAFABICH said:


> Dear Topaz,
> Those people to whom the simphonies will lose value, are called SNOBS. If you really love music, you will love music, and admire its creator. IF other composers created the music we're talking about, then they deserve credit, and our admiration.


I'm not sure this is right. Let me give you a good example.

Mozart's Symphony No. 37, K. 444, was, until about 100 years ago, generally considered to have been a genuine work of WAM. However, researchers discovered it was actually written by Michael Haydn (Joseph Haydn's younger, and lesser-known brother). Exactly how this error of attribution was first made is another matter. But the important thing is that, since that time (1907), this Symphony was quickly dropped from the concert repertoire. In other words it lost value immediately, even though the work remained unchanged in all technical and quality respects. When did you last hear this Symphony?

I'm pretty sure the same thing would happen with respect to other works, if and to the extent that widely held convincing evidence, of the same quality, should ever come to light. In other words, there is nothing "snobbish" about this loss of value. It just happens as a result of normal market forces. It occurs periodically in the wider art world, where e.g. "Rembrandts" turn out to be mainly the work of journeymen trainees, rather than primarily that of the Master, and lose a lot of value overnight.

Topaz


----------



## robert newman

First, sorry I haven't responded to various posts here in the last few days - I've been busy moving home address and have only just come back online. 

In the past few weeks there has been detailed study of just one 'Mozart' symphony, the one known as KV297 'Pariser'. The weight of evidence (including a number of letters Mozart wrote, the facts of his very unsuccessful tour of Paris and close analysis of various versions of this work in Germany and Italy all indicate that the version we have now in Modena is a later version of the original brought by Luchesi its true composer from Italy when he first took up his post at Bonn in 1771. The evidence suggests this same symphony was first sold by Luchesi to Regensburg and other places. Luchesi added timpani and clarini parts. From Regensburg, eventually, came the published edition that was performed in Paris in June of 1778. 

Those familiar with the Mozart correspondence will know the Regensburg version was deemed to have a slow movement marked 'Andantino' that was too long - quite different from the one we normally here today ('Andantino'). It was about 160 bars long and changes key quite a lot. The concert master in Paris (le Gros) was right in saying it was 'too long' and Mozart was right in saying it was too short (since the original movement is short). 

Professor Luca Bianchini in Italy has closely studied all the available evidence and has reconstructed the slow movement adding bars of the Paris version that are known to have been deleted by Mozart. Le Gros said this same Andantino and probably the first movement Allegro were both too log, so what we have at Regensburg is the version he actually used in Paris. 

This same symphony was published in Paris though in a different form that, till now, has not been explained. The evidence suggests Le Gros know Luchesi and Mozart were in collaboration and, to avoid public shame. still allowed the symphony to be attributed as one by Mozart. 

From the time of 'Mozart 31' onwards Mozart seems to have broken his relationship with Luchesi for some years, relying on re-arranging as symphonies a series of Serenades which he arranged as Symphonies - till, that is, 1788, with the last three symphonies 39,40and 41. 


Regards


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

> Works on Italian paper are equally interesting. Some symphonies written on Venetian paper are today automatically described as early 'Haydn' but they remarkably correspond with Luchesi being in Venice himself at this time (1763-5). Thus, we have the following -


If those works had been written by Luchesi, it would mean that, on the contrary of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert, Luchesi managed to be admired internationally as a composer at the age of 22-24.
Why not, after all.
Never did he publish a symphony in Italy, before going to Bonn?
Why?
Where are Luchesi's symphonies composed between 1765 and 1771? 
Who is supposed to have written 'Haydn' symphonies on Nic Heisler paper before the arrival of Luchesi in Bonn?



> 1. SOME SYMPHONIES (ON VENETIAN PAPER)
> 
> MODENA REFERENCE 'COMPOSER' USUAL REFERENCE
> 
> Mus-D-142 'HAYDN' Hob.13
> Mus-D-143 'HAYDN' Hob.31
> Mus-D-144 'HAYDN' Hob.35
> Mus-D-147 'HAYDN' Hob.70
> Mus-D-149 'HAYDN' Hob.22
> Mus-D-154 'HAYDN' Hob.28
> Mus-D-155 'HAYDN' d.1 (Not listed in Hoboken)
> 
> There must surely be a strong possibility that the above works were amongst those that arrived with Luchesi in Bonn in 1771. They are nevertheless attributed to Joseph Haydn at Modena and were attributed to him before they arrived there.


Only Hob.70 is supposed to have been composed after Luchesi's arrival in Bonn (1779)
I'm going to purchase it : It should be interesting to know if it's similar to Haydn's early symphonies.



> Q12. This is a good question - that of style. Bear in mind that a composer of fairly average ability could turn a work he had just bought exclusive rights to in to his own style easily enough.


This I don't believe, to transform a Mozart's work into a Haydn's work, you've got to modify the whole structure. It's not enough integrating croatian melodies in the music for it to be haydnian. This work could oonly be achieved by a great, great composer. 
Of course, if Haydn is the real author of his quartets and concertos, he's a great composer.


> And that the styles of Haydn and Mozart are far, far closer than between two other 18th century composers that we might choose at random. Is it mere coincidence that the two men were fast friends and very close together in their careers ? Both of these rising to iconic status within the history of music ?


At least Witt and Pleyel's styles were closer to Haydn's than Mozart's.

I'm still enclined to think there are thuthes and mistakes in what you're assuming.


----------



## sinfonia espansiva

Am I wrong or the proves against the writing of the "Londons" by Haydn are poor?
What about the "parisians"?


----------



## robert newman

Dear Sinfonia Espansiva, 

In answer to the question of where the symphonies are that Luchesi wrote prior to his arrival in Bonn (1771) I think they were sold to Prince Esterhazy, and this through Count Durazzo (who was during Luchesi's early 20's the Habsburg ambassador in Venice). It was this same Count Durazzo (later opera administrator for the emperor in Vienna) who arranged/recommended Luchesi to become Kapellmeister at Bonn in 1771 - this with the approval of the Elector of Bonn, Maximilian Friedrich. Thus, both Sammartini and Luchesi were the true source of many of 'Haydn's' early symphonies. Boccherini still another. In the writings of Carpani there is a famous section where Haydn dismisses a statement made by Josef Mysliveck that Haydn owed his style to Sammartini. Haydn is supposed to have been hugely angry at this statement and vehemently denied that Sammartini had any input in his music. I can provide a lot of evidence on this Sammartini influence if you require. In fact, the 'Groves' Dictionary of Music and Musicians discusses Sammartini's huge influence on both Haydn and Mozart - influence that was well known to professional musicians of the time but which was glossed over in biographies. 

When you get Hob.70 I would be happy to discuss that work in detail. 

I respect your view on styles. It is nevertheless widely recognised that 'Mozart's' late chamber music is very close stylistically to Haydn. The Prussian quartets and the late quintets, for example. There is also evidence that the 6 'Haydn' Quartets of Mozart (so-called) are actually derived from operatic music attributed to Haydn. 

Best regards

Robert


----------



## robert newman

Hi Topaz, 

Yes, fine. 

I strongly believe that Theresia von Paradis was the author of many keyboard concertos attributed to Mozart although it's true to say that writers on von Paradis say that her surviving music is largely influenced by her teacher Georg Vogler. Whilst this is perfectly true, it's also perfectly true that virtually all her music has mysteriously disappeared and that which has survived is largely from a time when she was a student under the said Vogler. (Vogler, incidentally, was very much involved in making Mozart's reputation). 

Von Paradis (blind from childhood onwards) was also associated for treatment with the famous/infamous Mesmer (pioneer of hypnotism). But here too is association with Mozart since it was the same Mesmer who, in Vienna, is said to have commissioned the boy Mozart to write 'Bastienne und Bastien'. (Mesmer was later run out of Vienna as a charlatan and came to live in Paris. In fact, he was in attendence at several concerts held at which von Paradis was soloist, at the Concert Spirituel in 1784). She never recovered her sight after her 'treatment' with Mesmer. But she was hugely important. She created (in advance of Braille) the first known system of recording music for blind people and assisted in the first European school for the blind in Paris, where she helped to ensure that music was part of the curriculum. 

In saying that she had a repertoire of 60 concertos it is entirely possible that, in fact, she had one of 20 concertos, each of them of 3 movements. It is very interesting that the pages of Nannerl's diary which cover von Paradis's trip to the Mozart family have been torn out. (Wolfgang himself was visiting Salzburg at this very time). 

It is true that Leopold Mozart speaks of Wolfgang writing a concerto for Von Paradis (rather than vice-versa), but, I think in view of many earlier cases, this claim can be treated with a pinch of salt. It was Paradis who already had in Vienna a huge reputation as a composer and performer, this in advance of Mozart's arrival there. And she (conveniently) was persauded to leave the city around the very time when Mozart claims to have written many of 'his own' concertos. 

Sorry to be so suspicious but there is a track record here and I am simply expressing my deep distrust of so much we have read and learned from Mozart biographies. 

R


----------



## classiko

find more information about Mozart and his music here: http://www.naxos.local/composerinfo/721.htm or check my signature


----------



## robert newman

Dear Sinfonia Espansiva,

You've been patient several times refering to the symphony Hob. 70, since I've several times indicated it's not a work by Joseph Haydn. Having finally moved house and unpacked etc. I thought it right to submit this short article on that work. I can only offer a few bits of information.

As previously indicated, at the Estense Library in Modena today are 58 Symphonies which were once part of the archives of the Bonn chapel and which correspond with 58 Symphonies inventoried by G Neefe there on 8th May 1784. Perhaps I can justify this as follows -

SYMPHONIES INVENTORIED BY NEEFE AT BONN ON MAY 8TH 1784

8 in the name of 'Haydn'
11 in the name of 'Hayde'
28 attributed simply to 'de differents auteurs' on p.258 of the Inventory
10 attributed simply to 'de differents auteurs' on p.260 of the same Inventory
1 'Seven Last Words of our Redeemer' (orchestral version)

TOTAL 58 SYMPHONIES

And today at Modena from Bonn -

38 Symphonies by Haydn
4 anonymous symphonies marked 'returning' (Haydn and Mozart)
6 'Symphonets' by Haydn
9 Symphonies by Mozart
1 'Le sette parole del Ns. Redentore'

TOTAL 58 Symphonies

The 'Haydn' Symphony in question (Hob.70) has at Modena a reference number 'Mus-D-147' and the earliest attempt to create a Haydn catalogue (by Bernhard von Kees in Vienna) lists it there as Kees 58. This same symphony is also refered to in the Bonn catalogue C.53.1 at Modena (a catalogue begun after 1784 and kept at Bonn until the closure of the chapel in 1794 as Item 77).

Marks/writings on the copy of Hob.70 at Modena show clearly it was in Bonn. For example, there is in pen the number '77'. Also (in another pen) is a number '35'. And we have the signature of its copyist 'AR'. The identity of copyist 'A.R.' is still not known although his initials also appear in the following other symphonies -

Hob 57
Hob 74
Hob 48
Hob 22
Hob 71
Hob 62

This same copyist was also involved in several of the 'Mozart' symphonies now at Modena -

KV 320
KV 319
KV 201

Correspondence between the works inventoried at Bonn in 1784 and those found today in Modena has been helped (as mentioned) by catalogue C.53.1 from Bonn begun after 1784 by the Kapellmeister Luchesi (who was of course responsible for the musical material and acquisitions of the chapel).

Bear in mind that at Modena virtually all covers and many title pages of these works have disappeared between their removal from Bonn and their arrival at the library there. Since these deliberate attempts to obscure or remove vital data are evidence of a kind we can say these works were deliberately 'dumped' in Italy for some reason and not destroyed. The very fact they survived is extraordinary. Removal of covers and title pages must reasonably have been done to remove potentially damaging information. Perhaps it was believed the simple act of removing most covers and title pages would effectively rule out later linkage with the true composers. In any event, such damage was not entirely able to remove all clues.

In 1937 the first serious attempt at a Luchesi biography (made by the German Thomas A Henseler) was first to point out that these works at Modena were also once also known at Bonn. But Hensler assumed the Modena versions were simply early 19th century copies. He suggested they were 'late copies, made at the start of the 19th century in Vienna or even in Modena for Austrian archdukes of Italy and therefore unworthy of much attention'.

But Hensler's statement was knowingly false. For, by 1937 it was already clear that these Modena works were the very ones inventoried at Bonn. (This has since been confirmed by C. Valder-Knechtes in 1983 and also by M. Freyhan in 1963). Henseler effectively downgraded the significance of the Modena material. And he was not the last to do so.

Henseler invented (for his readers) a supposed paper mill in Modena, Italy to account for the curious watermarks suggestive of otherwise German origin for these copies. NIC HEISLER paper was, according to him, at one time made in Italy. This same fiction was repeated in 1955 by Robbins Landon.

Small wonder that with such falsehoods the significance of these Modena symphonies and masses has repeatedly been downplayed. Until the arrival of researchers such as Giorgio Taboga.

The copy of Hob. 70 at Modena is on Italian paper. In fact, detailed study of its watermarks has established that it came from Venice - the very city where Luchesi first became active and the same city where, for years, Count Durazzo (Ambassador of the Emperor in Vienna) was based. The same Durazzo who eventually recommended Luchesi to become Kapellmeister at Bonn).

Hob. 70 (Mus-D-147) is not the only 'Haydn' symphony on Venetian paper in this Modena collection. Also there are -

Mus-D-142 - Hob.13
Mus-D-143 - Hob.31
Mus-D-144 - Hob.35
Mus-D-145 - Hob.22
Mus-D-149 - Hob.22 (further copy)
Mus-D-154 - Hob.28
Mus-D-155 - Hob. d:1

All of the above works on Venetian paper, together with Hob.70, most probably arrived with Luchesi himself in Bonn in 1771.

Hope this helps

Regards


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Hey, I have an idea! Let's ressurect this topic.

We can start with a good discussion about the true author of *KV 231 *and *KV 233*.

Kochel Katalogue <- Click

Any clues?


----------



## Lalla

Hello
So, here is to continue this sterile debate ! First of all, I am reassured to read good humour messages from Robert N. ! thank you.

I didn't read the whole thread as I don't like to get my nerves curled. If it is absolutly necessary for me to understand your story, I will make an effort, but seriously I have better scenari in my head.

You are a researcher - I'm not - so you may well know that when one is interesting in the biography of Mr Example, one is to confront much more questions than answers, much more doubts than certainties etc..
As a consequence, isn't it easy to pick up a strange event in the life of Example and to expand it, and to embroider a wonderful canvas ?
Inevitably, every blank in documents is propitious for "logical" explanations whose only bases are preceding suppositions ! Let's have a _caricatured_ example with maths : _I_ am a simpleton.
_I_ am able to solve this : 0x12 = 0x4. 
0 = 0 nothing new !
12 = 4 ! Hum.. what about inspecting the general theory of relativity now ?

I don't know the 37th symphony fragment and I can't solve any of your problems as regards it. But what is surprising ?
Is it surprising that several composers, leaving at the same time etc., have been considered for a doubtful piece of work ?
Is it surprising that there exist dregs among the works of any composer ?
What else ?

I know my replies are vain since you must be so persuaded.
Research, exploration, interpretation and all that, is very well in its way, but really a little commun sense is sometimes quite as becoming.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Lalla,

_Research, exploration, interpretation and all that, is very well in its way, but really a little commun sense is sometimes quite as becoming._

Thanks for that. Yes, I agree. That the father of Mozart (Leopold) and his sister had a hand in many, many early works of Wolfgang is a fact so clearly established that nothing further needs to be said of it. Common sense (which you admire) suggests we can move on from such facts to find others. We find (as it happens) that Mozart, credited in Italy with writing from memory a sacred mass at Rome, actually did no such thing, and had access to the piece in Vienna long before he and his father set out for that city. We find, in fact, that Mozart's sister was as highly praised as Mozart himself for her keyboard skills and even for her ability as a composer while they were on their European tours. But if all of these things (and I could mention dozens of specific cases) do not persuade you that his reputation as a child and young man was hugely 'massaged' then, I confess, we have lost sight of the common sense which you floated in your last letter.

We have many, many evidences from Vienna that the same W.A. Mozart was not the composer of an opera that he claimed to have written, that the musical community of Vienna all believed the same. And we have clear evidence from Mozart's last decade in Vienna of works being blatantly published in his name which he never actually wrote. A scale, in fact, which has hardly yet been appreciated.

Well, you can believe as you please. The only question is whether you are using your critical reasoning in such a case if, as it happens, this fakery and downright deception can be shown at each and every stage of Mozart's career. Surely, surely, we arrive at absurdity if we do not conclude that there is a major problem here.

Which composer do you know that has had more than twice the number of, say, symphonies than he has today ? And if you can agree with this ask the same question.

I am convinced that common sense becomes rare whenever we come close to the phenomenon that is Mozart. The idea that this man emerged virtually without schooling is not simply false, it's downright harmful.

But let's leave aside the question of Mozart's mature works (if you like). You can even ignore KV444 if you like - though you see what 'expertise' has done in that case.

I again repeat that if you or any other person was to submit those questions on it to a Mozart Forum you could judge for yourself where common sense is and where it is not.

I too love the music that is today attributed to Mozart. I always will. But common sense tells me that truth will prevail. That is good enough for me.

Regards


----------



## robert newman

KV 231 and KV 233. Wow ! Is there any competition on the authorship of these works ?
They are typically, quintessentially, Mozart, are they not ? My vote's for him in both cases. 

Regards


----------



## Lalla

Well, I abandon. There is no dialogue, only stories stories stories. Gutter press, goodbye


----------



## robert newman

Dialogue on such a serious issue is precisely what the 'Mozart establishment' does not want. Here on this thread you raised the question of two Mozart works, KV231 and KV233. 

If you wish to have dialogue perhaps you can read the thread and see who is calling for a fair and honest discussion of the available evidence (documentary, musical, historical and other sorts). Gutter press does none of these things. 

Regards


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Actually, I raised the point of KV 231 and 233, I you check back. Those are deep and profound works that I believe to be by Mozart. I'm just wondering if Luchesi happened to have made an orchestral version of them... If so, you can expect to find them in my orchestra's repertoire next season, "Mozart" year or not.


----------



## robert newman

It may be more enlightening if you and your orchestra would play the opening bars of the symphony KV444 - just to become familiar with what the real Mozart was capable of (and what he was not). 

Luchesi (who incidentally had provided Mozart with at least one and probably two keyboard concertos - both refered to in the Mozart correspondence in the 1780's though the earliest was given during a visit to Italy) did not orchestrate these two canons to which you refer. Nor, for that matter, did Mozart. And nor did Mozart write many of the fugal arrangements so often wrongly attributed to him from his regular visits to Baron van Sweiten in Vienna. In fact, speaking of his supposed academic/theoretical achievements, Mozart did not successfully complete the written examination under Padre Martini in Bologna for membership of the Philharmonia (this too, contrary to popular myth). The list of his supposed theory 'pupils' varies according to which version of the myth you read. Was Sussmayr a 'pupil' of Mozart ? Or, how about Anton Eberl ? One marvels at all this. Nor did Mozart copy down from memory a sacred mass heard by him in Rome. (A mass he incidentally heard twice, and not once, during his short stay there). In fact the version he made is known to have been riddled with errors despite being used as a major propaganda item for Mozart's genius in Rome at the time and has never featured in any edition of the Koechel list, even as an arrangement, despite a copy being reported to have existed in Germany up until the early 20th century. Considering the importance of such a thing to the 'Mozart story' one must ask why this 'miracle' is so poorly documented. It is recorded that the errors contained within this German copy were so great that one can only suppose it was 'withdrawn' from view for that very reason. (It is today considered 'lost'). 

That Mozart re-arranged works of other composers (e.g. a whole series of Serenades became 'Mozart' Symphonies in this way) is beyond dispute. The Posthorn Serenade, the Haffner and others are examples. His incompetence in symphonic writing (a form he was not even credited with until after 1783) was well known in Paris during the time when he tried (unsuccessfully) to present KV297 as a symphony of his own - an error that led to some embarrasments for him in front of Le Gros and other musicians before being forced to quit Paris by Baron Grimm in shame. That Mozart struggled to provide an acceptable form of this work for performance at the Concert Spirituel is beyond dispute. So too that its publication in Paris that same year was of a version very different from that of its premiere. Further examples of transforming works in to 'Mozart' works can be found in the trilogy of symphonies today known as 39, 40 and 41 - 40 existing (as you know) in a version with clarinets and also another version without them. Once again we are dealing with a work which was not commissioned and where the evidence clearly indicates all 3 existed years before 1788, the supposed date of these 3 'Mozart' works. (Well, at least according to Mozart's 'own' thematic catalogue - begun only in 1784). 

I agree that even if all these things are true it still leaves a huge number of other real masterpieces which need their own story. The Horn Concertos, the Violin Concertos, to say nothing of the remarkable piano concertos etc. And of course the operas from the Abduction up until La Clemenza di Tito (including of course those such as L'Oca del Cairo and also Lo Sposo Deluso). To say nothing of Idomeneo. 

Well, perhaps something is achieved by noting that this forum has been more than fair in allowing these controversial things to be refered to, even if we cannot (and perhaps should not) examine each issue in detail. Bonn, Luchesi, Abbe Vogler and others were absolutely vital for the creation of Mozart (and Haydn's) reputation. Of this I think there is now compelling evidence. That the 18th century was a time when such practices were common is well known. The degree to which this was so in the making of the careers and reputations of Joseph Haydn and WA Mozart is hardly known, let alone agreed to, as we see. But I do think, eventually, things that now seem 'heresy' or 'impossible' will come to be widely accepted once each work is discussed in turn. 

Regards


----------



## amirjsi

Sorry, but you're one sad person. You are, I believe afflicted with a case of reactionism. Just because Mozart was brought to such greater attention of late, you would like to make a buzz by putting together a controversy such as this one. 

What better way to get attention than to say that you found that which has escaped everyone's attention and the scrutiny of scholars for, what, more than two-hundred years? You're just thinking "huh, they say he was SO good... let's try and prove he wasn't."

you obviously spent a lot of time working on your argument and trying to convince others here of your view. Why don't you go and try Bach next, I hear he's got more than 1000 works and he was a very busy man. Maybe he was falsifying his works too.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

amirjsi said:


> Sorry, but you're one sad person ... you would like to make a buzz by putting together a controversy such as this one.


*Amirjsi*, I do not agree with *robert newman* either, but there's no need to get personal. *RN* did not invent this idea, nor did he "put together" this controversy. What he _has_ done is laid down a body of arguments and evidence. It is now up to us Mozart lovers to prove that this evidence is contrived and fabricated. We will not achieve this through personal attacks, but through argumentation and historical proof.


----------



## Mark Harwood

I'm enjoying this. Please keep it going, and let's hear from some other people who know their stuff. There's a lot to learn from this kind of debate, whatever you believe at the start.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Amirjsi, 

I don't think I'm a 'sad' person. I'm quite a happy person. People understand quite well what is being said - that the compositional careers of two of the principal composers of the Viennese 1st School (Joseph Haydn and W.A. Mozart) were massively fabricated and exaggerated at virtually every single stage. Such a point of view is held by one side of this debate - people who are more than happy to discuss the actual evidence. But readers will notice how feeble the opposite view has been today in defending their 'traditional view'. Such a 'defence' consists solely in rubbishing the personalities of those who disagree with them. Isn't THAT sad ? Isn't this the record so far ? 

Is there a composer in the entire body of western classical music who has had such an elastic, grossly inflated but amazingly durable compositional reputation as has 'Mozart' ? He has been credited over the past 200 years and more with literally hundreds of works which, today, even the most hardened coinservative grudgingly admits he never actually wrote. Such a litany of lies is unprecedented. And it is far from finished yet. Is such a porous CV fact or fiction ? Is it true or false that Mozart WAS falsely attributed with dozens of works during his childhood and youth ? Is it true or false that, in point of fact, the posthumous reputation of this same Mozart was the product of a public relations team as skilled in exaggeration and omission as any corporate news channel, and that, in fact, one side of this issue is happy to point to historical/documentary evidence and is appealing to others to admit its existence, while the other side defends nothing but a crumbling ruin whose shape, size and quality is itself in a state of permanent revision ? Nowhere in music history is this so true as in the mythical career of this same W.A. Mozart. 

Well, next year we will have further damaging revelations with the long awaited publication of the first book published in English on the composer Josef Myslivececk. That Bohemian composer is actuallyrefered to more times n the Mozart family correspondence than any other composer. But it was he, Josef Myslivececk who indisputably wrote many, many works today still falsely being attributed to Mozart. Ignore this too if you want to. I hope you see the way things are moving. 

So you see it's not simply a Luchesi matter. It's the simple issue of whether people want to base their views on the available evidence or whether they want to preserve a specially persistent form of cultural mythology.

By all means, we should preserve monuments. But when their masonry keeps falling down on our heads is it not about time we admitted the Mozart icon has cracks that strongly indicate terminally catastrophic structural problems ? 

Regards

p.s. I'm writing to you from Florida USA (instead of the usual London, England), having come here for the next few months or so. 

RN


----------



## Mark Harwood

I'd like to say "Thanks" for this thread. Mr. Newman presents his evidence and arguments clearly, Topaz and others ask thoughtful questions, and there is a very small proportion of silly stuff from people who haven't followed the discussion.
What we have not seen is contrary evidence or compelling contrary argument. There is no rebuttal at all. Are there no academics out there who can fight Mozart's corner? So far, on this thread Mozart appears to be a complete charlatan! I hope there's more to come.


----------



## opus67

Mark Harwood said:


> What we have not seen is contrary evidence or compelling contrary argument. There is no rebuttal at all. Are there no academics out there who can fight Mozart's corner? So far, on this thread Mozart appears to be a complete charlatan! I hope there's more to come.


I could be wrong, but I think that's because of the lack of historians of music on this board. If they had been here, this thread would now have been 15 pages long and locked.


----------



## Mark Harwood

opus67 said:


> I could be wrong, but I think that's because of the lack of historians of music on this board. If they had been here, this thread would now have been 15 pages long and locked.


Well I hope it never gets locked. Mr. Newman is running his ship of ideas past us and looking for leaks. If this thread looks like getting locked because someone with nothing to offer to the debate makes personal remarks, then that ought to be averted. 
I started a thread on a fine and generally well-behaved forum once, having a go at Big Bang theory. I fed the ideas in piecemeal, there was a debate forming, I was saving my best ammunition, and a careless individual got it locked by making it religious. That's bad manners. 
Surely this is a really meaty theme, entirely appropriate to this forum, and it deserves attention from trained historians and forensic techniques. I don't exactly know why it matters, as the music stands without documentary support, but perhaps those whose appreciation of a piece is enhanced by its supposed place in the composer's life will have to see some music afresh. There's surely no harm in that.
I see a "women as ignored composers" theme here too, and that merits investigation, not least in the context of the paucity of well-known role models for aspiring female composers.


----------



## opus67

Mark Harwood said:


> I started a thread on a fine and generally well-behaved forum once, having a go at Big Bang theory. I fed the ideas in piecemeal, there was a debate forming, I was saving my best ammunition, and a careless individual got it locked by making it religious. That's bad manners..


The place sounds familiar. Was this forum by any chance run by a magazine publisher? 



> I don't exactly know why it matters, as the music stands without documentary support, but perhaps those whose appreciation of a piece is enhanced by its supposed place in the composer's life will have to see some music afresh. There's surely no harm in that.


That's true. I've thought about it too. But the point Mr.Newman makes is that a fable has been spun around these compositions for the past two centuries misleading the whole world about the history of music. In that sense, it matters, at least to some people.


----------



## Handel

I was no aware of this. So, I am truly flabbergasted. Actually, Haydn "composed" about 50 symphonies from 1761 to 1775. Would not be surprised to see some works composed by others.


----------



## Mark Harwood

opus67 said:


> The place sounds familiar. Was this forum by any chance run by a magazine publisher?
> 
> Not as far as I know; it was Banjo Hangout.
> Now back to the theme...


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Mark Harwood said:


> What we have not seen is contrary evidence or compelling contrary argument. There is no rebuttal at all. Are there no academics out there who can fight Mozart's corner?


Good point, *Mark*. I am not an academic, but a practitioner. I participated in about 20 "Mozart Concerts" in 2006, the Mozart year. In my heart, I believe Mozart is Mozart, but admitedly have no "proof" to back that up, because I never thought I needed any, until now. So I eagerly await the entrance of the aforementioned "scholars" who will have something intelligent to say in Mozart's defence.

But I tell you this. If the controversy is undeniably proved true, and the powers like *Barenreiter* and *Deutsche Gramophone* give in to this truth, I will _never_ conduct "Mozart" again.


----------



## opus67

Given that most of the members here are either professional or students, you must be participating in a lot more forums on classical music, especially on the internet. Have you every come across this controversy at those places?


----------



## Saturnus

Kurkikohtaus said:


> But I tell you this. If the controversy is undeniably proved true, and the powers like *Barenreiter* and *Deutsche Gramophone* give in to this truth, I will _never_ conduct "Mozart" again.


Why? This is damn good music anyway. I think it is wrong to take revenge on the music itself, I think the wrongdoers here would be the publishers (and the freemasons!).


----------



## robert newman

Dear Saturnus, 

I think the wrongdoers are those who, still, today, perpetuate the myth of Mozart. Those who make recordings of 'complete symphonies' and other works knowing already that many of them are NOT by Mozart. Those who point blank refuse to come online in forum after forum to allow members to judge which side of the 'Mozart' issue is more supported by evidence, and which is less so. 

That virtually every story about Mozart is a bald faced lie, or that Koechel has always been stuffed with downright false attributions - none of this seems to phase these 'experts'. It's truly breathtaking. 

Not only are other composers downgraded and often ignored altogether but this Mozart bandwaggon is reinvented and regurgitated ad nauseum. Kids learn that they too can be a 'Mozart' - that people can be born with such prodigious musical gifts that they can excel with virtually no real academic study. This is only one of dozens of harms caused by the chocloate box 'Mozart' which orthodoxy pumps out. 

That scholars could and should engage on this issue is clear. That they choose not to and that they would ban others for doing so from their own forums - these are the actions of mythologiists. 

Given the fact that classical music as a profession is under more and more pressure for iits survival I do believe that its about tiime that truth was established and Mozart relegated to the dustbin of marginal composers - this despite the fact that his 'official' list of works includes some of the greatest written in the 18th or any other century. 

Regards


----------



## silmarilion

Hi to all on this forum before I start. This being my first post and all

Dear mr. Newman, 9or any other user who favors his argument, has done research on the subject)

I have read most of the posts in this topic, although I must admit i cannot keep track of all the argumentation, refutation and reargumentation that took place concerning the enormous number of points raised by yourself, and other posters. I think I get the gist of it though. One thing I found missing in your argumentation is an evaluation of the quality of music that IS ascribed to Luchesi beyond doubt. Does the quality of that work compare favorably to the music of Mozart and Haydn allegedly written by him?

Second, a point which I found no clear awnser for is this: 
1) Luchesi, being Kaperllmeister did NOT sign his name on any music whilst written by him while he was in office. Yet you claim that manuscripts, that you use as argumentation for your theory (term not meant to denigrate!) that Mozart and Haydn received regular supplies of music by Luchesi, contained the latters name.

2) This name was rather clumsily 'erased' and replaced with Mozart's. 

3)Thus, you claim, this was done to cover up that MOzart was not the original author of the work this happened to.

BUT: this raises two question:

a) Why did Luchesi defy practice and dign his name on the manuscript?
b) Why would Luchesi write his name on a work that he new would go to Mozart's credit, thus only creating the possiblity of fraud being detected? 
c) Even if you claim the work was written before he knew Mozart would get it, would he still not sign the work because he was Kapellmeister. 

Thirdly: no criticism here, ut can you elaborate please on the origins of Mozarts Requiem? I know a great deal of it is Sussmayr's, some perhaps Eybler's and what not, but are parts of the Requiem to be attributed to Mozart? Since it is one of the few owrks by Mozart that I love, I would be very interested in it's origins if it is not Mozart's. 

The problem with your work is that if but one great composition of Mozart, be it symphony, opera, chamber of very high quality is reveiled as undisputably his, the need for the ghost writers is gone to at least a large extent. So good luck on your daunting task!

Regards,

silmarilion
Just some thoughts,

GOod luck with your research.


----------



## opus67

Hi similarilion. Welcome to TC! That's quite a way to make an entrance.


----------



## silmarilion

Hi Opus, thanks for the welcome. I was planning to introduce myself in a more modest topic, but this debate really sparkled my interest.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Saturnus said:


> Why? ... I think it is wrong to take revenge on the music itself ...


The reasons I would distance myself from this music are manyfold:

Personally, I would feel that I have been "cheated" for many years, and the whole thing would leave a bad taste in my mouth.
The "event" of "premiering" "rediscovered" works would require so many "quotation marks" on posters and programs that it would make the music at the concert secondary to the "event" itself.
There would be a huge and sudden bandwagon of "Luchesi Champions" who would proclaim to have "known it all along". I would want to distance myself from them as well.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Silmarilion,

I will try to answer your questions as well as I can. 

1a) The manuscript that was signed by Luchesi was a symphony sold by him to the court of Thurn and Taxis at Regensburg, Germany around 1773. 

b) The symphony is traditionally attributed to Mozart. 

c) The symphony is the one generally called the 'Paris' symphony, reference KV297

d) Mozart claims to have composed this work in Paris for a concert at the Concert Spirituel in 1778 - fully 5 years after, in fact, it had been composed by Luchesi. 

e) Between 1773 and 1778 the work had NOT been published by anyone. But once Mozart (and his patrons) bought its rights from Luchesi (shortly before Mozart left Mannheim and came to Paris) they arranged to have it published after it's premiere in Paris in the name of Mozart. 

f) Shortly afterwards, with this work now 'officially' a Mozart symphony the Luchesi name on this handwritten version at Regensburg was scratched out replaced by that of Mozart. 

g) This manuscript can still be seen today, at Regensburg in the library of Thurn and Taxis with the name of Mozart clearly placed above that of the original Luchesi. 

h) Yes, it was not normal for Luchesi to sign works that were sold to others. But the sale to Regensburg was a private sale that happened years before Mozart bought its rights. Nobody but Regensburg knew its true composer and the name change was therefore straightforward. Mozart's own father had worked at Regensburg in his early career and there was virtually no chance of the fraud being detected. 

i) The paper on which this work is written is NOT French. It's from the Rhine area. From Bonn. In fact, it's a copy of the original that Luchesi posted to Mozart in Mannheim before Mozart even arrived in Paris. 

j) The plan seemed faultless. But in Paris, the Director of the Concert Spirituel was not happy with its slow movement. He asked Mozart to change it. But Mozart, the fraudster, was unable to do so. (He was simply not skilled enough to do it). This is the reason why there are actually several versions and why the first published edition from Paris differs from both the Regensburg copy and also from the copy now held at Estense Library in Modena, Italy. 

2. Yes, Kapellmeisters NEVER signed their own works. Their employment contracts made their works the property of the chapel and of the state. But, during the 18th century, if a copy by, say, Luchesi was requested by outside parties then, at that time, a special copy would be made with the name of the composer clearly given on the score. Otherwise all music held in the chapel was automatically attributed to the Kapellmeister unless there were reasons not to. 

A simple example is the music of JS Bach. At Leipzig Bach only very rarely signed his works with his own signature - at times when copies were made for external reasons. Otherwise they remained unsigned. The vast majority of church cantatas by Bach (almost 200 of them) are unsigned although, of course, they are by JS Bach. 

The Inventory held at Bonn in 1784 (during Luchesi's holiday in Italy) should have credited Luchesi with dozens of symphonies. But this did not happen. They ended up being falsely attributed to Haydn and to Mozart despite lacking any such attribution in Bonn. 

3. The true history of 'Mozart's Requiem' is very different from the mythology we are so often given. Here are some facts - 

a) There is not a shred of documentary evidence (and there never has been) that Mozart was commissioned to write a Requiem. 

b) A huge amount of contradictory exaggeration was made (even shortly after Mozart's death) about a 'commission' from a grey messenger, etc etc. 

c) In fact, Count Walsegg (the supposed commissioner of the piece) did not (as just said) commission anyone to write a Requiem. 

d) A commission is a written document - a legal agreement - in this case specifying the terms and conditions for a piece to be written. It gives the price of the commission and other details. But NOBODY - NOBODY AT ALL - EVER CLAIMS TO HAVE SEEN THIS MYTHICAL DOCUMENT. 

Constanze Mozart (whose lies and exaggerations are well known in Mozart research) speaks of the commission. So do others. But (as said now several times) NOBODY ever refers to it, or to its content, or even claims to have seen it. In fact, there has always been confusion what amount Mozart was supposedly to be paid for this 'Requiem'. Surely, such a simple thing would be easy to say if such a document ever existed. It did not. The idea of a commission is simply one of dozens of lies invented by the patrons and supporters of Mozart. It never existed. 

You ask for other details. OK, here are a few more. 

In her correspondence Constanze Mozart repeatedly says the Requiem was in a state of virtual completion at the time of her husband's death. This claim was dogmatically repeated by Abbe Maximilian Stadler 34 years later when the musicologist argued that the piece was actually a fraud. Stadler repeats the lies of Constanze. He published a document called 'Defence of the Authenticity of the Requiem' to defend its supposed genuineness. But others more skilled than he (for example, the great musicologist Gottfried Weber) said the whole affair was a huge fraud. Weber was right. 

In addition, legend tells us that 'Mozart's pupil' FX Sussmayr completed the Requiem. This is because Sussmayr publicly claimed this himself. But here the problems begin. If, in fact, the work was virtually completed at the time of Mozart's death it's clear that Sussmayr could not have composed entire movements of it as he claims. 

Sussmayr then added even further confusion. Some years later he changes his mind and says he only composed a few movements - this in direct contradiction to his sworn statement to the first publisher Breitfkopf and Hartel. 

In a further example of lies and deception, Constanze Mozart claims that Josef Eybler was contracted to finish the Requiem shortly after her husband's death. In fact, in later years the same Constanze Mozart specifically says that Eybler did NOT at any time work on this piece ! Such confusion and misinformation is typical of this affair. 

We also have, in the hand of Abbe Maximilian Stadler (confidant of the widow Mozart) evidence of him creating parts of the manuscript. This has always been suppressed. But it is clear evidence of manipulation. 

In addition, 9 years passed before the work was finally published. Virtually a decade. The lies, exaggerations and falsehoods in this matter are truly enormous. Add to this the falsified signature of 'Mozart' and the falsified writing saying it was written by 'me'. If this is not clear evidence of forgery, what is ???

Now, add to this some other facts. In a locally produced paper made in Vienna there is a record of a memorial service for Mozart, this held in a church in the city on the 10th December 1791, i.e. 6 days after his death. This memorial service was ignored by researchers or was dismissed as fiction. But church archives showed clearly that it DID take place on that date. Not a single member of Mozart's family is recorded as having been present. In fact, it goes completely unmentioned by all the major biographers. The local newspaperman, named Staudlinger, records the strange fact that at that very memorial service a Requiem was performed, of Mozart's own composition ! 

Now, here is where things get a bit complicated and where they require an explanation. The most likely explanation is as follows - 

1. Mozart knew he was dying. 
2. He wrote a short vocal requiem (a cappella)
3. This short piece (rather like the little motet KV618 in the sense that it was a very brief piece) was performed only once - at that memorial service - and then disappeared. 
4. The piece we know today as 'Mozart's Requiem' (KV626) was definitely NOT that piece. 
5. At the time of Mozart's death not a single movement of KV626 was completed or orchestrated. 
6. The handwriting of no less than 4 different writers is found in KV626

I don't want to bore readers further with these points. But there are dozens of other reasons why, in fact, KV626 was NOT the piece performed that day at Mozart's memorial service. Not least, because the church records speak only of a choir singing, but not of any orchestra. Once again, this clearly indicates a piece that was of no special complexity or length. The Memorial Service had been hastily arranged by Emanuel Schickaneder (the theatrical manager involved with the first performances of the 'Magic Flute'). 

Much of what we are taught of Mozart's death and funeral are later inventions. Contrary to popular belief there is NO evidence of any funeral procession. Nor is there any evidence that Mozart's remains were taken to the Cathedral. In fact, at the time of Mozart's death there is good reason to believe that there was no funeral procession at all. That his remains were taken straight to the cemetery on the morning after his death - the fear being that he had died of some sort of contagious illness. (In fact, as long suggested, Mozart does appear to have been poisoned). 

So all of these things (and many more) are reason to take popular myth with a large pinch of salt. The myth of the 'grey messenger' comissioning Mozart is just another example. The man's career ended as it had been lived for so long - amongst fakery, deception and downright fraud. KV626 is simply the last, sad case. 

Regards


----------



## silmarilion

Dear mr. Newman,

Thank you for being so elaborate with your awnsers. I actually have a few small questions about the Requiem:

1) Who exactly are the composers whose handwriting you mentioned?

2) Is, compared to music attributed to them, it reasonably to assume that they had the talent to write the high quality music of the Requiem?

3) Does any work on the Requiem in Mozart's own hand survive, and if so why or why not should this count as evidence that Mozart indeed was able to and did write high quality parts of the Requiem?

4) Why is the music for his alledged motet-like Requiem lost, and never mentioned? The entire funeral mass thing looks rather murky from what I hear from you and if no-one of his family or friends attended should you not consider the possibility that the church itself tried to do a bit of PR by claiming to have buried the world's most illustrious composer?

5) As I understand it, the grey messenger stuff is nonsense, which frankly doesn't surprise me all that much. But I also thought that Walsegg had a habit of commisioning works and then passing them off as his own? Doesn't that leave the possibility of a commision open even if there were no 'Amadeus'-like people in weird clothes involved? Just because there is no document now, doesn't mean it was never there, right? Besides: why write a piece that you had no hope of selling in the near future? Why go through all that trouble to forge a work if no-one was interested? 

6) Isn't it so that the signature was forged precisely to deliver the piece to Wallseg, who even had some of it performed?

Lastly: 

7) Will there be any major publication of an article or even book on this subject in the near future in which our argumentation, or that of your fellow researchers, is fully elaborated?

8) I read a paper Taboga (did I spell that right?) in which he also called Beethoven's career a myth to some extent. Isn't that a little harsh if only a few of his works, not opus nr's at that, are suspect and things are not clear at all yet on the issue? Do you think he was right in being so harsh toward what appears to be according to you, the only truely great classical period composer of Vienna? Not to start anationalism debate, but this seemed a bit of a long shot in order to glorify Luchesi over the German/Austrian composers to me.


----------



## silmarilion

Oh I forgot to add,

Thank you for your time,

regards,

Silmarilion.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Silmarilion, 

Firstly, thank you for your own time. It's good you and others are prepared to read things from both points of view about Mozart before forming a considered judgement on hs true career. The aim here is to establish truth and reality and to see where facts really take us. But fairness and open discussion is what dogmatic Mozart 'experts' have been refusing to encourage ever since these issues were first discussed. 


You raise a whole number of interesting points. But first, I'd like to add a few others that were not contained in my last post. 

In many Mozart textbooks and articles it's common for writers to describe a whole string of composers as having been 'pupils' of Mozart. In actual fact FX Sussmayr was never a pupil of Mozart despite having a very close relationship to Mozart in the last 3 years or so of his life. Nor (just for the record) were other composers such as Anton Eberl or even the young Ludwig van Beethoven. Yet the myth of 'Mozart the teacher' is believed and widely taught. It's plain wrong. Those who disagree will perhaps grudgingly admit it in the case of Sussmayr and Eberl. And then they will no doubt say - 

'Well, yes, perhaps that's right - BUT - what about Attwood - the famous English pupil of Mozart who studied with Mozart in Vienna for over a year and whose lesson books still survive with Mozart's own hand written corrections' ? 

In reply, there are serious irregularities about those (supposed Attwood exercise books) on one leaf of which are written bars of music that were not even supposedly composed by Mozart for several years after Attwood returned to England. 

The idea of Mozart being a 'composition teacher' may seems to be a well known fact. In truth it is grossly exaggerated and is highly problematic. 

You ask whose handrwiting is found in the manuscript of KV626, 'Mozart's Requiem'. It's a great question. Well, firstly (and please check this yourself if you please) it has long been realised that the musical handwriting of FX Sussmayr is remarkably similar to that of Mozart himself. Secondly, it is common knowledge that the musical handwriting of Count Walsegg himself (the supposed commissioner of the Requiem) is also remarkably like that of Mozart. So much so that many have been surprised by it. So these are two examples - both of them relevant to this discussion. And there is a third - there are works by 'Mozart' which were published by the Vienna publisher Artartia whose content is agreed to have been faked by an unknown writer whose musical handwriting was virtually identical to that of Mozart. (The case of KV452 is one such case). 

I would strongly recommend that you visit sites such as Mozart Forum where you can see the details of who is generally agreed to have worked on KV626. It's widely agreed that at least 3 composers were involved. In fact, KV626 shows evidence of once having been torn in to 4 parts. Add to this is evidence of Abbe Maximilian Stadler having worked on various sections after the time of Mozart's death. The whole subject is riddled with fakery and falsehood. 

Count Walsegg (the supposed commissioner of the Requiem) was actually a close friend and hunting partner of the Austrian Emperor. He was an establishment figure and he accepted the fake role of being it's 'commissioner'. In fact, as said, the whole affair was stage managed to give posterity the impression that Mozart died as a genius of the Holy Roman Empire. And what better way to achieve this than to invent the myth of him dictating the work from his death bed ? Great propaganda for the Holy Roman Empire, of course - though the stories are sheer nonsense. So too the stories of the work being rehearsed a day or so before Mozart's death. These are many other stories circulated widely in newspapers and anecdotes in newspapers and publications of the 'Holy Roman Empire' because it fitted in to the fake picture that had been built up of Mozart. The Requiem project was, in fact, simply the icing on the cake of a wholly artificial career. One that had, in fact, been created almost completely by crediting him. Mozart, with works he never composed. It's for this reason that work after work is continually being shown NOT to be by him. Wholesale misattribution on a scale unrivalled in the entire history of western music. But concealed and even exaggerated by vested interests (such as those of the Catholic Church, the Austrian Hungarian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the widow Constanze Mozart, members of the 'establishment', various music publishers, and, later, those who wanted to invent the Mozart industry that we know today. 

You refer to the high quality music of the Requiem. Well, may I suggest that you get hold of the articles in the music journal 'Caelicia' (the leading music journal of the early 19th century) whose chief editor was Gottfried Weber, a musicologist. Weber analysed the piece before describing it as far less high quality than is often supposed. 

I don't say that it isn't good music. I say simply that it's not by Mozart. It's the creation of several composers over several years. Yes, i agree that it's fine music in many parts. 

Conventional arguments tell us that at the time of Mozart's death whole sections had been written by Mozart and that his hand can be seen clearly in these movements. I disagree for the reasons stated above. In fact, with so much fakery and deception we must ask ourselves whether anything in this affair is really as we are told by tradition. 

You ask if anything by Mozart's real Requiem has survived and why it's never mentioned. 

Strangely, the evidence for a REAL Requiem is far more strong than the argument that he wrote KV626. It consists of reports of a requiem being performed on 10th December 1791 of Mozart's own composition (refered to in that newspaper article by Staudlinger). In fact, several newspaper articles from that same time speak of Mozart's Requiem shortly to be performed in Salzburg. How can this be possible if, in fact, the Requiem KV626 was not finished ? How can THAT requiem be KV626 ? Bear in mind too that the records from Vienna say nothing of any orchestra being involved. 

Then, we have another source of evidence. The so-called Herzog Report. 

The 'Herzog Report' is a document written by Anton Herzog, a musician employed by Count Walsegg (supposed commissioner of the piece). He specifically says that a version of Mozart's requiem once existed in the form of a quintet. Now lost. He says too that this quintet version was claimed by Walsegg to have been made by himself, Walsegg, In actual fact, that 'quintet version' could not have been made by Walsegg since he lacked the ability to do such a thing. He nevertheless claims to have been the composer of that piece. But, in truth, Walsegg was simply a stooge for the deception as were many others. It is far more likely that the quintet version spoken of by Herzog was, in fact, the now lost Mozart requiem , the one performed that 10th December 1791 and now lost. 

This may well explain why the content of the Herzog Report was suppressed for almost a century and why, in fact, its contents were CENSORED by the Vienna Censors. Why else should Herzog's report have been the product of censorship at that time. 

The Viennese establishment wanted this controversy to end. So any discussion of the real origins of KV626 was suppressed or censored. 

I don't think that Taboga describes part of Beethoven's career as a myth. In fact, he is critical of the blatant suppression of Luchesi being the main teacher of the young Beethoven. Important works are attributed to the young Beethoven which, in actual fact (and beyond reasonable doubt) were really compositions of the Bonn Kappellmeister, Andrea Luchesi. Works such as the state funeral cantata, Woo87 and the state cantata for the accession of the new emperor WooO88. In such cases Taboga is almost certainly right. But Luchesi, of course, gets virtually no reference at all. He and his true career call in to question a great deal of the Hadyn/Mozart story. So he and his true achievements have long been airbrushed out of textbooks. 

Finally, I want to make it clear that NOBODY is saying Luchesi was the composer of all of Mozart's music. This has never been said. In fact, the number of composers who sold music to make the reputation of W.A. Mozart is very long - many of them ignorant of the facts and others very unhappy about it. Still others went along with the deception because it paid them to do so. Composers such as Michael Haydn, F. Myslivececk, JM Kraus, von Paradis, J Knecht, Sammartini and of course Andrea Luchesi - these and variious others all have a place in the supposed 'works of Mozart'. To say nothing of Mozart's father and sister. Luchesi definitely had a major part in Mozart's success. So did Myslivececk. I think that in the near future the scale of their supply will be common knowledge and these things will not be nearly so controversial or difficult to accept. 

Anyway, sorry I can't add more at this time. 

Regards


----------



## silmarilion

Dear mr. Newman,

Thank you for the elaborate awnsers, they are very interesting.

No huge question sheet this time, just a few remarks:

1) This link gives an article by Taboga, and he referes to the 'beethven myth' too, lumping him in with Mozart and Haydn. I still think that's very, very harsh even if his teaching isn;t acknowledged as much as it perhaps should. He also only talks about Luchesi, no other masters ( I think) who contributed to the 'myths'. Of course the paper is about Luchesi, but he seems at least, a little too eager to pronounce the Vienna Music School a solely Italian one. yet you mention many German/Austrian composers who contributed. So he does come across as a little nationalistic.

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep4/ep4tabog.htm

2) This entire charade, if true, begs the question: if Mozart and Haydn really couldn;t tell their musical papers from their wine bottles to use a little overstatement, if that is so, why then were they chosen to be those icons in the first place. Surely the risk of getting caught 'redhanded'is huge and if Joseph Haydn had a much better brother, Michael, why not promote him to be the Empire's hero? Why use Mozart at all? Pick a more talented composer, let Mozart do his concerto's, or whatever else, and supply the better composer with music from the outside if needed. perhaps in Mozart's case I can see the effect of all the 'child genius' hype, but not so in Haydn's case. Anyway, just some random thoughts.

3) If Mozart was so loved and to be promoted by the Emperor, why did he not get a high tenure position in the emperor's service for instance. Why not some grander funeral? or am I talking nonsense now? it's late, so I might be

Anyway,

Thanks for the awnsers, and good luck

Silmarilion


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

silmarilion said:


> 3) If Mozart was so loved and to be promoted by the Emperor, why did he not get a high tenure position in the emperor's service for instance.


I think it might be naive to think that the Emperor would have been directly and actively involved in this, like some grand puppet master who had nothing better to do than juggle around his _servants_ as they vie for influence and fame.

Or, if he _was_ this puppet master, giving Mozart a big position might have put him a little too uncomfortably in the spotlight.


----------



## Handel

Actually, Joseph didn't tasted both Haydn and Mozart's music (except maybe for Mozart's operas). He prefered the old viennese tradition (Reutter, Gassmann) and the italian taste (He commissioned many symphonies to Paisiello and Salieri was the Director of Court's theatres)..

According to Dittersdorf memoirs, Joseph II didn't appreciated Haydn's humour in his music. 

FWIW: (Dittersdorf put a transcript of a discussion he had in 1784 with Joseph II)

Emperor: Mais que pensez-vous de ses morceaux pour orchestre de chambre? (What do you think of his (Haydn) works for chamber orchestra?)

Dittersdorf: Qu'ils font à juste titre sensation partout dans le monde (They are rightly creating sensation throughout the world).

Emperor: Ne lui arrive-t-il pas de trop s'amuser? (isn't he having too much fun?)

Dittersdorf: Il a le don de s'amuser sans avilir son art (He is able to have fun without perverting his art.)

Interesting little nugget, FWIW.


----------



## robert newman

Hi there Handel, 

You've made some interesting remarks. 

But, of course, if Mozart was REALLY a genius composer and virtuoso etc. how can we explain (especially in the light of the conversation you have just quoted) that Mozart was unable to find a permanent professional musical position for his entire life ? How is it possible for Mozart to be one minute celebrated around the entire musical world and yet not obtain the post of Kapellmeister ? 

This surely makes no sense if, in fact, Mozart was really the person we read about today. 

But let me also point out that Dittersdorf (who you quote above) was one of the main publicity agents of Mozart and his fake career. Why ? How can we be sure of this ? Well, it was Dittersdorf who (the same as Mozart) was awarded the Order of the Golden Spur in Rome from the Pope. That award ensured that Mozart and Dittersdorf always praised each others as a members of the same Catholic order of nobility. And the same Order of the Golden Spur had also been awarded to Georg Vogler - the man who, in fact, was the agent for creating Mozart's adult reputation. 

We are really dealing here with a reputation being built for Mozart by powerful sponsors that included Dittersdorf and members of the aristocracy. Supoorted by the Jesuit Order. 

We have, of course, the famous posthumous picture of Mozart in his red jacket. But this jacket was part of the official uniform of members of the Order of the Golden Spur. We know he wore it at rehearsals to 'Le Nozze di Figaro' in May of 1786 in Vienna because it is refered to in the 2 volume 'Reminiscences' of Michael Kelly, a tenor singer who was in the first production of that opera. It is very clear that by 1786 the creation of Vienna as the 'city of music' included Mozart's artificial career. This organised by Georg Vogler and a network of Jesuit educated composers. 

The list of anomalies and contradictions on each and every mature work of 'Mozart' is so long and so predictable that, I do believe, it will become clearer and clearer.


----------



## Manuel

> We are really dealing here with a reputation being built for Mozart by powerful sponsors that included Dittersdorf and members of the aristocracy. *Supoorted by the Jesuit Order*.


*Oh no ! ! !* Now the _holy church _is involved in this nonsensical theories too. 

You are always impressing me *Mr.* Newman.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Manuel, 

I must admit your comments have surprised me. Perhaps you can tell us in your next post what is 'nonsensical' about what I've written ?

But before you reply I wonder if you can at least admit that you've strayed in to nonsense yourself in confusing the so-called 'holy church' with the Jesuit Order ? What is more absurd than to confuse these two different things ? There was, according to the papacy itself, nothing 'holy' about the Jesuits and so much that was found to be 
unholy. So says the facts of history. In fact, the Jesuits were so corrupt and such a shame to your 'holy church' that the pope himself banned and extinguished their order. 

Let me also remind you of some basic facts - 

1. The Jesuit Order (a military order) was found by the Pope in Rome to be so corrupt in its actions worldwide that it was the 'holy church' itself (the one you are surely refering to in your post) who, through the Pope banned 'eternally and forever' the Jesuit Order. True or False ? 

2. This ban happened in 1773 and is contained in a papal document of that same year. True or False ? 

3. Well, if I must remind you of such simple and indisputable facts and if you are still unable to tell the difference between the Jesuit Order of that time (an order officially banned by the papacy as just said) and the Roman Catholic Church itself then, the nonsense, the real nonsense, is surely contained within remarks you made in your last post. 

That the Jesuit Order and Jesuit educated composers were of huge importance in the history of music within the Holy Roman Empire (and within the Austrian/Hungarian Empire whose capital was Vienna) is a fact so well known and so indisputable that even you can hardly be ignorant of it. Would you like a list of such composers ? 

Pardon me for pointing out such simple things. But I am very keen that you avoid making such silly and elementary mistakes. They are, I think, close to nonsensical. 

Regards


----------



## Manuel

> Pardon me for pointing out such simple things. But I am very keen that you avoid making such silly and elementary mistakes. They are, I think, close to nonsensical.


Your _pedantic manners _are obviously an impediment for you to catch a joke.

Anyway, after reading many posts of you I tend to consider most of them as _crap_. Those extensive and ridicule posts you publish usually bore me to death, so I just skip them. (the same with what you just wrote).


----------



## Mark Harwood

Manuel, let's keep it friendly. We can't ridicule what we have not read. If we have issues with what we have read, this is a great place for reasoned argument. If you've found big weaknesses in Mr. Newman's thesis, you're a whole lot smarter than me and I'd appreciate any counter-arguments you can offer. Thanks.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Manuel,

I didn't see humour in your 'joke'. I still don't. I mean, did you_ really _expect me to see as a joke when you describe my posts as -

'nonsensical theories'

?

But no damage is done. I think I responded to you describing my posts in this way by showing that historical facts seem irrelevant to you.

As for you not reading my posts, or being offended by them, I can only hope you educate yourself enough to realise that no church is 'holy' and that Jesuits were not holy also - not even by the (supposed) 'holy church'. But you are of course free to believe as you please. I for one will never ignore your posts.

Yes Mark, I agree we should be friendly. I replied to what I thought and still think was an unfriendly post from a person who admits he never reads what I write and who, you see, refuses to read them now. Is it any wonder that with such an attitude he cannot tell the difference between the Jesuit Order and the Church of Rome ?

Manuel, no personal hard feelings. I remain friendly and accountable to you, even with your attitude of denial towards the plain facts of history.

The Jesuits were annulled/banned/disbanded in 1773 'eternally and forever' by the 'holy church'. Less than 50 years later the same 'holy church' restored them ! (In fact, 41 years later, to be exact).

The relevance of this is to show how powerful they were before 1773 and to indicate how powerful they remained after 1773 (even as an underground organisation) in seeking to keep their power and influence in musical matters. This was achieved partly by them creating the official careers of Haydn and Mozart in Vienna, since every historical source on the Jesuits says they continued to have huge influence, even in the Austrian/Hungarian empire, all the time that Mozart was the hero of Vienna. Officially banned they survived through a network of composers. Such a thing sounds extraordinary.I agree. But it's consistent with the evidence.

Best wishes


----------



## Manuel

Mark Harwood said:


> Well I hope it never gets locked. Mr. Newman is running his ship of ideas past us and *looking for leaks*.


Definitely. He's looking for *our *leaks.

I find some reasons for the lack of deffendants of Mozart here:
*I. *Knowledgeable people on the subject (to the point of highly academic historians) may not wander through amateur musical forums.
*II. *Knowledgeable people on the subject are not willing to waste their valuable time discussing with loonies. Neither want they to read about this fraguated historic facts including Mozart, Haydn, jesuits, masonic order, etc... (I suppose if a smart guy wants to have this type of entertainment... he'd watch The DaVinci Code)

I understand Newman has already been banned from at least four forums: Open Mozart, The MozartForum, The Beethoven Forum and CMG. I suppose those forums are run by undercovered masons? MUAHAHAHAH.

Appearing in this type of amateur forums allows him to impress some readers, to the point that some fellow posters do believe there's something true in his deranging.


----------



## robert newman

Manuel, 

Thank you for agreeing that I am 'looking for leaks'. I 100% agree. Anyone who has a point of view that differs from the mainstream on such a subject as Mozart can and MUST be willing to test it openly for leaks, yes ? I am certainly doing so in your case too. And we can all see you have nothing to contribute here except to start an error filled personal attack. Isn't it time that you actually LEARNED something ?

'Loonies' (to use your term) are those who refuse to accept historical facts. They are those who hide indoors in broad daylight and who deny that the sun is shining. They are those who, in public forums, show their ignorance on issue after issue despite claiming that they are right. 

Manuel, you 'understand' that I have been banned from at least 4 forums ??? Once again, your knowledge proves to be science-fiction. The forum Open-Mozart (whose owner I had a very positive correspondence with) did NOT ban me from the site. Where, Manuel, did you get such mud-slinging falsehoods from ? 

The Mozart Forum bans ANY discussion whatsoever on the life and career of Andrea Luchesi (despite the fact that Luchesi features repeatedly in Mozart's career as can easily be shown from documentary evidence). I was banned from Mozart forum for publishing an article that quoted the exact words of Constanze Mozart - this proving that Mozart's career was largely falsified. I also quoted the direct words of Mozart's father. For these crimes on a Mozart website I was accused of 'robbing the crown jewels' of Mozart's reputation. I was also banned from Mozart forum for pointing out that manuscript after manuscript was falsified and credited to Mozart during his lifetime which he had never composed. Example after example, Documentary evidence that, of course, the 'Mozart establishment' have no answer for and which they would prefer that you do not learn about. And so, yes, I was banned. 

I did appeal. But you will be ignorant of that too. The people at Mozart Forum decided NOT to reply to my appeal (which consisted of documentary evidence from many sources). 

The Beethoven Forum (to which I have contributed many articles) did not ban me. They allowed a very long series of posts of Mozart to be posted and finally (when people like you, Manuel) stopped allowing such posts because, like you, critics, find only personal slurs rather than evidence. 

CMG did NOT ban me for anything that I wrote. 

So, once again Manuel, your mud-slinging achieves nothing. 

If I am deranged on the issue of Mozart and his faked reputation - a subject I and others have been studying and sharing about for more than 15 years, then, Manuel, I prefer to be deranged with my mass of documentary and historical evidence than you, who is clearly deranged by nothing more than a desire to attack posters personally. 

You are of course nothing more than a producer of fog. But the fog you produce is not so dense that readers will forget your willful ignorance. Yours is an ignorance of the very worst kind - designed to keep yourself and nobody else ignorant. 


Let us continue to focus on the issue Manuel - the question of whether the official career of WA Mozart was massively exaggerated and faked.


----------



## Manuel

robert newman said:


> 'Loonies' (to use your term) are those who refuse to accept historical facts.


Prove them. Show documents of any type here. Don't ask me to request a particular one. Impress me and come up with something real (taken from the real world, of course) that proves you true.



robert newman said:


> CMG did NOT ban me for anything that I wrote.


That's not exactly what their administrators communicate:



CMG said:


> _Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:40 am_* Post subject: Banning of Robert Newman *
> In the interest of comity, the Site Administrators, supported by the input from our members, have reluctantly decided to ban Robert Newman. He arrived here recently, not long after being banned from another classical music site for failure to heed repeated warnings to cease and desist obsessive posting on matters related to Mozart. Many people were considering leaving that forum if he continued to post. We didn't want to see that happen to CMG. We as administrators have an obligation to our members to maintain a certain character of the site and we took our members' strongly felt views into consideration deciding what to do.
> 
> Although Mr. Newman has presented no credentials that would entitle him to "expert" status, he took it upon himself to attack another highly respected member here, who actually does have credentials as a Mozart authority. Because this site is visited by many, we are unwilling to allow Mr. Newman's attacks on this credentialed expert to continue and to survive in cyberspace where they could be found and possibly relied upon by the unwary as sure-found "gospel." Therefore, we have decided to ban Mr. Newman from CMG in order to prevent future such attacks while he simultaneously tries to establish himself as an "authority" at the expense of our web site.
> 
> While we at CMG have a fundamental commitment to freedom of speech, we take this action for the good of the forum as a whole and with regret. We trust CMGers understand our position.
> 
> Lance G. Hill
> Corlyss Drinkard
> Site Administrators


Full Thread here

It seems that you were banned from that forum after your repeated attacks to a proved Mozart scholar.



CMG said:


> I may move the threads Newman was involved in back out from their current sequester if I can caveat them and clean them up so that the ridiculous assertions are identified as "unproven" or "disputed" and the attacks on our resident Mozart scholar are eliminated. I surmise that what Newman was doing by mentioning her name so often was bootstrapping his nonsense to her name so that if someone did an internet search on her name, his theories would also be surfaced in the dragnet.


Full Thread here

Let me see. You were attacking the Mozart _stablishment_ and they kicked you out because they couldn't face *the *(your) truth?



> If I am deranged on the issue of Mozart and his faked reputation - a subject I and others have been studying and sharing about for more than 15 years, then, Manuel, I prefer to be deranged with my mass of documentary and historical evidence than you, who is clearly deranged by nothing more than a desire to attack posters personally.


Don't play the McCarthy game and share something with us.



> Let us continue to focus on the issue Manuel - the question of whether the official career of WA Mozart was massively exaggerated and faked.


Scan a real document, and share it. Bring your credentials here. Reading from you that some obscure 18th century guy composed something attributed to Mozart is not enough for me to turn to your side.
Jesuit conspiracy? Prove it.
Something about Dittersdorf? Prove it. Bring the evidence.
The Holy Roman Empire involved? Prove it.

Unless you come up with real information, no Talk Classical member willing not to live a fantasy is going to take you seriously.


----------



## Manuel

CMG said:


> *Therefore, we have decided to ban Mr. Newman from CMG in order to prevent future such attacks while he simultaneously tries to establish himself as an "authority" at the expense of our web site. *


Interesting point. So that's what you are trying to do here...


----------



## robert newman

Dear Manuel,

Nothing pleases me more than to prove (or try to) what is true and what is false on this issue. Let me assume you, Manuel, as a critic, have exactly the same attitude. I mean, you who believe the _'traditional_' view of Mozart (the one you read in countless regurgitated versions of the Mozart myth) are just as liable, just as responsible to prove your case as those who disagree with it. Is that not true ? But the plain fact is that, to date, with literally dozens of posts on this great forum alone (and hundreds elsewhere) which side of this debate IS happily presenting evidence here on aspect after aspect of Mozart's supposed compositional achievements, and which is NOT ? The answer is clear and you surely must find it embarrasing. In your recent letter you say the reason that your side isn't being argued here is that it's an 'amateur' website, or that 'experts' don't want to engage on the issue. But can't you see that this itself is no excuse. Here we are, years later, and the 'experts' and even men such as you, have nothing to say. Nothing but personalised (and often wrong) attacks.

'Your side' have nothing to say. Neutral readers of this thread alone have often said this right here on this forum. Would you like me to quote them ? You, who are happy to believe _'ad nauseum' _a version of Mozart that is kittle more than baseless tradition are shocked when somebody actually asks you to use the same standards you demand of others ! Two centuries of your unchallenged Mozartean fables is not enough for you. You now scream that the onus of proof is solely on me and others like me to prove their case ! Really, Manuel, can't you see that the onus is actually on you AND I to prove our case by exactly the same standards. But this you (and your supporters both public and private) are totally unable to do. Why don't you bring forth your Goliath ? Why not engage on the many posts that deal with specific issues and see if your 'experts' can persuade neutral readers ???

I (and others) challenge 'orthodoxy' on Mozart. And for a thousand reasons. This great forum has afforded that chance. And now, you wish to reduce this to a personalised attack. Neutral readers see this plainly.

But let me now deal with your request for documents. I am willing to provide detailed evidence/argument on any single Mozart ssue that I've ever posted on here. There ! Is that good enough Manuel ? I wait for your request. But choose carefully because I am entitled to ask you for the very same. Isn't that fair ?

Now, regarding the quotes you have given me from various websites -

OMG

The long excerpt you posted here from Lance G. Hill and Corlyss Drinkard (Site Administrators) of OMG gives no specific reason. It begins by saying (and I quote) -

1. _'reluctantly deciding to ban Robert Newman'_

Yes ?

And what was the pretext of me being banned from OMG ? Was it something that I wrote to the site ? Was it something related to the life and work of Mozart ? No Manuel ! It was the quite ridiculous charge that I was 'attacking an expert on Mozart'. Let me quote the passage here -

2. _'he took it upon himself to attack another highly respected member here, who actually does have credentials as a Mozart authority'. _

Now Manuel, in the interests of truth and fairness, please visit OMG and see who first attacked who ? Will you please do this ? Please present this evidence of my (supposed) attack here on this forum ? I look forward to seeing this evidence.

No such attack occurred. You can read for yourself that what really happened was that a person who was a long time member of OMG (a supposed 'Mozart' expert) was offended that his beliefs on the matter of Mozart's Requiem was being publicly challenged. Asked to agree with certain facts and with his academic feathers ruffled he point blank refused to address the actual issues of the case, made a big noise, and since I was a new member got the Administrators to 'reluctantl' ban me !!! But on not a single issue did I do anything that merited a ban. My appeal to OMG remains to this day unanswered.

Manuel, dogmatists are those who don't like criticism. They shun daylight. They close ranks and invent spurious 'proofs' of their own expertise. I very much regret that OMG lost their nerve. But such things happen when personalities rather than the actual issues take over.

As far as discussions on the Jesuits, the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the faking by the Mozart family and their supporters of MANY, MANY musical works is concerned, or of the part played by over a dozen composers in the making of Mozart's compositional reputation, none of these things are hidden from view today. They are all able to be discussed and were, of course, the true contexts within which Mozart lived and operated. If you do not wish to discuss such things, or if you want to read textbooks which ignore them in depth, fine.

I want to take this chance to thank the Administrators of this site for their tolerant and very respectful attitude so far and I can only repeat that I remain willing, on issue after issue, to show beyond reasonable doubt that the supposed compositional career of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was/is the product of fakery, exaggeration and downright falsehood, this magnified and grotesquely embellished over and over again after his death, and explaining (since explanation is vital) the unprecedented number of false attributions and modern contradictions that are such a unique feature of this man's study.

We are dealing here with a cultural icon. But the base on which it has been constructed is rotten. That explains why, from time to time, great slabs of masonry fall down on our heads. The same cannot be said of any other composer in the entire history of music.

Stating such a thing is nothing more than stating the first of many indisputable facts. Stating that such things have a root cause is to state the second indisputable fact. And stating that such a cause can be shown from evidence of many kinds, though under dispute, is not only necessary, but essential - whether it leads to being bannned from OMG or anywhere else.

Regards


----------



## Handel

And you challenge Haydn as well.


----------



## Manuel

robert newman said:


> I mean, you who believe the _'traditional_' view of Mozart (the one you read in *countless regurgitated versions of the Mozart myth*) are just as liable, just as responsible to prove your case as those who disagree with it.


That's indeed a respectful attitude.



> But let me now deal with your request for documents. I am willing to provide detailed evidence/argument on any single Mozart ssue that I've ever posted on here. There ! Is that good enough Manuel ? I wait for your request. But choose carefully because I am entitled to ask you for the very same. Isn't that fair ?


Avoiding me again. Didn't you read what I post previously? Refer to it again, please.



> Manuel, dogmatists are those who don't like criticism. They shun daylight. They close ranks and *invent spurious 'proofs' of their own expertise*.


How do we know that's not what you are doing? Present credentials, prove me wrong.



> Now Manuel, in the interests of truth and fairness, please visit OMG and see who first attacked who ? Will you please do this ? Please present this evidence of my (supposed) attack here on this forum ? I look forward to seeing this evidence.


I suppose you didn't understand the whole thing I posted from CMG. That evidence was erased by the forum, for them to avoid having a nice site infected with insanery.



> Stating such a thing is nothing more than stating the first of many indisputable facts.


No. It's not. It's your twisted view on history. The result of tacky manipulation of information, presented in grandious ways and nice words. The information you have? The primary sources?


----------



## Mark Harwood

Manuel, I was disappointed to see your contribution to this thread descending into insult, so thank you for getting to grips with the argument instead. You have presented Mr. Newman with a genuine challenge, which is: show the evidence.
I don't see Mr. Newman's history on other sites as persuasive either way.
Mr. Newman, are you able to make available documentary evidence? You, as a researcher, are surely in a position to do so. You couldn't ask me, for example, to back up my views thus, as I wouldn't have a clue how to. I doubt that Manuel can personally gain access to historic items in a hurry. Do we get to see what's been discussed?
Please, let's keep this impersonal as far as possible. And if a Mozart authority is following this, let's see what she/he has to say.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Marc Harwood,

Thank you for your help here. Yes, I am very willing to quote sources that any fair minded person can check for themselves.

May I suggest (just for the sake of fairness and to avoid confusion) that we all agree to use for our discussion (when refering to any particular 'Mozart' work) the references given to it by the Koechel catalogue - i.e. that list of 'Mozart' works which has always been consulted as an authority in such matters. A copy of this list can be found on most Mozart forums online including 'Mozart Forum'. (Ludwig Koechel was the person who first published - many years after Mozart's death - the first edition. The 'Koechel' catalogue has been revised from time to time since then - each time its Editor forced to dump numbers of musical works from the previously published edition as it became obvious they were NOT works composed by Mozart. (This ongoing leakage is unprecedented in scale and cannot be compared to any other composer list except perhaps that of Joseph Haydn). All Mozart researchers use Koechel and it does at least provide a reference number for each and every work under dispute. Perhaps we can agree then to use it for these discussions ?

2. We might begin by examining the supposed works of Mozart's childhood and youth - i.e. dozens of works claimed traditionally as his from this period being, in actual fact, lacking ANY firm evidence of having been composed by W.A. Mozart. But if that would be too tedious we could just as easily begin with Mozart's Requiem, the very last work traditionally attributed to Mozart, KV626, this supposedly commissioned of him during 1791, his last year. I say and so do others (and can provide documentary evidence in support of it ) that this manuscript is not, in fact, a work by Mozart. For example (and it must come as a real embarrasment to traditionalists) the signature and the inscription on this document (although claimed to be _'by me, Mozart' _in Latin) is, in point of fact, a forgery.

Is this disputed ?

We might therefore, here on this forum, discuss first the case for and against 'Mozart's Requiem' being a work by Mozart. And let the readers judge the case. We can then move on to the next work. And so on.

We can consider 'Mozart's' symphonies also. Or many of 'his' operas. Once again, I and others are quite happy to present the case that these are NOT by Mozart despite them in many cases being claimed by Mozart himself. Let the Mozart 'expert' make his case for tradition and let the reader judge both arguments for himself/herself. That would surelt be a fair, open, and reasonable approach. Yes ?

So there are dozens of ways this issue can be tackled. None needs to be a personalised attack. And if such rules are respected I think it might be very informative to readers.

I therefore suggest that we begin with 'Mozart's Requiem', although we have touched on it already. But I leave the choice entirely up to you, as readers of this thread.

Yes, if a 'Mozart authority' is following this, let's see what he/she has to say (if anything) and whether they agree these ground rules are really fair.

Regards


----------



## Guest

I agree with the comment a few posts above that real experts on Mozart won’t waste their time on this Forum, which is mainly for amateurs.


----------



## Mark Harwood

Right. We're on page ten here. Let's see facsimile evidence for and against Mozart's authorship of:
1. one Piano Concerto;
2. one Symphony;
3. one String Quartet; and
4. the Requiem.
I'll suggest an example of 1, 2 or 3 if necessary.


----------



## Manuel

Robert Newman said:


> Thank you for your help here. Yes, _I am very willing to quote sources_ that any fair minded person can check for themselves.





Mark Harwood said:


> Right. We're on page ten here. Let's see facsimile evidence for and against Mozart's authorship of:
> 1. one Piano Concerto;
> 2. one Symphony;
> 3. one String Quartet; and
> 4. the Requiem.
> I'll suggest an example of 1, 2 or 3 if necessary.


I agree with Marc. Facsimile evidence is far more reliable than _quotes we can check_.


----------



## robert newman

Hi Mango,

You say _'real experts on Mozart won't waste their time on this Forum, which is mainly for amateurs'._

I think your attitude is extremely disappointing. Imagine what history would be like if this was applied generally. Nobody would ever criticise tradition, the mainstream view, etc etc on anything.

If 'experts' exist on Mozart issues they are worthy of our respect ONLY if their expertise is available to everyone.

And here's a case in point. If Mozart's massive iconic status is really so justified by evidence let's see 'experts' defend it. For one thing is absolutely certain - various websites have contained the same basic challenge. Where are your 'experts' ? Why can't they defend the basic version of events which we find in countless publications on the life and career of W.A. Mozart ? Pardon me for thinking that these 'experts' are leaving you naked and are nowhere to be found. Isn't this true ?

Or is it simply that mythology is nothing but mythology ?


----------



## robert newman

Manuel, 

Facsimiles do NOT settle these issues. We are not talking about facsimiles. Nobody disputes that Mozart wrote, in his own hand, many works which he claims to have composed. 

Let me repeat it - a network of composers (i.e. an upublicised group of composers) were the true creators of many works which Mozart privately received and rewrote in his own hand to give the false impression that he was their true composer. In other cases there are works for which there is not even a manuscript in Mozart's hand, yet the work is STILL attributed to Mozart. In still other cases we have manuscripts written in the handwriting of people other than Mozart, which is attributed to Mozart. The issue is simple - whether the established/traditional version of events is more supported by evidence or not. 

That is why my last post is the suggestion that both sides put foward their case from ALL the available evidence on specific works. I even let you choose what works you like. Can anything be more fair and reasonable than this ? And when you have specified specific 'Mozart' works let the general reader of this thread decide which side of this argument has presented the better case. Surely you agree these are generous and reasonable ground rules ? 

If you still agree then please choose specific 'Mozazrt' works and we can compare rival versions (from both sides of this debate) to see which is more worthy of general belief. 

You believe tradition and so-called 'expertise' will preserve the generally held belief that Mozart composed these works. I and others believe he did NOT compose these works. And I/we are willing to show from many lines of evidence why we hold this view on each piece you choose if, in return, your contrary opinion is presented here also. Only then can the neutral reader judge which case is more supported by the evidence.

So there it is. The same standards for both sides. Right here. On this thread. You can choose ANY work by 'Mozart'. 

Can't really make it more simple, can I ?


----------



## Manuel

Robert Newman said:


> You say 'real experts on Mozart won't waste their time on this Forum, which is mainly for amateurs'.
> 
> I think your attitude is extremely disappointing. Imagine what history would be like if this was applied generally. Nobody would ever criticise tradition, the mainstream view, etc etc on anything.
> 
> If 'experts' exist on Mozart issues they are worthy of our respect ONLY if their expertise is available to everyone.


It seems, Mango, Robert has already had some discussions with experts and amateurs. And they are available if you run a few Google searches. Let's check what other people has to say about Newman.



Agnes Selby said:


> Mr. Newman, I am amazed when reading your letter that for you to provide proof is unimportant. You will not solve or change history by an exchange of e-mails or postings. The secret of history is data preserved in a long distant past not in manufacturing unsubstantiated fables which are products of your own active mind.
> 
> In my opinion it is you, dear Sir, who needs
> a driving licence for you are driving in the wrong direction without a map to guide you.
> 
> Agnes Selby.





> Read Mr Newman very carefully you will not find any evidence of anything, just a loose net of unsubstantiated claims. He uses a prior supposition as "proof" of the next one.
> 
> Steve





> Dear Robert,
> 
> I have been reading your post and your efforts to destroy Mozart's reputation for
> quite a few years now. The same applies to Constanze Mozart.
> 
> I have for many years advised you to check original data before you let your imagination run wild. I cannot in this short space ennumerate the leaps of your imagination nor am I interested in doing so.
> 
> Suffice it to say, I would very much like to see just one example where you substantiate your findings.
> 
> Without such a trivial thing as substantiation, your writings are of no value.
> 
> I do not have to defend my writings because I never venture to put pen to paper, so to speak, without archival evidence pertaining to what I have to say. It is thus in writing history or a biography. Of course, you could call yourself a novelist and then you can say whatever you like. But when you write as a historian without a single reference, you must realize you are misleading your captive audience on the internet.





> I know of many missatributions. Problem is you do not speak of missatribution you speak of Mozart not having composed many pieces that he tells us in his thematic catalogue, he did compose. This is not missatribution to Mozart but would indicate fraud by Mozart. This is a claim you cannot backup.
> You can make empty accusations and slurs of me just as you do Mozart and Haydn, but accusations no matter how many, without a shred of evidence do not prove your case. BTW I have poked around MozartForum quite a bit. I helped start it. Look carefully at my initials SR,and compare them to the founders names at MozartForum.
> 
> I've yet to see you prove a thing. I'd be happy to acknowledge your great discovery if you ever make one. I suppose you took a look around at what you might do to achieve some small moment of internet fame and decided that one more voice saying Mozart was a great composer would hardly seperate you. You choose the opposite tact. You indeed are seperating yourself.
> 
> Steve


Check here for more about this.



> Please supply evidence that Mozart did not compose his works. Please supply evidence that Luchesi was the author of Mozart's works, that Mozart copied Luchesi's works and presented them as his own.
> 
> You are suggesting the greatest fraud in musical history. You have been writing about this theft by Mozart for many years now. I am asking you to finally produce evidence before your carry on any further with your crusade.
> 
> Agnes Selby.


But it looks Newman will never do such a thing. Instead he rejoyces in challenging us. And threatening us too, of course.



Robert Newman said:


> I wait for your request. *But choose carefully because I am entitled to ask you for the very same. Isn't that fair ?*


It seems our request for proofs is quite an unoriginal thing. As we can read here people have been requesting information to backup this theories for a while. It also seems it has never been provided.

Mango, Mark, and other TC members, I suggest we move on to some Tchaikovsky* thread, in which we can really discuss, have enjoyment and not just unsupported tales. Besides, we also know Newman will come up with one of those extense posts reversing our requests and supporting himself. But with no real evidence exposed.

*_Tchaikovsky _is generic. If you can not stand the russians, we may talk about the european guys.


----------



## robert newman

I think any fair minded reader can see that defenders of Mozart's reputation as a composer have an easy job. All they have to do is nominate (besides the Requiem, KV626) ANY Piano Concerto, Symphony, or String Quartet OF THEIR OWN CHOICE for fair and open discussion.

Manuel has even written that he will -

_'suggest an example of all of these if necessary' _

OK Manuel, please suggest for this discussion a specific 'Mozart' Piano Cconcerto, Symphony and String Quartet. Then readers can judge arguments on this thread for and against Mozart having composed them.

Now, everyone can see we will use the same methods on both sides of our debate. Fairly and openly.

But so far you haven't nominated any Mozart work for discussion except the Requiem (a work that I myself suggested).

Tell us here why your selections were definitely composed by Mozart. Present your evidence. And the other side will show why these works were NOT composed by Mozart. Is this not the fairest, most clear, challenge on this issue ?

We now wait for your reply.

You don't have to be an expert. If you want to defend Mozart you can easily find articles online that discuss specific works chosen by you of Mozart (including the Requiem). So, once again, you can choose any works you please from these categories (which you yourself selected). Can it be more easy ?

Post here yuur argument for Mozart having composed them and I will post an article that argues he did not compose them. Readers can judge which side has made the better argument. That's only fair, yes ? Let them judge whose side is presenting evidence and whose side is not.

But until this promised selection is done by you Manuel, we can't really get any progress on this issue.

Let's give ourselves a week to discuss each of these pieces here on this thread. Then we can move on to the next piece. And at the end of each week we can put the case before readers to vote on.

Isn't that fair ?

Regards


----------



## Manuel

robert newman said:


> I think any fair minded reader can see that defenders of Mozart's reputation as a composer have an easy job. All they have to do is nominate (besides the Requiem, KV626) ANY Piano Concerto, Symphony, or String Quartet OF THEIR OWN CHOICE for fair and open discussion.
> 
> Manuel has even written that he will -
> 
> _'suggest an example of all of these if necessary' _
> 
> OK Manuel, please suggest for this discussion a specific 'Mozart' Piano Cconcerto, Symphony and String Quartet. Then readers can judge arguments on this thread for and against Mozart having composed them.
> 
> Now, everyone can see we will use the same methods on both sides of our debate. Fairly and openly.
> 
> But so far you haven't nominated any Mozart work for discussion except the Requiem (a work that I myself suggested).
> 
> Tell us here why your selections were definitely composed by Mozart. Present your evidence. And the other side will show why these works were NOT composed by Mozart. Is this not the fairest, most clear, challenge on this issue ?
> 
> We now wait for your reply.
> 
> You don't have to be an expert. If you want to defend Mozart you can easily find articles online that discuss specific works chosen by you of Mozart (including the Requiem). So, once again, you can choose any works you please from these categories (which you yourself selected). Can it be more easy ?
> 
> Post here yuur argument for Mozart having composed them and I will post an article that argues he did not compose them. Readers can judge which side has made the better argument. That's only fair, yes ? Let them judge whose side is presenting evidence and whose side is not.
> 
> But until this promised selection is done by you Manuel, we can't really get any progress on this issue.
> 
> Let's give ourselves a week to discuss each of these pieces here on this thread. Then we can move on to the next piece. And at the end of each week we can put the case before readers to vote on.
> 
> Isn't that fair ?
> 
> Regards


You are repetitive. And I find repetitiveness boring.
And you are predictable too. I was sure you would publish something here that twisted my request. You didn't let me down.

I don't need to show Mozart's works are his own. That's the standard thought. If you are against it, work to prove that. You attempt to socialize the costs of such job you are supposedly doing reveals nothing but laziness from you. 
Many people here asked you to bring whatever evidence you want (and we are not the first to do this, as we can read from other forums). And you always reverse our request ranting you want us to choose the subject. We asked first, we don't have any tribulations about Mozart. Be sure I won't buy your weird elucubrations unless the next post you write provides useful information on this thread subject (not just _quotes anybody can check_).

I asked first. You choose the subject and come up with the info. I'm starting to get bored with this evation game you play, so other readers.


----------



## Guest

I'd like to ask Mark Harwood where he thinks he is going pursuing this kind of discussion. It seems very naive to think that we will learn any more from "facsimile" evidence (whatever that is; I'm not sure to be honest what you mean) than we have done before from other attempts. Mr Newman is very evasive, as people both here and elsewhere have found out over several years. Just when you think you might be getting somewhere he changes the subject or raises a smokescreen to disguise his lack of knowledge. As is clear from this thread alone, 99% of what Mr Newman says is pure assertion. I'm surprised that people here didn't know that Mr Newman has been banned from several music Forums. This is about the only place left that will have him. Confronted by real experts he falls apart.


----------



## Mark Harwood

Thanks for asking, Mango. What I'd like to see is copies of the documents under debate. 
Perhaps we could follow a different approach: experts debate what can be learned from certain documents with regard to chronology and geography, without initial reference to particular pieces.
Anyway, I have seen no evidence for or against authorship claims on behalf of anyone, be they Mozart, Luchesi, Barney Rubble or Vlad the Impaler, so my interest has fizzled out and I do not intend to follow this thread any longer. Good luck to those who do. 
Best wishes to all.


----------



## Guest

Mark Harwood 

I think you are wise to back out. Your suggestion that the matter might be resolved by setting out facsimile evidence seems most unlikely to get far. As you may have noticed, Mr Newman has already rubbished your suggestion. This is typical of his style. He merely makes bold assertions backed up by the minimum of hard evidence. His claims are utterly ludicrous. He has never published anything of any note and no-one has a clue about any musical qualifications he may have. If any of what he claims were actually true it would have been published well before now in far more important places than this Forum. His Italian sidekick (G Taboga) writes appalling English, and has only written in highly obscure journals, so there’s no point looking at any of that. 

As you may be aware, at one time Mr Newman was arguing that a very little known Kapellmeister, Andrea Luchesi, was the main author of all the works passed off as Mozart’s and Haydn’s. This man Luchesi was Beethoven’s boss whilst he was a student at the Bonn Chapel, but Beethoven never mentioned Luchesi after he (Beethoven) left Bonn. Most members of other Forums scoffed at this suggestion, if only because of the dissimilar styles of Mozart and Haydn. Now that Mr Newman realises what a load of nonsense this must sound, he has subtley shifted emphasis to assert more clearly that there were several other composers involved in the process of supplying Mozart. 

So many other things do not stack up either. If the allegations are correct what possible motive was there among the supplying composers to forfeit their own reputations for the sake of promoting Mozart’s? If the motive was financial, why sell their superlative works to Mozart when they could have earned far more by selling direct to a music-publishing house? Another obvious question is why did all the high quality Mozart output cease after Mozart’s death? Funny that isn’t it? Yet another is why, if Mozart was such a poor composer, the authorities who were allegedly sponsoring him didn’t find somebody with much higher composing skills. Indeed why sponsor a buffoon? Also, who was pulling the strings? Was it the Jesuits or Austrian Emperor? Who knows as the story shifts around and is most unclear. Lastly, if Mozart was such a bad a composer as alleged why was he the favoured composer to take the Kapellmeister post at Bonn in preference to Luchesi? 

Dozens of people on various Forums have been asking these and other questions for several years now and have been getting very unconvincing answers. When it was clear that he was getting nowhere he still persisted in boring the hell out of his audience, and in the end the Admins had no choice but to ban him as he was quite disruptive. Here he has been been on better behaviour, no doubt because he realises it's his last refuge.

I regret to say that Mr Newman has been taking the **** out of you all, to see how many gullible idiots he can persuade to accept his weird views. It’s quite amazing to me how this Forum has been so tolerant of this man’s nonsense. Can’t you see it’s like having a “flat-earther” among you. I’ve been watching this Forum for some time and you all mostly seem to be struggling to deal with him, with most of you offering at best half-baked apologetic nonsense while Mr Newman continues to spew out more and more rubbish and not answering your questions. This Forum does seem to attract a lot of kiddies and morons. Manuel seems the only one who has said the right things in condemnation of these stupid rantings from Mr Newman.


----------



## robert newman

Hi Manuel, 

1. Yes, I am repetitive. Let's use fair and open discussion of these issues. 

2 Yes, I am predictable. You are not. 

I won't twist your posts. In fact, Manuel, It was you yourself who offered this forum to chose specific Mozart works. You have hundreds of choices. Yes ? Have you forgotten what you wrote so quickly. It was none other than you who suggested that we can discuss a symphony, a piano concerto and a string quartet. Yes ? BUT READERS OF THIS THREAD MUST BE SURPRISED WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ANY SPECIFIC SYMPHONY, PIANO CONCERTO OR STRING QUARTET TO BE SELECTED, BY YOU !!!

You say you don't need to show that 'Mozart's' works are really his own !!! But isn't this the whole point of this debate ? You are saying that the evidence in favour of Mozart is so strong that it's absurd to challenge it. Aren't you ? 


You now say 'YOU CHOOSE THE SUBJECT'. But Manuel, YOU are the person who has refused to name a specific symphony, concerto, or string quartet. IT'S YOU WHO ARE REFUSING TO CHOOSE ANY !!! 


A fair, open debate. That's what I am asking for. And I think I've given you lots of chances to at least make your selections. 

Well, Manuel, if you don't want to live up to your offers let's forget this.


----------



## robert newman

Mango,

I have not 'rubbished' any suggestion made by Mark Harwood. 

He suggested that facsimiles of 'Mozart' works prove that Mozart was their true composer. I have replied that these do not prove any such thing. That's not rubbishing anything. I've suggested that many other lines of evidence are more vital. The existence of a work in the hand of Mozart does NOT prove that Mozart was its true composer. 

G. Taboga is Italian. As such, you really can't expect his English to be as good as his native language, can you ? And there is nothing 'obscure' about his publications - they are well known in Italy - a country whose musical achievements even you may have heard abiout. Let's stop rubbishing people. Taboga is a person who has studied more of, for example, the 'Mozart' works at Estense Library in Modena (as have Professors Luca Bianchini and Professor Anna Trombetta) than any 'Mozart expert' - and this over years. 
So please stop talking nonsense. Bianchini and Trombetta are both qualified musicologists. Taboga is a published author on Mozart. 

Please, stop rubbishing personalities. Will you please address yourself to having a fair, open debate on specific works by 'Mozart' ? Or will be keep going round in circles forever ?


You say I argued that 'Luchesi was the MAIN AUTHOR of ALL THE WORKS PASSED OFF AS MOZART' AND HAYDN'S' 

This is completely false. In fact, I have always said that composers such as Sammartini were responsible for Haydn's reputation, this even before Luchesi. So why do you tell such blatant untruths ? 

In the case of Mozart I have said repeatedly that many composers were involved, these including Mozart's father, his sister Nannerl, Michael Haydn, Niemetscheck, JM Kraus, Andrea Luchesi and various other composers. This has been stated so often that I've even tried to explain that his career was fabricated by such a network, this administered by the Abbe Georg Vogler. If you want me to repeat this I will be happy to do so. 

Yes, Beethoven never mentioned Luchesi after he left Bonn. Are you ignorant of the fact that many Conversation Books of Beethoven were destroyed ? Are you ignorant of the fact that Luchesi WAS the Kapellmeister of Bonn Chapel from 1771-1794 - and that he was, in point of fact, in charge of music for virtually 10 years there while Beethoven was a student ? Are you ignorant of the fact that one of the chief responsibilities of a Kepellmeister is to teach music pupils ? Are you ignorant of the fact that the first piece of music (now lost) said to have been composed by Beethoven was a cantata on the death of the English Ambassador to Bonn, Georg Cressner - which is said to have been 'corrected' by the very same Luchesi ? Or are you ignorant of the fact that Luchesi was the man who prevented Mozart from becoming Kapellmeister to Bonn in 1784 ? 

You describe 'Luchesi' as 'very little known as a Kapellmeister'. This is totally untrue. In actual fact (rather than fiction) Luchesi is refered to as a leading composer of symphonies all over Germany by the multi volumed work on contemporary composers published in Paris by J. de La Bordes - a work which NEVER so much as mentions EITHER HAYDN OR MOZART as composers of symphonies. Does this fact escape you also ? 

Has it escaped you that in the early 1780's Mozart was totally unknown as a composer of symphonies ? And yet you want him to be acknowledged as a composer by that time of dozens ? Really, how sleepy you must be to accept such things without questioning their reliability. 

You ask what motive was there for other composers to 'forfeit their reputations' for the sake of promoting Mozart. I think I've explained this over and over again. But here we go again - 

The careers of Haydn and Mozart were falsified to create the illusion that Vienna (and therefore the Empire) had two German geniuses great enough to be indigenous talents. When, in reality, fakery, deception, and downright deception feature in the careers of both composers at each and every stage. I have repeatedly said that these careers can be shown by documentary and other evidence to have been grossly exaggerated and virtually hidden by propagandists. Almost till this day. I have also pointed out that no other two composers have been so hugely exaggerated as these two - a fact which any student can clearly see if they read Koechel in its various editions. The discoveries at Modena and elsewhere are simply yet another development in debunking the Mozart and Haydn myths. 

So please don't insult people. We really deserve to have you defence of these musical icons. 

Well, so much for 'experts'. You see they refuse to show up. 

Yes, dozens of people on various forums have read specific posts on works by 'Mozart'. They have seen some evidence of the scale of such fakery. In the Requiem and in many other pieces. Read these posts and repeat that no evidence has been presented. The truth is that none of your experts dares to defend the 'status quo'. 

Let things rest here if you like. But please don't bother replying if you have no intention of having a fair, open, equal and respectful debate on the actual issues. 

You speak of 'gullible idiots' and of 'rantings'. 

Well, here's my last request. Can you agree to put your case for the works you choose ? If not, this thread will speak for itself as an opportunity repeatedly given and refused by those who have 'educated' you. 

What is more foolish than a man who, being blind, claims to see ? If you are sure of your position, defend it. Otherwise, withdraw. That seems to be the most sensible thing you should do - you and your mythical 'experts'.


----------



## Handel

robert newman said:


> The careers of Haydn and Mozart were falsified to create the illusion that Vienna (and therefore the Empire) had two German geniuses great enough to be indigenous talents.


I still have problem with that motive. Why Maria Theresa and Joseph II, who didn't specifically liked the musical style of Haydn and Mozart, would have supported those two composers? Why not supporting instead their court composer, Antonio Salieri? Because we was not german? And what about Gluck?


----------



## Don

robert newman said:


> Hello there ! I'm a new member of the Forum and would like to ask other Members if they are aware of the huge controversy now surrounding claims that many works by Haydn and Mozart were, in fact, written for them by a string of other composers - a central person involved in this affair being the Kapellmeister of Bonn (between 1771 and 1794), the little known Italian composer Andrea Luchesi.


Aren't you the one creating the "huge controversy"?


----------



## Guest

Mr Newman

Yet another of your typical long, ranting responses. And yet again you have completely failed to answer the key questions. Let me repeat them for you:

1. If your allegations are correct, what possible motive was there among the supplying composers to forfeit their own reputations for the sake of promoting those of Haydn and Mozart? If the motive was financial, why sell their works to Mozart when they could presumably have earned far more by selling direct to a music-publishing house?

2. Why, if Mozart and Haydn were such poor composers, did the authorities who were allegedly sponsoring them not find some other people with much higher composing skills?

3. Who exactly was pulling the strings? Was it the Jesuits or the Austrian Emperor? Can you produce any firm evidence to prove any link?

4. If Mozart was such a poor composer as you allege, why was he favoured (by the Elector) to take the vacant Kapellmeister post at Bonn in preference to Luchesi after the death of Beethoven Snr?

5. Why did all the high quality Mozart output cease after Mozart's death?

6. Joseph Haydn was employed in the noble Esterhazy family for many years. He was well known among all the staff including all the local musicians. If he was such an incompetent musician wouldn't this have been obvious, and would not word have got out? Surely he clearly didn't work in a vacuum, did he?​
You are clearly not winning this campaign. On the contrary, most respondents have either ignored you, laughed at you, criticised you, or banned you from their Forums. Only a tiny number of clear half-wits have shown any interest. Surely this is not the best way to promote your cause, however feeble it is. I suggest you are effectively ruining any (albeit very limited) chance you may have by going on like this. Let's see your results set out fully in a published research paper of some sort. I bet it will be completely annihiliated once proper experts get their hands on it, assuming they could be bothered with it.


----------



## robert newman

Hi there Handel,

You write -

_I still have problem with that motive. Why Maria Theresa and Joseph II, who didn't specifically liked the musical style of Haydn and Mozart, would have supported those two composers? Why not supporting instead their court composer, Antonio Salieri? Because we was not german? And what about Gluck?_

This is a really important question and although I've answered it elsewhere here's the best I can offer.

Prior to 1773 the Jesuit control of major centres of study/education was virtually complete. Their medium of instruction was, as you will know, Latin. 1773 changed all that. It brought to the fore (often for the first time) the idea that education could be and even should be a process that occurred in our native language. And this, in turn, (certainly by around 1780) was partly responsible for the rise of nationalism. Certainly, in German speaking lands this was a major issue since, up until 1773, the main Kapellmeisters right across modern Germany and Austria were mostly Italians, as you will know. Luchesi in the major chapel of Bonn (arrived 1771) and others such as Fischietta in Salzburg are just two of literally hundreds of examples. This Italian dominance of music within the Holy Roman Empire' was very real. And, of course, from around 1773 it became a bigger and bigger issue. Music owes Italy a huge amount and so it was a matter of national pride that German composers should be praised in Germany. It often meant (in practice) marginalising their true education at the hands of Italians. And this is exactly what happened in the case of Haydn and of Mozart.

By the mid 1780's the rivalry between Italians and German composers reached its peak. In 1786 (for example) we have an opera by Salieri being performed on the very same day and at the same palace (Schonnbrun) as one by Mozart. (Mozart's 'Impressario') - this months before the premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'.

So, really, by the early biographers of great German composers such as Beethoven it was almost certain that their true education at the hands of people such as Luchesi would largely be airbrushed out of biographies such as that of Thayer. This is one major reason why Luchesi and his real status comes as such as shock to many readers. Luchesi was effectively marginalised despite it being possible to show that he played a major role in the careers (real and supposed) of Haydn, Mozart, and even of the young Beethoven.

Beethoven, according to his own words, learned 'nothing' from Haydn, despite the myth continuing that the older man was his teacher in Vienna, for example.

That Germanic achievement should be reason for celebration in Vienna is, of course, understandable. But in the case of Haydn and Mozart (the two chief foundations of the so-caled 1st 'Viennese School' the exaggerations and falsifcations were truly massive. Vienna was portayed as the 'city of music' and this suited all parties. The rest, as they say, is history. And so it was that the Jesuits, behind the scenes, helped Vienna as they also helped the reputation of the Holy Roman Empire and of the Austrian/Hungarian Empire. (The Jesuit Order, amazingly, was restored in 1814, 23 years after the death of Mozart, by which time the mythologising of Mozart's first biographers was already well under way. Hundreds of works were said to be by the genius Mozart).

That is has taken 2 centuries for these things to be questioned is not, perhaps, surprising seeing (at a superficial level) that any criticism seems to be impossible.

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Hi Mango, 

I will make this very short. 

The answer to your first question has been given here several times. Please read the thread carefully. I've answered this just now to another poster. As far as selling to a publishing house is concerned, yes, Artaria was one major publisher who established offices in Vienna at the very time of Haydn AND Mozart's great successes there. Both composers used them and there were others. This comfortable relationship did even more to boost their reputations. 

Haydn and Mozart were poor composers but that didn't matter a great deal. They were musically literate and they personally received huge credit and applause. The system worked very well for their 'sons of the Holy Roman Empire'. There WERE problems. Especially with Mozart (who was far less disciplined in many ways than Haydn with this arrangement. For example, Mozart was finally ruined by a court case brought against him in the last years of his life, by the aristocracy). But yes, these two men were, in actual fact, competent but not specially talented composers. In the case of Mozart he was a good pianist. But, once again, not hugely so. In fact, detailed study of works that are indisputably his (such as the slow introduction to the symphony KV444 and the very poor work in his singspiel 'The Impressario') show him to be at best a rather poor composer. This seems 'impossible' and yet it's true. The real Mozart was not a great theoretician. Works that he composed (as opposed to copied) are of a quite poor content. Once again, this is just a fact - though it does not fit in easily to the popular myth. One could find many examples. Even from the 'mature' Mozart. There are copies of works attributed to Mozart that are riddled with musical/harmonic errors. This is something that is rarely discussed and yet this occurs in virtually every phase of his life and musical career. It begs and explanation. And the explanation is that he, Mozart, wrote far less than you suppose. And that what he actually composed is rarely if ever as great as you might suppose. The rest was supplied to him by others. In fact, it was 1784 (7 years before his death) that Mozart finally opens a thematic catalogue of his supposed works - these now being of a standard of composition generally far in advance of anything he had achieved before. Once again, such an observation is not a mere opinion but a plain fact that begs and expanation. You don't like the explanation. Fine. I respect that. 

You ask who exactly was 'pulling the strings'. The answer is, quite simply (as I think I've said several times) the Jesuits were keen to 'help' build the reputation of Vienna as the 'city of music' - a city where their own composers were always hugely dominant. So although the Emperor may have suspected what was happening nothing happened. The Emperor himself was led to believe that Mozart was a genius (even although he had been told many years before that it was all being faked). Mozart is offered no officially important post.. For the perfectly good reason that, in actual fact, he was NOT the 'Mozart' we see today in countless textbooks. 

Mozart was favoured by the Elector of Cologne (Max Franz) to become Kapellmeister in 1784 because Max Franz (a man of the same age as Mozart and a man who had known Mozart from his childhood) had often promised the post to Mozart. In fact, an early work written at Salzburg (and actually completed by Fischietta) was dedicated to Max Franz by Mozart, for example. Max Franz made numerous promises to Mozart who, fully 3 years after arriving in Vienna, had still not found a permanent job. He simply was NOT so talented as you suppose. But, of course, Luchesi was already 12 years in the job at Bonn and could not be fired. His job was for life. Since Luchesi was not ill or incompetent he could not be removed. A letter exists from Mozart on this subject - angry that Max Franz could not keep his promise despite it often being made over the years. This is part of the reason why Luchesi becomes a supplier of music to Mozart, even after 1784. Privately, of course. He had been so before. This simply continued. In fact, one of the first letters written by Mozart's widow after Mozart's death is to the chapel of Bonn (to the Italian tenor Simonetti) - showing clearly that a relationship existed with Bonn during all of Mozart's mature career - the true nature of the relationship as hidden from us today as it is in the case of Haydn. Luchesi was a major supplier of music to both men. 

You ask why all the high quality work ceased after Mozart's death. Good question. It didn't. In fact, after Mozart's death Luchesi begins to sell music using a pen-name once again (as he had done before 1784) - writing numerous stage works - though every one of them has mysteriously vanished although they are recorded by name. Besides, by 1794 the chapel at Bonn was closed. Luchesi retired soon afterwards except for his work for the stage in Bonn, this composed (as said) using the same pen-name as his brother in law. So it is not true that high quality music ended. It existed but has disappeared. So these works, like so much of Luchesi, has been obliterated. 

Joseph Haydn was employed by the noble Esterhazy family for years. True. But at Esterhazy there is no record of many 'Haydn' symphonies being known there. In fact, it wasn't till Haydn retired (in 1804) that works were officially attributed to him there as 'Haydn's'. Many of them were in fact by Sammartini and also by Luchesi. The same is true of 'Haydn's' church music. At Modena studies have shown major discrepancies in a whole number of works, including the famous 'Nelson Mass' and even the '7 Last Words'. Neither of these were Haydn works despite tradition saying the opposite. In actual fact, Haydn could hardly hold a pen in his hand years before his is said to have written the 'Creation'. There are numerous examples of his plagiarism and fakery. In fact, Haydn 'original autographs' are actually often written many, many years later than the works first performance. Papermark studies have proved this beyond all doubt. And in the case of Haydn he even forgets (often) to include music that he is copying right in front of his own nose. These sorts of facts are indisputable. And they are damning evidence. 


I don't know who is winning the case. I am glad that we have a chance to hear both sides of the story. I hope readers agree that this forum deserves great credit for allowing us this rare exchange. You see that one side is at least trying to sketch a reply on these issues and is not abusing or insulting anyone. 

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Hi Don, 

Yes, I agree that it's highly controversial to argue that the careers of both Haydn and Mozart ('Papa Haydn' and Wolfgang) were hugely manipulated, exaggerated and faked. 

But that's the tough thing that I and others now assert, and with good reason. Let the chips fall where they will. There are reasons why we argue as we do and they are all based on facts little known and rarely appreciated. The picture they present is not specially welcomed. 

Sure, people think it's crazy, absurd, impossible etc. Fine. People are free to believe as they please. 

Regards


----------



## Manuel

Robert Newman said:


> Beethoven, according to his own words, learned 'nothing' from Haydn, despite the myth continuing that the older man was his teacher in Vienna, for example.


As *Andras Schiff *points out, it is obvious Beethoven was bluffing when he said this. The stylistic coincidences, in terms of forms and use of the motifs, are too many for us to plainly believe that Beethoven quote. Even comparing music from both composers in different genres, the legacy of Haydn is always present. And you can not denied it, provided you have a bit of a knowledge of their works, of course.

You can (I know you will) say that he learned nothing from Haydn because Luchesi, or some other guy the story has managed to hide well, was in fact his teacher. Then why Beethoven, as he was not really fond of the aristocrats, the regime and politics, would mind hiding that? To the point of not communicating this late in his life to anybody?

Is your theory involving Beethoven as a conspirer too?


----------



## robert newman

Hi Manuel,

So you don't believe Beethoven when he says he learned nothing from Haydn ? I don't know why you say this. Beethoven, you say, was 'bluffing'.

I think anyone will agree that the first 2 symphonies, for example, contain stylistic elements that _can_ be described as 'Haydnesque'. That's well known and l completely agree with this. Not a problem. But surely we are talking about two different things. Beethoven was actually saying that he learned nothing theoretically from Haydn - that Haydn was atually NOT his teacher in Vienna and that, in actual fact, Haydn was forced to use Albrechtsberger and others. Secondly, that which we called 'Haydnesque' is a subject worthy of a few words in itself. For example, in the 'Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians' under the article for Josef Myslivececk is contained details recorded by the Vienna music writer Carpani. He notes that Myslivececk once approached Haydn and pointed out that when he heard Haydn's symphonies he said immediately, 'Now I understand that the real origin of Haydn's style was Sammartini'. This was furiously denied by Haydn. But several scholars have noted that, in fact, Valotti and others such as Sammartini were definitely the main influences on Haydn as they also were later on Mozart.

The young Beethoven wrote various works in Italian style.

That Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was the true teacher of the young Beethoven is not and should not reasonably be an issue of debate. Such a fact would have been known by everyone in the decade 1781-1791. To have suggested anything else would have been ridiculous. With the exception of the year 1783-4 (when Luchesi was in Italy on a 1 year absence - attending to family business) it was Andrea Luchesi was the teacher of the young Beethoven, this beyond reasonable doubt. Luchesi was also teacher at Bonn to numerous other music pupils. Again, such a fact may have been suppressed by early biographers (with Luchesi only briefly mentioned by Thayer) but it's such a certain fact that little more needs to be said of it. It is perfectly true that Ch G Neefe (who was court organist and then deputy Kapellmeister) focused specially on JS Bach and counterpoint - that Beethoven mastered the 'Well Tempered Klavier' etc, this too is not disputed. But, starting at the Cantata for the death of Georg Cressner and even including such later Bonn works as the Cantata for the death of the Emperor Joseph and the Cantata for the accession of the new Emperor, Luchesi was the principle teacher of Beethoven. Later 19th century German writers choose to forget this fact. But it's a fact nevertheless. And it deserves to be appreciated.

The Sonatas Op.1 for Violiin and Piano by the new Kapellmeister Luchesi (the first ever music published at Bonn) date from 1772 (when Beethoven was only 1 year old) but it is remarkable that they anticipate Beethoven by more than 15 years. This has been often noted and I recommend that you listen to them. Again, the cantatas WoO87 and WoO88 (which have always wrongly been attributed by modern writers to the young Beethoven) werel in fact, compositions that would surely have been the duty of the Bonn Kapellmeister to compose. Both were for state occasions. These were NOT Beethoven works though Beethoven does quote from one of these in a cantata that he wrote for the death of Joseph 2nd - a work he showed to Haydn on his way to England.

The influence of Luchesi can again be detected in several Luchesi symphonies still extant - whose directness is again one of the most striking features of Beethoven's style. These symphonies are now at Estense Library in Modena.

Beethoven seems not to have talked much about his youth in Bonn. If he did so it may have been recorded in now lost Conversation Books. Part (at least) of the reason was the sheer embarrasment of the problem of alcohol in the Beethoven family and the fact that part of the Beethoven family income was a pension paid by Cressner through the salary of Luchesi himself. It's not really surprising that these hard times were rarely refered to by Beethoven. But it's curious that not even a reference to Luchesi's death seems to have been commented on by Beethoven. It really does seem information has been somehow lost on these years.


----------



## Manuel

> The Sonatas Op.1 for Violiin and Piano by the new Kapellmeister Luchesi date from 1772 but it is remarkable that *they anticipate Beethoven *by more than 15 years.


So do Clementi piano sonatas (as pointed out by Horowitz), but that's not enough for me to invoke a conspiracy including Beethoven, Clementi and elements of the government.



> That Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was the true teacher of the young Beethoven is not and should not reasonably be an issue of debate.


It will be debated as long as we don't have historic reference about this.



> The influence of Luchesi can again be detected in several Luchesi symphonies still extant - whose directness is again one of the most striking features of Beethoven's style. These symphonies are now at Estense Library in Modena.


Are there any recordings of this works you suggest purchasing?



> I think anyone will agree that the first 2 symphonies, for example, contain stylistic elements that can be described as 'Haydnesque'.


There's more to it than that. All his symphonies are _haydenesque_, the same with his chamber music, his piano sonatas, his violin sonatas...
Beethoven was persistent in the forms that Haydn developed, and subtle elements more in a formal way are to be found in his whole output (disregarding, of course, the fact that he may build complete movements as fugues, or similar innovations).

So, Haydn output was a mix of different obscure composers, even though there's a distinguishable and unique style throughout it. And Beethoven learned enough from those composers (_Albrechtsberger and others_) to be able to imitate their formal elements in a way that he composed like all of them, together?



> Again, the cantatas WoO87 and WoO88 (which *have always wrongly been attributed by modern writers to the young Beethoven*) werel in fact, compositions that would surely have been the duty of the Bonn Kapellmeister to compose.


Which *proofs *do you have to confirm this? Besides the not really convincing idea that invokes this strict relation
_Kapellmeister = composer of cantatas_
which supposes nobody but the Kapellmeister could write a cantata.


----------



## robert newman

Manuel, 

That Luchesi's music (even the small surviving amount of it that is indisputably his and not 'Mozart' or 'Haydn') was a huge influence on the young Ludwig van Beethoven is not simply stating a plain fact. Beyond all reasonable doubt, logically, sensibly, rationally, you can accept without fear of contradiction that he, Andrea Luchesi, airbrushed out of 19th century German textbooks on music in general and on Beethoven's formative years in particular WAS the true music teacher of the same Ludwig van Beethoven and was, in actual fact (and not mere opinion) by definition the man in charge of music teaching at Bonn Chapel during the 10 years or so that Beethoven and various other students studied there. The problem is not that I and others need to teach a fact that would readily have been known to everyone in the late 18th century but that you can, at last, in reality, incorporate it in to your understanding of historical reality. You now see plainly how writers of books so often regurgitated earlier books which had completely obliterated Luchesi and details of his career and significance from appreciation. Having done so I hope that you can move on to consider what the implications of this serious ommission are. 

That Clementi had influence on Beethoven is also undeniable. But that Luchesi had more (by virtue of being his music teacher for a full decade) is, again, obvious. The Sonatas Op.1 of Luchesi ARE strikingly Beethovenesque - these appearing fully 15 years before the same Beethoven's Op.1. Such a fact is not a coincidence also. 

You ask whether any recordings are available of Luchesi's symphonies. Yes, there are. There is one in particular (almost certainly written in Bonn during the 1770's) which still survives and I will happily send a copy of it to you if you can provide an email address. This is very fine music and, once again, you can hear for yourself how great the influence was on Beethoven. 

Luchesi was not the only influence. He was, however, a very major influence as was Clementi and others. Recognising this fact is simply recognising reality. 

Albrechtsberger was really famed more as a musical theorist than a composer. But he was called in to preserve the myth that Beethoven 'learned' from Haydn etc. and from others who would conceal the reality. The truth is that Beethoven, by the time of his arrival in Vienna was a finished composer well able to tackle virtually every kind of musical form. His education under Luchesi (and temporarily under Neefe) was virtually complete. But the illusion is created that he, Beethoven, needed to learn under Haydn and Albrechtsberger. In actual fact, this cosmetic exercise bored Beethoven and he was already branching out in to his own style. 

A further myth exists that Beethoven 'studied' under Mozart. Once again, this is an example of just how false our understanding is on these issues. Beethoven was a great genius. He was also a devoted student at Bonn. He studied, in point of fact, far more than 'Mozart' ever did. He was (unlike Mozart) a true student of music. He was, in fact, a musical genius far beyond that of Mozart. 

You ask what proofs I have that the 2 cantatas WoO87 and WoO88 (for the death of the Emperor and for the accession of his successor) were actually composed by Kapellmeister Luchesi. Let's try common sense ? It was the job of the Kapellemeister of Bonn (since the Cologne Principality rated first) to provide such music for Frankfurt. A state ceremony in both cases. Now, ask yourself the simple question whether he, the Kapellmeister, was the man with such duties. Or whether it was the duty of the student musician Beethoven - a Beethoven who was, in fact, one of dozens of music students. Let us allow common sense to prevail, yes ?


----------



## Guest

Mr Newman

As I said previously, I find your thesis absurd. Many scholars have examined the life and times of W A Mozart and have re-affirmed his musical genius. If you think they are all wrong why don't you try to publish a paper, or a book, setting out your views systematically, instead of merely engaging in lengthy correspondence here, which is 99% mere assertion. 

I do believe you are wasting your time in following the approach you have chosen over the past few years. How many Forums have you been banned from now? It is perfectly clear that your endeavours thus far have achieved very little indeed, judging from the very limited information on the Net about your (and a small few others') views on this subject. 

My own perception is that you realise fully that no reputable publisher would touch the kind of material you might offer. Do you realise this? If not, since you are pretty quick to throw out challenges to posters here to debate with you the authenticity of Mozart-ascribed works, can we see you put your evidence on the table in the form of a published document? We can then all come back in due course to discuss with you the reaction of the music profession to your paper. I don't think we'll see you for dust quite frankly after they have decimated it. But first you have to find a publisher, so it's over to you Mr Newman. This should establish the market worth of your opinions.


----------



## robert newman

Hi Mango,

In my last post to Manuel it was explained that Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was in charge of Beethoven's musical education for over a decade at Bonn. You cannot tell us why this fact (completely unknown to you) has been obliterated from textbooks. Not only is your attitude illogical it's unfair. And to delete Luchesi is only one example of how false much of what we read really is. You must get used to such things if you really want to get back to reality. You must also open your mind to the possibility that what is popularly believed is simply not true. 


I am happy to leave this thread here since you have nothing to offer in defence of your mythical Mozart. And nor, you see, has anyone else. 

Regards


----------



## Manuel

> In my last post to Manuel it was explained that Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was in charge of Beethoven's musical education for over a decade at Bonn.


I read what you wrote this time, and I have the feeling that you didn't *explain *that, you exposed how you *assume *that fact.



> You cannot tell us why this fact has been obliterated from textbooks. Not only is your attitude illogical it's unfair.


If it isn't in books or biographies, where did you take it from? Taboga? A hidden manuscript? Having the supposed proofs that will bring light to this subject, and not showing them upon request is something I find most *illogical*. And the feeling grows as I realise the backup information for what you communicate here is something will definitely pursue the welfare of your theory.


----------



## Manuel

> I am happy to leave this thread here since you *have nothing to offer *in defence of your mythical Mozart. And nor, you see, has anyone else.


Don't twist the whole thing. It's you who has nothing to offer appart from theories. It's you who is persistent in not showing the information that makes you think this whole Mozartgate is relevant.

And now you claim you leave because we have nothing to offer? Is that how you perceive this situation here? Don't you realise it's a twisted view on reality what you have there?
Having noticed this walkout and the reasons you expose. How do we know you are not doing the same thing to your thoughts on Mozart? I mean, living a *magical fantasy *after a *twisted *perception of the real world.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Hi Mango,
> 
> In my last post to Manuel it was explained that Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi was in charge of Beethoven's musical education for over a decade at Bonn. You cannot tell us why this fact (completely unknown to you) has been obliterated from textbooks. Not only is your attitude illogical it's unfair. And to delete Luchesi is only one example of how false much of what we read really is. You must get used to such things if you really want to get back to reality. You must also open your mind to the possibility that what is popularly believed is simply not true.
> 
> I am happy to leave this thread here since you have nothing to offer in defence of your mythical Mozart. And nor, you see, has anyone else.
> 
> Regards


Why are you making such a big thing out of Luchesi being in charge of Beethoven's musical education?

By itself, I couldn't care less. Someone had to be in charge. You have offered no proof that Beethoven's greatness was enhanced in any way as a result of this connection. If you could lay your hands on some very fine works by Luchesi and some unambigous evidence that Beethoven's later career was much helped by this connection then I might take some note. Even then, I doubt that I would be over-impressed. For example, Salieri was the undoubted musical tutor of Schubert but this doesn't proved that Salieri was much good. The genius of some people will shine through regardless of actual early training. It so happens that Salieri was a good composer but he was not in anything like the same league as either Beethoven, Mozart or Schubert. As for Luchesi, he is, by comparison with Salieri, virtually an unknown, at least in terms of actual musical output that has survived by Salieri.

I'm sorry, Mr Newman, but you are are living under a cloud of self-delusion. You have conned yourself into believing all this half-baked nonsense, involving mythical conspiracies with the Jesuit Order etc. Your reason for offering to sign off now is clearly because you can read the writing on the wall. After all your efforts, you have no following here, or none that is prepared to speak up in support of your views. Looking back on this thread, I detect one possible sympathiser but his views seemed pretty lame and incoherent on the topic. Most other people were deeply sceptical, and some were offended by your views.

May I repeat that the reason you have failed to win support is because of your style and method of presentation. It is not good enough to throw out mere assertions based on an alternative theory of history, without offering clear backup evidence. You go off on too many irrelevant tangents when questioned. It also irritates audiences to be told that it is the established orthodoxy which has to defend itself against your (loony) views. On the contrary, you have to do far more to establish your position and to prove your points. I have suggested the way you might do this - by publishing a thorough-going exposition of your views - but clearly this poses a huge problem for you. I trust this essential point isn't missed by anyone reading this.


----------



## robert newman

Nobody has ever suggested that Beethoven's career was falsified. The point being made is that Luchesi was a very important composer in the lives of all 3 composers, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. And that several works by Luchesi are still today wrongly attributed to Beethoven. That wasn't Beethoven's fault. Luchesi was a hugely talented composer and teacher as anyone can appreciate. But it's just one of a thousand things you never learned from the textbooks of your 'experts'. 

Yes, I could write a big book and have it published. Perhaps i shall. But before that happens I will have consulted widely for years on forums such as this one. The public must now judge who has done their homework on Mozart and who is simply repeating popular myths and false assumptions. The judgement of those who believe in free, fair and accountable sources matters more to me than the rigid attitudes of dogmatists. 

I say (and so do others) that the compositional careers of Haydn and Mozart were massively fabricated, falsified and exaggerated. That view remains my considered position having examined a great deal of evidence from many different kinds of source and you see already what reaction this has received. 

Let's leave this thread open. Who knows - maybe your 'experts' will actiually defend their views. Wow - that would be fun, yes ? Till then, thanks.


----------



## Manuel

> Nobody has ever suggested that Beethoven's career was falsified.


Mango's post wasn't even close to this. How is that you got this idea after readging what he wrote? Are you sure you really comprehend what is written in his last post?



> The judgement of those who believe in free, fair and *accountable sources *matters more to me than the rigid attitudes of dogmatists.
> That view remains my considered position having examined a great deal of evidence from many different kinds of source and you see already what reaction this has received.


Let me believe what you do. Present those accountable sources here.


----------



## robert newman

OK Manuel, it's almost a week now since you first offered to choose specific works by 'Mozart' so that we could see whether the evidence truly supports him being their true composer or not. I made it very easy for you. I even asked you to name ANY symphony, concerto, or string quartet. (This was your own offer). To date, despite many exchanges we have still not had your selection. Perhaps you thought nobody would take up your offer ?

It's quite clear that you are reluctant to defend Mozart's reputation even with such a simple and generous offer. So let me make it even easier. Here's a new and even better offer. How about this suggestion - 

Let's take one of the most famous works by 'Mozart' - the Requiem, KV626. 

I say that - 

Mozart was never commissioned by anyone to write this work. I also say there is not a shred of evidence that any such commission existed. And that, contrary to popular myth, this work was NOT in a state of virtual completion at the time of Mozart's death in December 1791. I also say that the true story of this work is filled with lies, exaggerations and downright falsehoods at each and every stage - typical, in fact, of Mozart's entire musical career. I also say that the 'Mozart' signature and inscription (whichn claims that he wrote it) is a blatant forgery and that the whole story proves beyond reasonable doubt that Mozart was not its composer. 

These are some of the many things that can be proved. If you agree with these assertions, fine. If you do not agree with them let us see which point of view is more supported by evidence, right here on this forum. 

There ! I am trying very hard to see what you and your 'Mozart experts' will say to defend Mozart's reputation in this single work. 

Surely, at last, you can come to this composer's rescue on such a famous and hugely studied piece ? 

We now wait to see your reply to these assertions.


----------



## Guest

Mr Newman

In answer to my my previous post, you wrote:



robert newman said:


> Nobody has ever suggested that Beethoven's career was falsified.


I never made anything like this suggestion. What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## Manuel

> OK Manuel, it's almost a week now since you first offered to choose specific works by 'Mozart' so that we could see whether the evidence truly supports him being their true composer or not.


I wasn't. It was Mark. But who knows, our ideas are so similar that not even an expert can point out who they came from.



Mark Harwood said:


> Right. We're on page ten here. Let's see facsimile evidence for and against Mozart's authorship of:
> 1. one Piano Concerto;
> 2. one Symphony;
> 3. one String Quartet; and
> 4. the Requiem.
> I'll suggest an example of 1, 2 or 3 if necessary.


So, do you see? it was him. However, your walkouts bored him to tears, and now he's not following this thread.



> *I also say that *the true story of this work is filled with lies, exaggerations and downright falsehoods at each and every stage - typical, in fact, of Mozart's entire musical career.





> These are some of the many things that can be proved.


You claim you can prove you said _the true story of the requiem is filled with lies_. 

That's not necessary, I've just read that.



> Quote:
> _Originally Posted by robert newman
> Nobody has ever suggested that Beethoven's career was falsified. _
> 
> I never made anything like this suggestion. What on earth are you talking about?


*Exactly*. Mango wasn't talking about that. He didn't even mention the idea that you might have suggested Beethoven's career was a fraud. He wrote this:



Mango said:


> By itself, I couldn't care less. Someone had to be in charge. You have offered no proof that Beethoven's greatness was enhanced in any way as a result of this connection. If you could lay your hands on some very fine works by Luchesi and some unambigous evidence that Beethoven's later career was much helped by this connection then I might take some note.


And your answer is 


Robert Newman said:


> Nobody has ever suggested that Beethoven's career was falsified.


Do you not see there's no real link between his text and your answer?
That's the perfect example of the decoys you generally use.


----------



## Guest

Mr Newman

Manuel has provided above two examples of how you clearly twist, manipulate and contort information at every opportunity. Indeed, I was wondering why you kept insisting that it was Manuel who suggested studying some specific works of Mozart when it was very clearly Mark Harwood who made this suggestion. As for the misinterpretation of what I wrote, I suspect you must have really tried hard to be as mischievous as that. If these are examples of your analytical skills I make no wonder you are all confused.

As for the following:



robert newman said:


> Let's take one of the most famous works by 'Mozart' - the Requiem, KV626.
> 
> I say that -
> 
> Mozart was never commissioned by anyone to write this work. I also say there is not a shred of evidence that any such commission existed. And that, contrary to popular myth, this work was NOT in a state of virtual completion at the time of Mozart's death in December 1791. I also say that the true story of this work is filled with lies, exaggerations and downright falsehoods at each and every stage - typical, in fact, of Mozart's entire musical career. I also say that the 'Mozart' signature and inscription (whichn claims that he wrote it) is a blatant forgery and that the whole story proves beyond reasonable doubt that Mozart was not its composer.


I am merely looking at what you wrote above and am *NOT* attempting to tackle the substantive issues as I do not pretend to be a Mozart scholar. I am much more inclined to accept the version of events from established scholars who have written books and articles on this subject than someone like you skulking around on Forums like this.

However, your text raises two immediate questions.

1.	If, as you allege, Mozart wasn't commissioned by anyone to write the Requiem, what evidence is it that is normally used to suggest that it was commissioned are you questioning, and what do you find inadequate or wrong with this evidence? Possibly some expert might be reading this.

2.	If, as you further allege, the Requiem was not in a state of "virtual completion" at the time of Mozart's death, it again admits of the possibility that it was in a state of near virtual completion or possibly almost complete, which I think is nearer the orthodox version. So, what exactly are you saying?​
I emphasise that I do not wish to debate the details with you.


----------



## Amade Van Haydn

Hi!

I galloped through this thread and wonder why it has so many replies.  
In my opinion here's not much to discuss.
But often the most absurd ideas like this of Mr. Newman are the most effectual.

I will try it myself in some days and start a new thread where I will explain (and clearly proof) that all prominent works by Beethoven and Schubert in fact are penned by Johann Heinrich Clasing.  

I just need some days to collect all the undoubtful facts which prove my theory.  

Regards,
AVH.


----------



## Handel

Manuel said:


> As *Andras Schiff *points out, it is obvious Beethoven was bluffing when he said this. The stylistic coincidences, in terms of forms and use of the motifs, are too many for us to plainly believe that Beethoven quote. Even comparing music from both composers in different genres, the legacy of Haydn is always present. And you can not denied it, provided you have a bit of a knowledge of their works, of course.
> 
> You can (I know you will) say that he learned nothing from Haydn because Luchesi, or some other guy the story has managed to hide well, was in fact his teacher. Then why Beethoven, as he was not really fond of the aristocrats, the regime and politics, would mind hiding that? To the point of not communicating this late in his life to anybody?
> 
> Is your theory involving Beethoven as a conspirer too?


Actually, Haydn was not Beethoven's professor "en titre". He gave him some lessons but not as much as Albrechtsberger and Salieri gave him...

If he got something from Haydn's "teaching", a part of his influence came from his self-study of Haydn scores.

In a biography of Haydn I have, there is an interesting quote (from Fernando Ries), for what it's worth.

Chacun (Albrechtsberger and Salieri) disait: Beethoven a toujours été si opiniâtre et si indocile qu'il à du apprendre lui-même, par une dure expérience, ce qu'auparavant il n'avait jamais voulu accepter comme l'objet d'une leçon".

What it is said: Both composers were saying that Beethoven was always obstinate and recalcitrant that he had to learn by himself, which was a tough experience, what he didn't want to accept as a lesson.


----------



## Leporello87

This is quite a long thread, with many lengthy posts. I have done my best to read through these, but please excuse me if these questions have already been addressed. I was hoping to discuss the symphonies whose manuscripts are in Modena, and are from the 1784 Bonn inventory.

(1) Although there is the claim that Luchesi wrote the Paris Symphony KV 297, it does not seem that Mozart was extensively supplied by Luchesi until the promise to instate him as the Bonn Kappellmeister in 1784 failed. As has been mentioned, Mozart's starting of his official compositional catalog in 1784 appears to coincide with this arrangement that Luchesi would supply Mozart. So, it's only in 1784 that Mozart allegedly becomes an official, regular "customer" of Luchesi. The fact that the great Mozart symphonies KV 504, 543, 550, and 551 appear in the 1784 inventory -- combined with the fact that Luchesi was in Italy from 1783 to 1784 -- imply that these symphonies were written in or prior to 1783. And, if the 5-year rule holds (5 years elapsing between the Luchesi compositional date and the date on which the piece is sent to Mozart), the Prague Symphony KV 504 must have been written in 1781 or earlier. In other words, these symphonies were written before Luchesi even knew that he would be supplying Mozart with music regularly, as he had already been doing with Haydn. How then is it that these symphonies, coincidentally, are so Mozartean in terms of style and quality? Shouldn't they be more in "Haydn's" style, since Luchesi was writing for Haydn at the time? How could Luchesi have fabricated a style for Mozart when he didn't even know yet (at the time that he allegedly composed KV 504, 543, et al) that Mozart was to be the recipient of those symphonies?

(2) Could you explain the history of the Linz Symphony, KV 425? That symphony does not seem to appear in the Modena set -- so does that mean it is not a composition of Luchesi? If not Luchesi, who composed it? To my ear, KV 425 occupies a rather natural intermediate stylistic point between the Haffner Symphony KV 385 -- which still bears some hallmark of Mozart's earlier Salzburg serenade style, sort of a half-symphony/half-serenade -- and the great symphonies, starting with KV 504. If Luchesi was not responsible for the composition of KV 425 (but composed all the other late Mozart symphonies), shouldn't the Linz Symphony stick out somehow, rather than being a natural intermediate point? And if Luchesi did write KV 425, why is it not documented in this (apparently, otherwise complete) Modenese file?

Thanks very much.


----------



## Guest

Leporello


Your first question is how Luchesi was able to anticipate Mozart's symphonic style a full 5 years before Luchesi even knew that he would be supplying Mozart from 1784 onwards. That is, why are the symphonies supplied from 1784 onwards so Mozartean rather than Haydn in flavour, given that they were written as far back as 1779 (and stockpiled for future release) at which time Luchesi was allegedly supplying Haydn. 

Looking back on this thread, I see that this same issue was raised previously but no satisfactory answer was given, just the usual tangential waffle. 

Watch out for the same in any further reply from Mr Newman, as he is pretty good at ducking awkward questions. Instead, expect to get a re-hash of the same bold assertions without the slightest trace of real evidence. Sometimes, the answers contain an apology for lack of evidence and a further appeal to common sense that, allegedly, all the evidence points to massive fakery. This is how he fills up his posts, if you analyse them. If you see a reference to the Jesuits you know he is really struggling. The real evidence boils down to nothing.


----------



## robert newman

Amade van Haydn, 

Before you submit your thread arguing that the prominent works of Beethoven and Schubert iwere actually composed by Johann Heinrich Clasing we would appreciate knowing which works of these two composers you believe are prominent. 

Please also sketch J.H. Clasing's career for us. 

We will then at least have some material to read before you submit your proofs.


----------



## robert newman

Mango, 

I have 'twisted, controrted and manipulated' no information. I have mistalenly attributed the offer to disciuss specific workds to the wrong person having repeatedly asked for a symphony, a concerto, and a string quartet to be named which was truly by Mozart and that can be proved as having been composed by him more reliably than those who disagree. Evem the choice of particular works remains that of he/she who wishes to defend Mozartt. A whole week later readers are STILL waiting. It's a shambles, isn't it ?

So I suggested a specific work - the Requiem, KV826. 

The fact is you do not lknow whether the Mozart traditions are based on solid rock or quicksand. You simply ignore the plain fact that dozens of works claimed to be by Mozart are NOT actually his. That huge exaggerations have featured in the supposed works of his childhood and youth. And even that his adult career (supposed) is as riddled with inconsistencies in what he did or did not compose as any other period. You have nothing to say either of the fact that with the exception of Joseph Haydn there is no more ridiculous and error prone history of musical attribution in all of history than we find with W.A. Mozart. So says 200 years of Mozart study. All this is true even before we examine these latest criticisms of his reputatiion. But none of it is admitted by you. 

I am not surprised you cannot defend Mozart's reputation. Nor am I surprised you cannot even agree that a massive problem exists and has existed for over a century.

Believe what you please. Nobody will rescure you. Your 'experts' simply do not exist. They too are condemned merely to repeat the same flawed myths and cannot think beyond the fakery and the exaggerations.


----------



## robert newman

Let it be agreed (if possible) that something remarkable happens to 'Mozart's' music around 1783/4. It becomes that distinctive style that we know today. It is, in fact, music of a higher order than that which came before. Thus (roughly around the time when Mozart begins his Vienna thematic catalogue) we see a competence and a level of creation that is, for sure, far greater than that which came before it. 

This amazing transformation begs an explanation and I think it's fair that we recognise these things as factual. Whether this helps our debate or not I feel that it's a plain fact.


----------



## Manuel

> This amazing transformation begs an explanation


Exactly. That's what Leporello is asking.
Could you please provide us with one?


----------



## Leporello87

There is a marked increase in quality in Mozart's works at about 1783-1784, but 1782 is also the year that Mozart went through a "compositional crisis" due to his full encounter with the genius of J.S. Bach, and this experience left an unmistakable imprint on Mozart's style. This isn't to say his style _changed_ into sounding like someone else -- only to say that new, complex elements were added that hadn't been there before. Mozartean melodic invention combined with well-wrought contrapuntal passages. This change is, in fact, evident before the start of the official catalogue in 1784. Case in point: the G Major String Quartet, KV 387. No doubt there will be something of interest to discuss there as well.

The fact that an "amazing transformation" occurs around 1784 is not, in and of itself, a complete proof, but yes, it does merit an explanation -- especially since the assertion here is that Luchesi is not really responsible for that change of style. In fact, if Luchesi only contributed a few symphonies to Mozart post-1784, it doesn't seem like "striking a deal with Luchesi" in 1784 should've had such a big imprint on his decision to start a catalogue at all. We're only talking about a few pieces, out of the 150-odd works Mozart wrote from 1784 onwards. Especially if Mozart had been supplied with music his whole life, as is the claim here: why should having one more supplier (who he had already allegedly encountered earlier, in the Paris Symphony) be such a big deal? As I see it, I would like to see a greater relationship drawn between the two 1784 dates than has been so far -- other than that they both occur in 1784.

After all, couldn't we say that a similar transformation occurred with Beethoven, after composing the "Eroica" symphony? This is the work which, essentially single-handedly, got the ball rolling on Beethoven's middle style, which is also the style that is most commonly described as "Beethovenian."

Earlier, there was a mention that we could discuss the "alternate histories" of specific works. I believe that, in some sense, this is the heart of the issue. If Mozart indeed was a fake, the only way to really make this clear is to prove that each and every of his works was written by someone else. Since the assertion here is that several different composers were responsible for creating the output that we know as Mozart's oevure, each piece probably has its own story -- or, at least, there are many different stories to tell.

Towards the point of analyzing specific pieces, I've already suggested the Linz Symphony KV 425. To this, I'd like to add the C minor Mass, KV 427, as a start.


----------



## robert newman

Leporello87 makes some very constructive comments and suggestions. We seem to agree that around 1782/3 in Vienna (i.e. slightly before Mozart finally finally begins to keep a thematic catalogue of his supposed works) the remarkable transformation has occurred - why did he not do keep a catalogue before ?) . The change in 'Mozart's' official production has definitely been achieved by 1784. Can you please explain what you mean when you wrote that Bach's music had great impact on Mozart's output from around 1782 onwards ?

That a remarkable trasnformation occurs in the output of 'Mozart' is plain. How it is to be explained is less simple. Personally, I think it is also found in two operatic torsos, 'L'Oca del Cairo; and 'Lo Sposo Deluso' - both being works which Mozart (astonishingly) didn't even have a commission to write and whose history/genesis is filled with difficulties. These two unfinished operas are remarkable in many other ways. But, as Leporello says, the arrival to 'Mozart's maturity' may even have neen preceded by works such as the String Quartet in G, KV387. 

KV387 is of course the first of the set dedicated to Haydn. The whole history of these quartets is well worthy of closer study, even from a traditionalist viewpoint. Not least because Mozart's attempt of years before to mimic 'Haydn' in the earlier series was so hugely unsuccessful. And there are huge numbers of irregularities in the history of the 'Haydn' series -.e.g. the date they were actually composed, the form in which they were first written down, even problems in the source of themes and passages contained within them. The creation of the Haydn series took (so we are told) years. And it has never been established with certainty when these quartets were submitted to their Vienna publisher or in what form. The subject is certainly worthy of closer study. I agree. 

There is definitely something strange about all this. I can't agree that JS Bach's music had such a huge revelatory impact on Mozart who, till your suggested date (1782) had produced no symphonies worthy of publication and whose actual achievements were at best modest. Not even 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail' is really in a style that we would immediately credit to Mozart. 

It's not normal for a composer to work on an opera without a commission. And yet in ':L'Oca del Cairo' and again in 'Lo Sposo Deluso' we are asked to imagine Mozart not only writing operas in a suddenly discovered new style but actively co-operating with two different librettists on these works - which he then abandons. This followed (just as remarkably) with the extremely poor music for the Singspiel 'The Impressario' of 1786- a work that astonishes us for its poor quality content - this appearing only weeks from the Vienna premiere of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' of just a few weeks later. Once again, the 'Impressario' hardly sounds like Mozart. It's third rate stuff at best. Compared with 'Le Nozze di Figaro' we might even ask if these two works can possibly have come from the same composer. And yet, weeks before Figaro Mozart has the Impressario performed publicly in direct and open competition with a new opera by Antonio Saliveri. Few more glaring contradictions exist than this. 

Significiant too is that from this very same time comes the error filled slow introduction that Mozart wrote to the Symphony KV444. This of a musical value around the same as the 'Impressario'. Poor indeed. 

So, what we have here is a very remarkable series of works - some of them of very poor musical quality and others very high - the very high starting to arrive in Mozart's name at high speed shortly before 1784 but appearing side by side in Mozart's name wtih works that suprise us for their clumsiness and poor quality. 

The 'Linz' symphony is certainly remarkable. Bear in mind, of course, that in the ears of Mozart experts KV444 WAS the 'Linz' symphony up until the early 20th century ! Let anyone compare these two works without knowing anything of their history and will they not conclude that they are, actually, by two diferent composers ? Today these same experts admit their huge error and now attribute KV444 to Michael Hadyn, all but for the astonishingly poor slow introduction that Mozart (indisputably) wrote for the piece. Now, let's ask ourself, does that slow introduction come from the same composer who wrote the 'Linz' ? Surely not. 

I again agree that the C Minor Mass is a work well worthy of close study. Its history is riddled with problems also. Not least that it was never completed and remains (like 'L'Oca del Cairo' and 'Lo Sposo Deluso') a torso. Nor was it commissioned by anyone and the known facts are highly problematic. Was it performed in Salzburg or not ?

If we were to look fairly and honestly at Mozart's suppsoed achievements prior to the time when he opened his Vienna catalogue we would be forced to agree that many works - many dozens of works - were by 'Mozart' only by sheer tradition. His reputation as a writer of symphonies does not exist. He has many times been shown to have falsely claimed authorship of operas and symphonies, concertos and sonatas. This track record prior to 1784 is real and it ought to be more widely recognised. It's a record we do not see in the works of great composers. And this fake reputation does not end at the time when he, Mozart, arrives in Vienna. What we see now (after Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail) is this remarkable body of music - much of it of glorious quality but punctuated from time to time by musical rubbish). 

As we study specific works and as these too begin to show serious discrepancies I do believe that a fair minded person would conclude that there are many reasons to accept wholesale the automatic attribution of these works to W.A. Mozart. 

I hope to be able to examine specific works (such as the Linz and C Minor Mass) once I get back to London in around 6 weeks from now. (I'm still in Florida). 

All of your comments are constructive and I very much hope to discuss these things in some depth here. 

Regards


----------



## Leporello87

Thanks for the response. There's a lot in here that I want to respond to, in particular about the Bach and Haydn influences, but I can't at just this moment. I am hoping to be able to post on this later today.

For now, though, I do want to make one short comment, about KV 444, since you raised that point. (By the way, I would still like to discuss the _real_ Linz Symphony, KV 425, which your last post does not really mention in detail. But we can discuss KV 425 soon in another post.) I agree that the Adagio maestoso introduction to "Symphony No. 37", by Michael Haydn, is not a remarkable piece of music. However, it also worth pointing out that the Michael Haydn symphony which the Adagio maestoso prefaces is also an unremarkable work, with fairly boring harmonic and melodic content, at least IMO. This work is, at best, an average 18th century classical symphony. Why would you expect Mozart to pour his heart and soul into writing a slow introduction for an average piece of music? It doesn't seem like the Adagio KV 444 (which is really only _90 seconds long_) is nearly enough to go on here.

As for musical errors in KV 444 -- what about Ein musikalischer Spass, KV 522? This piece is loaded with musical errors, done on purpose, as a joke, to make a point. How do we know that KV 444 isn't some sort of joke, as well?

In fact, given the average quality of the Michael Haydn work, it seems like the slow introduction should _also_ be average, so that it more closely matches the rest of the symphony. A grand 3-4 minute Adagio introduction such as we have in the Prague Symphony would be inappropriate and completely out of place as an introduction to the Michael Haydn work. In short, as I see it, the Michael Haydn symphony got what it deserves.

As I said, I hope to post later today with responses to your points about Bach and Haydn. Thanks again.


----------



## robert newman

Yes Leporello, 

The symphony KV444 is as we agree a work of no real musical value. But KV44 WAS none other than the 'Linz' symphony according to Mozart 'expertise'/orthodoxy, right up until the early 20th century ! It's this fact which I think we need to appreciate. So much for Mozartean stylistic considerations here ? We today attribute this same work to Michael Haydn. 

No - I can't agree that a composer would purposely write such low grade music as the slow introduction of KV444 even if he believed the rest of the work was rubbish. Surely, the whole point of Mozart writing what he did in KV444 was to make the work a better one. Not as a joke. But as a serious introduction to the first allegro. Frankly. if we did not know these introductory bars were by Mozart we would surely attribute them to a composer of little musical ability. And there are other examples that are rarely appreciated. The Singspiel 'Impressario' is another case in point. Side by side with 'Le Nozze di Figaro' (premiered only weeks before). 

In addition there are still to this day many works by the same Michael Haydn being falsely attributed to Mozart - minuets for example. 

I agree that a special post needs to be made on each of the the works you've already suggested. Such as the fragmentary C Minor Mass, the 'Linz KV425', and the first of the string quartets dedicated to Joseph Haydn. I'd also like to add to this list the Requiem, KV626. In each case there are contradictions and major discrepancies that I believe seriously call in to question the traditional assumption that Mozart was their composer.

I will write on each of these within the next 6 weeks. I simply can't do better. 

We still have of course the great body of evidence for 'Mozart' and 'Haydn' works at Estense Library. These too deserve close study - something that 'Mozart experts' seem terrified to do. And with good reason. 

Thanks for at least refering to specific works. 

So we now have - 

The C Minor Mass
The Requiem
The first 'Haydn' quartet
The Symphony KV425 (today known as the 'Linz')

I will present articles on all 4 arguing that Mozart was not the composer of any of these works. I hope you or others here can at least try to defend Mozart's authorship of these same 4 pieces. In this way the neutral reader can judge the case for themselves. That's fair and is entirely reasonable.


----------



## Leporello87

I got around to posting this response a couple days later than I hoped.



robert newman said:


> Can you please explain what you mean when you wrote that Bach's music had great impact on Mozart's output from around 1782 onwards ?


What I mean by this is that post-1782, Mozart's music takes on a wholly new contrapuntal aspect which is largely nonexistent prior to 1782. Pre-1782, in the galant period, Mozart does use counterpoint, but in a rather stilted, archaic sort of way -- the expected "nod to the past." A few examples of this:

(1) The occasional and short-lived use of "canon", such as in the first minuet of the Cassation of KV 99;
(2) Imitation of the Haydn fugal finale, such as in the finale of the Quartet KV 173;
(3) The fugue to the _Galimathias muscium_, KV 32;
(4) The "faux counterpoint" used when the 4th mvmt Jupiter Symphony theme (1-2-4-3 in whole notes) appears in the Symphony KV 319,

and so forth. Now, it's worth noting that in the period of 1782, there does seem to be documentary evidence of a "compositional crisis" that coincides with Mozart's formal introduction to J.S. Bach. Lots of fragments and sketches, including (as you mentioned), for the Haydn quartets, the birth of which pieces was a struggle, an oft-mentioned fact because it seems unusual for Mozart, based on the traditional history: so many other works seem to have been born without such a struggle, at least one that we can document.

We even have works which provide "evidence" for the struggle -- take the Fugue from KV 394/383e. This work starts off with a Bachian sort of theme (indeed, with its rather literal quote from the theme to the very first Well-Tempered fugue BWV 846, with which it shares the key of C major), and yet the Mozart fugue which results does not have the natural eloquence and elegance we find in Bach's fugues. Mozart's fugue, in comparison, seems forced and awkward, as though Mozart made himself stuff all sorts of fugal techniques (augmentation, etc.) into one piece. In my opinion, the Fugue from KV 394 is musical evidence documenting Mozart's learning process, his attempt to master the fugal technique of J.S. Bach. Based on this fugue, I wouldn't say he succeeded in doing that, but instead, something else happened.

Post-1782, rather suddenly, Mozart's works have an influx of new counterpoint. Not the lifeless, stilted, archaic counterpoint from the galant period. And not the forced, awkward counterpoint that imitates Haydn, nor what we see in KV 394. No, this is a much more interesting, organic counterpoint -- I believe I've heard the phrase "living, breathing counterpoint" used by some author in connection with J.S. Bach, and I believe we can use it in the context of later Mozart, as well. Even more interestingly, Mozart rarely writes pure fugues, even after 1782. Rather, the counterpoint is seamlessly introduced into an otherwise homophonic piece. You can probably list some nice examples just as well as I can:

(1) The aforementioned String Quartet in G, KV 387
(2) The finale to the Piano Concerto in F, KV 459
(3) The coda to the finale of the Jupiter Symphony, KV 551,

and so forth. And even if the piece doesn't have a literal fugato, as the above examples do, the textures in the pieces become more contrapuntal -- this happens all over the later string quartets and quintets, and the late symphonies. In general, later Mozart places more emphasis on giving life to distinct voices in a way that is very contrapuntal, even if it isn't literally a fugue. In other words, you could say Mozart found a way to assimilate Bach's "living, breathing counterpoint" into his own style and approach to music. The result is music that is still Mozartean (as opposed to the fugue KV 394, which is hardly Mozartean at all), but exhibits a considerable increase in quality over anything Mozart had written prior to 1782.

That is what I meant when I mentioned Bach's influence on Mozart. Robert, I know that you will probably have many other ideas as to why Mozart's music increased in quality starting in the 1782-1784 period, but if we adopt a traditionalist viewpoint here, I think we can point to Mozart's encounter with the music of J.S. Bach as one of the most important musical experiences of Mozart's life.


----------



## Guest

That Mozart came under the influence of J S Bach as from 1782 is well known. It's all set out in Wikipedia, so it's not esoteric knowledge or that difficult. I'm surprised Mr Newman says he didn't know about this aspect of Mozart's evolution.

I can see Mr Newman responding that Mozart was such a useless composer that he was probably unaware of J S Bach, let alone having the slightest ability to pick a few compositional tips from the great man. He may also argue that it was the likes of Luchesi who picked up these earlier lessons in counterpoint, etc, and that Mozart was simply the beneficiary. 

Lest this discussion degenerates into a further series of polite exchanges encouraging the bonkers views of Mr Newman, let me ask a rather more pertinent question at this juncture. What's all this nonsense about a 5 year deal before any works of Luchesi could be used by Mozart? What's the logic and evidence of this? It sounds ludicrous.


----------



## Leporello87

I wasn't aware that the Bach discussion is in Wikipedia, although it's true that this is well-known. I ought to have checked there first! It would have saved me from having to write that lengthy post up there.

I, too, am interested in where the 5 year rule is documented, and, as I hinted at somewhere earlier, I believe a much stronger link needs to be established between the starting of the catalogue and any alleged dealings with Luchesi, other than the fact that both supposedly occurred in 1784. It seems there are any number of personal reasons Mozart might have had for starting a catalogue when he did, none of which might be documented.

However, Mango, I don't see a problem with this thread involving "polite exchanges", as you say, and I daresay it is an improvement over the near-flames that occurred a few pages earlier. Robert claims that he can provide evidence that several notable and beautiful Mozart works (KV 387, KV 425, and KV 427) might be written by other composers. At the moment, I am convinced of nothing because I haven't yet seen any really strong evidence to suggest that the proposed "conspiracy theory" is a correct interpretation of events. Having said that, I would still like to hear why this small but determined group of people (Newman, Taboga, et al) are so convinced of this, and I am interested as to the possible strength of this evidence. This evidence may turn out to be completely unconvincing, and even in that case, perhaps I can learn a bit of new history that I didn't know before. In any case, I don't see harm with putting the argument on the table. If the theory proposed is obviously bogus or if the evidence turns out to be highly circumstantial, we can choose to ignore it and go on our merry way. If there's some nugget there that turns out to be interesting or convincing, then we can evaluate from there.


----------



## robert newman

Thanks to Leporello and Mango,

In one sense there is no disagreement here. We agree that shortly after his arrival in Vienna the official musical output of Mozart undergoes a very remarkable, almost miraculous transformation. He begins producing works of a musical value far higher than virtually anything that has been attributed to him before his arrival there. And he begins (at least officially) to show a deep appreciation of the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. 

This phenomenal transformation of Mozart is, for sure, accepted almost without question. It SEEMS to be well documented (as has just been pointed out). But let's examine this a little more - 

Mozart, prior to his 'revelatory' experience with the music of JS Bach had not, in fact, done much study of music. He was famed as a performer around Europe. He had studied a few months at most under Padre Martini. He had achieved virtually nothing in the way of gaining a reputation as a composer of symphonies, concertos or even operas. And yet, we are here asked to believe that the encounter he had with the music of one composer (JS Bach - a composer who had died over a 30 years earlier) was so stupendous on him that it is the main reason why this transformation of Mozart's music occurs in the early 1780's. 

First, Mozart's exposure to the music of Bach does not, in itself, provide evidence of anything. It merely proves that the unique talent of Bach could not be ignored, not even by this prodigy of Catholic Europe. Countless composers had encountered Bach's music before the early 1780's, yes ? But their encounter with Bach did not hugely improve their musical productions. 

Take the case of Ludwig van Beethoven. In 1783 the 13 year old boy is refered to in print for the first time in 'Cramer's Magazine' as having mastered the Well Tempered Klavier of Bach (this no doubt introduced to him by Neefe at Bonn). Beethoven absorbed the greatness of Bach's music. But nobody claims that something unique happened to Beethoven. In fact Beethoven (who was a far greater documented student of music than Mozart ever was) takes Bach in his stride. There is no 'crisis'. No sudden shift to the sort of perfection we see in 'Mozart' music from the early 1780's onwards. 

Mozart is presented to us a a devout student of Bach but it's a claim that is not nearly as strong a case as it first seems. Mozart becomes aware of Bach in Vienna. His official career is sanitised to the extent that we interpret his Bach experience as revelatory. But, as said, this is meaningless. It certainly does not explain how the music of a largely mediochre composer in Salzburg so suddenly achieves the stylistic perfection we see in the offical Mozart of Vienna in the 1780's. Noting allusions to Bach does not solve this mystery. It does not in itself prove anything. 

In point of fact, Mozart knew far less of Bach's music in the early 1780's than you, I and many other musicians alive today. Knowing his music does not transform us from mediochre composers in to 'Mozart'. 

In the last few years of his life Mozart (according to his contemporaries) heard a choir sing at Prague Bach's motet 'Singet dem Herrn eine neues Lied' - and at THAT time (1789) he is said to have exclaimed 'At last ! - Here is something from which I can learn' - supposedly spreading out the manuscript of this work on the floor of the church in raptures etc. But that event occurred (if ever) in the year 1789 - fully 7 years after the period we are discussing - the early 1780's. Now, if Mozart's 'crisis' with Bach really occurred around 1782 in Vienna such an event 7 years later becomes very strange. It indicates (does it not) that prior to 1789 Mozart was not even aware of how great Bach was. 

There is of course clear evidence that Mozart had a copy of the 48 Preludes and Fugues on his piano in Vienna during the early 1780's. But there is no evidence that concerts of Bach's music were a feature of the musical life of Vienna during the whole of Mozart's time in the city. There is no evidence, in fact, that with the exception of Baron Van Sweiten's meetings Bach was performed in Vienna with any frequency. Nor any real evidence that Mozart suddenly became hugely enthused with Bach or 'transformed' by his music. We know that Constanze Mozart liked fugues. They were novelties - musical oddities. But nothing more. 

There is, in short, no hard evidence that Mozart (who was at best a second rate music student prior to 1782) became a genius by his encounter with JS Bach's music in the early 1780's. For that implies that Mozart did something he actually never did in any depth - learned music theory in depth, from anyone at any time. 

Mozart's treatment of Bach is rather wooden. 

And there is a great deal of evidence that Bach was, in fact, regarded only as an old pedagogue - somebody to be respected, but never to be admired or emulated. Bach, the Protestant genius of Germany was acknowledged. But never was Bach praised or taught widely to Mozart or anyone else in Catholic Vienna. 

In point of fact it was fashionable to regard Bach as antiquated. It's only in this sense that Mozart has association with his music. Nor do I believe that Mozart suddenly acquired genius at the altar of JS Bach. 

No - the arrival of those works which Mozart is credited with having composed in Vienna from 1783 onwards requires more of an explanation than simply that of JS Bach. He, Bach, was not the cause of this astonishing transformation. The available evidence suggests that what really accounts for the transformation was the supply to Mozart (by ways that were not advertised) of many musical works which he, Mozart, never actually composed. 

In saying there is no evidence of a 5 year system of works preceding them becoming 'Mozart' works, I disagree. The copies of 9 'Mozart' symphonies today at Estense Library in Modena (and which certainly got there from the Bonn chapel) include several on paper that was not even manufactured after the year of 1784, though in 3 cases these are not even entered by 'Mozart' in to his thematic catalogue until 1788. The same is true of various symphonies and masses also in 'Haydn's' name, copies also found at Modena. They too are on paper not manufactured anywhere after 1784. 

But the musical inventory held at Bonn in 1784 does not refer even once to a single work by Mozart in the entire music archive of that city. 

Mozart, still unknown to Europe as a writer of symphonies in the early 1780's is also unknown to Bonn's music archives in 1784 (one of the largest music collections in Germany). Imagine that ! And yet, today, at Modena, 9 symphonies of 'Mozart' are found from this same city of Bonn attributed to 'Mozart'. 

No - the truth (I believe) is that from the early 1780's onwards (roughly contemporary with the arrival of Mozart in Vienna) came the start of a constant supply of music by other composers which has become 'officially' music by W.A. Mozart. 

I agree that we all need to be prepared to examine these issues in greater detail. 

Hopefully I can post as promised on the 4 works already mentioned. But this in around 6-8weeks from now. 

Regards


----------



## Leporello87

There are a lot of points you've made here, so just a few responses.



robert newman said:


> Mozart, prior to his 'revelatory' experience with the music of JS Bach had not, in fact, done much study of music. He was famed as a performer around Europe. He had studied a few months at most under Padre Martini.


Stating something like this would require proof that the traditional history is wrong. Perhaps he did not study a great deal with Padre Martini, but of course, his whole childhood was under the tutelage of his father. Moreover, the musical evidence suggests that Mozart underwent a great deal of study of the music of contemporary composers. Mozart arranged 7 sonatas worth of other composers' music (the four piano concerti numbered 1-4, along with the 3 J.C. Bach-based concerti KV 107) before finally writing his own true first piano concerto, KV 175. These movements draw from a number of composers from the period, suggesting he is getting training with the concerto form and assimilating the styles and techniques of other composers of the period. Also, the symphonies and quartets from 1772-1773 demonstrate an influence of Haydn. Does this not count as study of music? And these are just two examples, we can list 18 years worth of examples. It may well be that some of the mythical achievements reported from Mozart's early Italian tours are exaggerated, but that to me is very different from saying he had done very little study of music. A bold claim like this requires direct evidence.



> Countless composers had encountered Bach's music before the early 1780's, yes ? But their encounter with Bach did not hugely improve their musical productions. Take the case of Ludwig van Beethoven. In 1783 the 13 year old boy is refered to in print for the first time in 'Cramer's Magazine' as having mastered the Well Tempered Klavier of Bach (this no doubt introduced to him by Neefe at Bonn). Beethoven absorbed the greatness of Bach's music. But nobody claims that something unique happened to Beethoven. In fact Beethoven (who was a far greater documented student of music than Mozart ever was) takes Bach in his stride. There is no 'crisis'. No sudden shift to the sort of perfection we see in 'Mozart' music from the early 1780's onwards.





> In point of fact, Mozart knew far less of Bach's music in the early 1780's than you, I and many other musicians alive today. Knowing his music does not transform us from mediochre composers in to 'Mozart'.


To be honest, neither of these points, true though they may be, seem all that relevant. Very likely Bach will have a different effect on every person that listens to his music. Just because you or I do not begin writing masterpieces after listening to Bach does not mean that someone like Mozart could not do much more than us with the knowledge gained from becoming acquainted to Bach. In fact, it stands to reason that he probably would be. Also, I'm not sure how convincing comparing 13-year old Beethoven to 26-year old Mozart is. Completely different people, completely different experiences and level of experience, and different levels of compositional ability.



> In the last few years of his life Mozart (according to his contemporaries) heard a choir sing at Prague Bach's motet 'Singet dem Herrn eine neues Lied' - and at THAT time (1789) he is said to have exclaimed 'At last ! - Here is something from which I can learn' - supposedly spreading out the manuscript of this work on the floor of the church in raptures etc. But that event occurred (if ever) in the year 1789 - fully 7 years after the period we are discussing - the early 1780's. Now, if Mozart's 'crisis' with Bach really occurred around 1782 in Vienna such an event 7 years later becomes very strange. It indicates (does it not) that prior to 1789 Mozart was not even aware of how great Bach was.


I don't find this that convincing either. You're taking the quote extremely literally, and also out of whatever the context is. Consider the following alternate scenario. What if, in the weeks prior to this exclamation, Mozart underwent a search for some great new music to study, and was frustrated by the poor quality of pieces he ran into? Then, suddenly, he hears this piece. The quote you cite then makes perfect sense in this context, but it doesn't at all mean that Mozart didn't learn anything from Bach in 1782. (On the contrary, the very presence of the Prelude and Fugue KV 394, which I refer to in an earlier post, suggests that he _did_ learn important lessons from Bach.) All you've really done here is taken a random quote out of context, and this doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.



> Nor any real evidence that Mozart suddenly became hugely enthused with Bach or 'transformed' by his music.


No evidence... except for the 150 pieces of music that Mozart wrote after 1782. I understand of course that you don't believe those are written by Mozart, but nonetheless, the pieces are there.

At any rate, I think the most productive discussion will come from the documentary evidence that exists on specific pieces, so I'll look forward to that when you get a chance to post in several weeks.


----------



## Guest

Leporello87



Leporello87 said:


> Stating something like this would require proof that the traditional history is wrong….. A bold claim like this requires direct evidence.





> To be honest, neither of these points, true though they may be, seem all that relevant.





> I don't find this that convincing either. You're taking the quote extremely literally, and also out of whatever the context is. ….All you've really done here is taken a random quote out of context, and this doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.


I see you are beginning to understand the problem: all we get is bold assertion, lack of evidence, evasive answers. It permeates this thread right back to post 1.

In addition to these queries, what about the alleged 5 year rule between the time a work was written and the time Mozart could claim it to be his? The question is still not answered. Why should Luchesi say "OK I'll write stuff for Mozart but he can't use it for 5 years". It doesn't make any sense at all on prima facie grounds, but instead looks like another piece of sheer fabrication simply to accommodate the rest of this contrived story. Why on earth didn't Luchesi claim it for himself? And what about all the supposed material that was (ex hypothesi) written after 1786 by Luchesi that would not have been claimed by Mozart due to Mozart's death in late 1791? Did it just disappear? It's all just completely unbelievable.

I also asked earlier what is the standard, traditional evidence about the origins of the Requiem which Mr Newman does not accept. I don't wish to debate his alternative view. I simply want to know what it is about the traditional view that he doesn't believe. This still hasn't been answered. Now it seems we have to wait for up to 6 weeks for information I had thought was at Mr Newman's fingertips. The evasiveness is incredible. Can we have your understanding of this standard evidence for the Requiem please, Mr Newman?

There is no point letting Mr Newman escape answering questions like this (or offering only weak answers at best) because if you do he will simply shift the debate on to other territory where he feels more comfortable, and hence this saga merely goes on ad infinitum.


----------



## Leporello87

It's not really an issue of "beginning to understand the problem", Mango. I appear new to this thread because I just started posting it in a couple days ago, but I've already read through and thought about this entire thread since quite awhile ago. I only began posting it now because I saw that it was revived this month, but rest assured I was familiar with the history. I would still like to try to get more information, and if it proves to be unsuccessful, then so be it. There have been a lot of high emotions running through this thread, and while I completely understand how those have come up, I think that also detracts from the discussion. My goal here is to stay rational and learn from Mr. Newman what I can about his viewpoint on things, and more importantly, the evidence which he has that concretely supports those viewpoints, if such evidence exists.

That is why I want to discuss specific pieces -- this is something that has not gone on before in this thread in any real detail. In the case of the late symphonies, the claim is that a copy of these pieces existed a few, perhaps even several, years before Mozart's manuscripts come into existence. If this can be proven one way or the other, this qualifies as actual evidence. What I'm interested in here is this: does similar evidence exist for other pieces? If the "evidence" here continues to be quotes taken out of context and circumstantial remarks, then it's likely such evidence doesn't exist.

Mind you, this isn't to say I am "on board" with Luchesi being the composer of the late Mozart symphonies. There are a lot of questions I still have about this Modena file that aren't answered, and it's not clear to me that the standards of analysis that have gone into analyzing the manuscript paper _prove_ that Mozart wasn't the composer, as it doesn't seem to be an exact science. Of course, I am no scholar of such things, and so I can only take other people's word for it; this always makes me immediately suspect, and you never know when people overlook things.

In any case, even if I am not yet convinced by the Modena file, I am curious to see if documentary evidence of the Modena type exists for other Mozart pieces, and what the strength of this evidence is. If this sort of evidence doesn't turn out to be available, well then, that's how it goes, right? I see no harm in trying.


----------



## robert newman

Hi there Mango,

Another extraordinary post from the 'same Mango' who was asked repeatedly, post after post on this very thread, to give ANY specific concerto, quartet or symphony from all the works of 'Mozart' which would survive cross-examination but who, everyone now sees, couldn't suggest any. You were (and it's now a matter of public record) given carte-blanche, a free choice, from all the works of 'Mozart'! And STILL you couldn't do it ! How extraordinary ! Coming from a person who wants to defend Mozart's iconic status and reputation don't you feel a little embarrased ?

Let me deal with your last post in detail. Especially since you claim I am being evasive, or say I am running away etc. Let others judge who is being fair. That's the whole point of this thread, after all.

You say I've provided no evidence of a 5 year rule operating in the secret supply to Mozart of masterpieces written by a network of other composers. In point of fact, I can direct you (and already have in my last post if only you would read in detail) to various symphonies of 'Mozart' which he claims to have composed around 1788, copies of which are today at Modena, Italy (in the Estense Library) but which are written there on paper by a copyist - paper that was not even being manufactured anywhere in the entire world after 1784. These same copies came from Bonn chapel and came to Modena from the Bonn Chapel on its closure in 1794. These copies surely deserve a fair and honest study. But Mozart 'experts' simply refuse to address this issue. They blatantly ignore their existence. Over and over again. If copies of 'Mozart' works contradict popular myth they are not even mentioned in Koechel or are described as 'irrelevant'. Examples include not only these works now at Modena but also from Regensburg and elsewhere. This highly selective treatment of facts (documentary facts) is so very typical of the 'Mozart establishment'. So Modena and the 'Mozart'/'Haydn' copies there remain unacknowledged, suppressed, by the very people who claim to be your reliable experts in these things! Year after year after year. Those who HAVE actually studied these Modena manuscripts keep asking WHEN they will ever feature in the understanding of people like you, Mango ? . These very works have magically become works by 'Haydn' and 'Mozart'. How DID that happen ?

To say I've given no examples of this 5 year rule is disingenuous. I have actually given examples of late 'Mozart' symphonies, for example. The copy of the 'Prague' symphony now at Modena, for example, is written on paper not even being manufactured at the time when Mozart himself claims to have composed it ! What have you to say of this fact Mango ?

You next say it's sheer fabrication that Luchesi wrote works for Mozart. Well, it's not a fabrication but a plain fact. Take for example the symphony KV297 ('Paris') which exists at Regensburg with the name of 'Mozart' clearly written over the name of Luchesi - although this copy (like the 'Prague' copy at Modena) has never even been refered to in the published versions of the Koechel list. Or take the known facts of symphonies such as the 'Haffner'.

As I have said before, the actual evidence clearly indicates that Mozart lied about what he wrote and did not write for Paris. Mozart was forced to leave Paris at very short notice because he had been exposed as a fake. KV297 (the 'Paris' Symphony) was not by Mozart. It was, in fact, a work supplied TO him at Mannheim before he ever arrived in Paris And when he was asked to change its slow movement by Le Gros of the Concert Spirituel he was totally unable to do so. Such is the documentary evidence we find when all surviving copies of this work are studied and compared. This is also the same Paris where Mozart was expected to supply a Sinfonia Concertante to waiting soloists but was never able to do so - despite claiming he had composed one. The simple truth is, Mango, that in Paris (as indeed earlier in Vienna) Mozart was exposed as a fraud and was forced to leave the city to save his reputation. The same embarrasments had happened years before in Vienna where there is documentary evidence he and his father tried to pass off an opera commissioned by the Emperor as having been written by him. It was not.

And in Italy a commission was given to Mozart to write an oratorio which, in point of fact, was never performed there and which was, in actual fact, actually composed by the friend of the Mozart family, Myslivececk.

All these things and many more come after many years of gross exaggeration in 'Mozart's earlier works. It's a track record, Mango, of fakery and downright falsehood. And it never stops at ANY time in the whole of 'Mozart's' career. It just goes on and on, right to the very end.

But let me now answer where you wrote -

_What is the standard, traditional evidence about the origins of the Requiem which Mr Newman does not accept ? _

OK Mango, that's a great question. Here's my answer.

1. There is not a single shred of evidence that Mozart was ever commissioned to write a Requiem in 1791 - the year of his death. But tradition says the very opposite, doesn't it ?

Let ME ask you Mango -

1. What evidence can YOU produce that Mozart was commissioned in 1791 to compose a Requiem ???

We are all waiting for your answer.

Now -

2. According to tradition (i.e. according to statements given by Constanze Mozart and also by Maximilian Stadler (1826) the Requiem was in a state of 'virtual completion' at the time of Mozart's death.

My second question is this -

2. WAS Mozart's Requiem in a state of virtual completion at the time of Mozart's death ? Yes, or no ??

And finally (since I don't want to be too hard on you with 247 questions on the Requiem) -

3. The faked 'Mozart' signature. Do you agree or not that the signature on the Requiem is actually a fake - written by another person for the simple reason that it was intended to deceive those who read it ? True or False ?

If you, Mango, can answer these questions (you who wish to defend 'tradition') we will be greatly impressed. But I fear that you cannot answer us and you cannot defend tradition on these basic and simple issues.

The plain fact is that the Requiem is a minefield of problems - the last fake of a fake career.

Let us hear your defence on these 3 points.

Finally, there is nothing 'incredible' in not being able to write in detail on the 4 works which have finally been chosen. I am in Florida for the next 6 weeks or so - far from my notes, my references etc. That is the reason (twice already stated here) why I cannot answer until my return to England. Is that really 'incredible' ?

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Hi Leporello,

I want first to thank you for being so refreshingly fair and so truly dedicated to understanding these issues. Yes of course I would like you to agree with the view held by several students such as Professors Taboga, Bianchini, Trombetta and myself (to say nothing of various others) that Mozart's career (and that of Haydn) _was _massively 'stage managed' by patrons behind the scenes. But you already know (and again I appreciate this to be true) that such things are not proved or otherwise in heated single posts over any one work or by any one sort of evidence. Whether we finally agree or disagree, thank you for your attitude here on this forum to such a contentious and controversial issue and for your sensible and balanced method. Such things are all too rare in studies of Mozart and they show a rare ability to get to the truth.

I won't make this a long post but I would like to say (to suggest) that in the life and career of Mozart we already have a track record from his early years that is, beyond reasonable doubt, filled with half-truths, exaggerations, fictions, false attributions and downright fakery - whether we are talking of his supposed achievements or of whether he and his family attributed works to Mozart or to their true composers.

If, for example, it can be shown that the young Mozart was performing works as if they were by himself when, in fact, they were by other composers this, in itself, is surely evidence of irregularity. But this IS what we find. We find example after example of this occurring with Mozart up till the year of his arrival in Vienna. We find, in fact, a pattern of behaviour that gives us a fair and reasonable suspiciion about 'his' mature achievements even before we begin to examine them in detail. And if, for example, a bank manager sees in a customer a record of forged checks, or bounced checks, is he not being fair and reasonable to treat such a customer with special care ? So it is with Mozart.

Mozart wrote 'such and such' an opera or 'such and such a concerto;, or 'such and such a symphony' in so many days, or weeks - feats that we accept on no other grounds other than the fact that they are 'traditions'. Mozart is credited with the virtually miraculous - again on 'traditional' grounds. We see fakery and forgery but, time and time again, we suspend fair and reasonable criticism if the fakery and forgery are related to the career and reputation of this same Mozart. It's this grossly biased and unfair approach that seduces us when, of course, we should judge Mozart by the very same standards as we would judge any other composer.

But thank you again. I believe that, in the end, we can only present a case that is fair, reasonable and accountable. Thank you for doing all of this, regardless of whether we agree or not.


----------



## Guest

Mr Newman

Here we go again.



robert newman said:


> Hi there Mango,
> 
> Another extraordinary post from the 'same Mango' who was asked repeatedly, post after post on this very thread, to give ANY specific concerto, quartet or symphony from all the works of 'Mozart' which would survive cross-examination but who, everyone now sees, couldn't suggest any.


Again, Mr Newman, you are totally misconceived. Now it seems you are confusing me with Manuel whom you repeatedly asked to supply such examples of Mozart works. But - as was pointed out to you and which you accepted - it was not Manuel but Mark Harwood you should have been asking, as it was he who first made this offer but later declined, presumably out of boredom with the whole topic.



> You say I've provided no evidence of a 5 year rule operating in the secret supply to Mozart of masterpieces written by a network of other composers. In point of fact, I can direct you (and already have in my last post if only you would read in detail) to various symphonies of 'Mozart' which he claims to have composed around 1788, copies of which are today at Modena, Italy (in the Estense Library) but which are written there on paper by a copyist - paper that was not even being manufactured anywhere in the entire world after 1784. These same copies came from Bonn chapel and came to Modena from the Bonn Chapel on its closure in 1794.


This is dubious on several counts:

i. Where does it state on these Modena documents when they were written? There are no dates as far I as I know. They could have been written after Mozart composed them.

ii. The special paper on which they are written could have been lying around for years after it was last manufactured, assuming it was 1784.

iii. If the last 3 Mozart symphonies of Mozart at Modena were written in accordance with the alleged 5 year rule, it would imply they were written before Summer 1783. This was one year before the deal was allegedly struck to supply Mozart from Bonn. At that time, Luchesi was allegedly supplying Joseph Haydn. So, how on earth was it ever considered possible to get away with switching the customer from Haydn to Mozart, who wrote in a different style? It doesn't stack up.

iv. Why is Symphony 40 not among these Modena documents?

v. On the matter of the 5 year rule, again you haven't answered my question about what happened to any Luchesi works written after December 1786 which were allegedly destined for Mozart after the so-called 5 year rule expired. It's funny you have dodged this question yet again.



> Let ME ask you Mango -
> 
> 1. What evidence can YOU produce that Mozart was commissioned in 1791 to compose a Requiem ???


I have no more wish to engage with you in a detailed analysis of the provenance of any of Mozart's works than I would, for example, a crackpot Bible-thumper who came knocking at my door trying to convert me to some alternative view of Christianity based on a few highly selective passages. I place much more trust in the expertise of established bodies than oddballs peddling their wares on Forums like this.

The reason, of course, why I discount heavily the views of tiny minorities is that I know from common sense and experience that they are generally talking complete rubbish, just as you are. The onus is on you to disprove the conventional wisdom, not for me (I'm not a Mozart scholar) to defend it. People like you with grand, alternative views of conventionally accepted wisdom are usually (99.9999 % of the time) crackpots. If there was any truth in what you are alleging you would not be grubbing around in here with, currently, just two people who are prepared to be reasonably civil towards you. Everyone else has packed up either out of utter disbelief, boredom with your continual flow of mere assertion, or sheer frustration at the lack of decent evidence.

As I have said to you before, you should try to get your views published in a reputable journal. This is the normal procedure for challenging accepted views, but I suspect you probably have tried but no one will touch it because your claims are so laughable. Is that the case?

Lastly, I see your recent post in reply to Leporello87 is again a mixture of condescending flannel and mere assertion.


----------



## Guest

Leporello87 said:


> It's not really an issue of "beginning to understand the problem".
> 
> ....rest assured I was familiar with the history.
> 
> .........
> 
> My goal here is to stay rational and learn from Mr. Newman what I can about his viewpoint on things, and more importantly, the evidence which he has that concretely supports those viewpoints, if such evidence exists.
> 
> .........
> 
> I am curious to see if documentary evidence of the Modena type exists for other Mozart pieces, and what the strength of this evidence is. If this sort of evidence doesn't turn out to be available, well then, that's how it goes, right? I see no harm in trying.


I bet you will finish up very disappointed. Much of this has already been looked at here and elsewhere.

What the "Modena type" of material will never tell you is when and by whom the works were composed. They could be, for example, student sketches from the Bonn Chapel based on works previously written by Mozart.

If you read about the provenance of the Modena files themselves you'll see this is pretty murky, having been carted around different parts of Europe before finally finishing up in Modena.

I'm sorry to say that I think you are wasting your time. This is not the way to conduct scholarly research, at least in my experience. Surely you must agree.

The really big question that remains unanswered is who the hell is Luchesi? Can anyone point to a single example of his work and say" look how good it is"? Nothing else of that period gets anywhere near close to the ultra-high quality of late Mozart works. It's this fact that gives the essential lie to the whole thesis.

Regards

Mango


----------



## Leporello87

Mango said:


> The really big question that remains unanswered is who the hell is Luchesi? Can anyone point to a single example of his work and say" look how good it is"? Nothing else of that period gets anywhere near close to the ultra-high quality of late Mozart works. It's this fact that gives the essential lie to the whole thesis.


This is of course a huge question I've had all along, and not just about Luchesi. The assertion here is that several composers wrote Mozart pieces, so we need to in turn evaluate each and every one of those and see if they would be capable of producing such music.

Mango asked a great series of questions, which articulate clearly some ofthe problems I have with trusting the Modena file. If I may, I'd like to append one more question to the series of questions Mango asked.

If the presence of the Modena file is actually genuine and causes a problem in preserving the "myth" of Mozart and Haydn, how is it that it never came to be destroyed? It seems that if powerful people were involved in rewriting the "true" history and maintaining this facade of Austrian musical genius, it should have been easy to get rid of this file. It also seems like the file would've been particularly vulnerable while it was being transferred to Modena, and then afterwards while it was sitting in the library. And yet, it has sat peacefully, almost completely ignored, for 200 years. Now, I know that the Modena file wasn't _entirely_ ignored, because I believe the claim is that cover sheets for the symphonies were ripped out and replaced with ones that have Mozart's name on them, correct? So there has been knowledge of these manuscripts. And yet, no one tried to destroy them. Why not -- or, is there a good reason why they didn't have the ability to do so?


----------



## robert newman

Mango was happy to ask the following question here -

_What is the standard, traditional evidence about the origins of the Requiem which Mr Newman does not accept ? _

I replied to his question as follows -

1. There is not a single shred of evidence that Mozart was ever commissioned to write a Requiem in 1791 - the year of his death. But tradition says the very opposite, doesn't it ?

1. What evidence can YOU produce that Mozart was commissioned in 1791 to compose a Requiem ???

Let me repeat the question. Let's see where Mozart 'experts' take us on this simple question. WHAT EVIDENCE CAN BE PRODUCED THAT MOZART WAS COMMISSIONED IN 1791 TO COMPOSE A REQUIEM ?

Neither Mango nor his supposed 'experts' can produce anything. Why is this ? IT'S BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE MOZART WAS COMMISSIONED TO WRITE A REQUIEM. EVIDENCE CAN'T BE PRODUCED TO SUPPORT THIS TRADITION BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE HAS NEVER EXISTED. Yet it's widely taught and believed.

Next -

2. According to tradition (i.e. according to statements repeatedly given by Constanze Mozart and also by Maximilian Stadler (1826) the 'Mozart' Requiem was in a state of 'virtual completion' at the time of Mozart's death.

My second question was therefore this (and I repeat it) -

2. WAS Mozart's Requiem really in a state of virtual completion at the time of Mozart's death ? Yes, or no ??

What do you say Mango ? What do your 'Mozart experts' say ? WE KNOW VERY WELL WHAT CONSTANZE MOZART, MAXIMILIAN STADLER AND OTHERS (ALL OF THEM DEFENDERS OF THE WORK'S SUPPOSED AUTHENTICITY) said. WAS MOZART'S REQUIEM IN A STATE OF VIRTUAL COMPLETION AT THE TIME OF MOZART'S DEATH ?? A simple YES or NO will be sufficient. But, once again, Mango, the defender of tradition and the man who puts his trust in 'experts' cannot answer this basic question. Why not ? It's because the 'tradition' in which he trusts is based on nothing. The 'Mozart' Requiem was NOT in a state of virtual completion at the time of Mozart's death. Constanze Mozart, Maximilian Stadler (1826), Sussmayr and others involved in this 'scam' were liars. And we all know it.

And here is the 3rd question, repeated so that Mango and 'experts' can defend Mozart's reputation on this work -

3. The faked 'Mozart' signature. Do you agree Mango that the 'Mozart' signature on the Requiem is a fake - i.e. written by another person in a hand that was meant to deceive those who read it ? Yes or No ?

MANGO ASKED FOR REASONS WHY THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF THIS WORK IS FALSE. I HAVE GIVEN 3 REASONS (FROM DOZENS). What has he to say in defence of tradition ? What facts - what evidence - what support can he provide to support the things he believes ? What 'experts' will come his rescue ? NONE AT ALL.

The Mozart Requiem is a fake. A clever fake, for sure. But one that genuine students of this piece can see is a fake - the last in a whole series of fakes that were produced to create the illusion that Mozart was a composer far greater than he actually was.

So I have answered Mango's question. It now remains to be seen whether he or any supposed 'experts' can come to the rescue of 'tradition'.

Mango, I hope that you have the integrity to admit that on these points (with the 'Mozart Requiem') there are good grounds for saying that lies, falsehoods and fakery are already proved to have created the 'traditional view' beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## Morigan

I would simply like to place a remark here. I've been following the debate very closely without involving myself in it, and I wish to continue doing so. 

The case of the Requiem is, I think, a special one. Unfinished works by famous composers are very often finished (at least tentatively) by others after their deaths, with or without revealing the "secret" to the public. Even if Mozart had only written the first two prayers (or none at all!), it doesn't prove he wasn't as good a composer most people believe he was.

That the Requiem be a fake, either partially or entirely, I don't really mind. There are much greater works by W. A. Mozart that deserve close analysis than this semi-legend.

Don't get me wrong here — the Requiem is an excellent work, but taking one piece off the Köchel Verzeichnis still leaves 625 other masterpieces (even though the first 100 ones are not exactly masterpieces ).


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Mango was happy to ask the following question here -
> 
> _What is the standard, traditional evidence about the origins of the Requiem which Mr Newman does not accept ? _
> 
> I replied to his question as follows -
> 
> 1. There is not a single shred of evidence that Mozart was ever commissioned to write a Requiem in 1791 - the year of his death. But tradition says the very opposite, doesn't it ?
> 
> etc


So, Mr Newman, your answer to my question is that there is not a shred of evidence.

How silly. This is not what I asked you. Have another think and try to do better next time.

BTW, you might have a look at the new members section where I introduced myself.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Mango, 

Let's make a deal. I won't personalise this debate if you won't. How about it ? 

Now, the issue is very clear. You say that you prefer to trust the views of 'experts' in such matters. But it's these 'experts' who tell us that Mozart was commissioned to write a Requiem in 1791. I regret to tell you there is not a single shred of evidence to support this 'traditional'/orthodox' view. Now, if you can find from your textbooks or your sources ANY evidence whatsoever to support this basic belief please (at the third time of asking) present it here. Otherwise please concede that what is taught on this single issue has no supporting evidence in its favour. 

I think I am being completely fair and reasonable. 

Secondly, PLEASE (at the third time of asking) tell us whether the Requiem was virtually finished at the time of Mozart's death or not ? Surely, surely, you can tell us at least YES or NO ? 

And finally, PLEASE (again at the third time of asking) will you agree that a fake signature and inscription was written on the manuscript for the obvious purpose of deceiving those who read it to believe that he, Mozart, wrote the manuscript. Is this TRUE or FALSE ? 

You might try to do better next time ? After all, the issue here is Mozart and is not what you, I or anyone else thinks or does not think. There are many reasons to regard 'Mozart's Requiem' as a fake. These 3 points alone are more than enough, it seems, to make you avoid any answer. 

Consult your 'experts' and then please, please, please, answer the questions. 

Thank You


----------



## robert newman

Hi Morigan,

Well, you are prepared to accept that the 'Mozart Requiem' is indeed a fake. WOW !

If you accept the likelihood that it's a fake you will also agree that lies, deception and downright falsehoods have featured in its history, and that these played a part in its genesis. You will accept also that people like Maximilian Stadler and Constanze (wife of Mozart) lied and lied again about its genesis, as did others such as Sussumayr.

But this, you say, does not call in to question Mozart's overall achievements. Let me answer this -

You've been reading this thread. Fine. You will be aware therefore (and you may even accept it) that fakery, exaggeration and falsehood featured a great deal in the supposed life and musical career of Mozart in his childrhood and in his earlier years. There is, in short, a track record here. A track record that ends (you may even agree) with a fake Requiem.

But where can we find a story of such fakery in the whole history of classical music to compare with this story, of Mozart ?

You still don't see the massive scale of the problem. You say -

_'Taking one piece off the Köchel Verzeichnis still leaves 625 other masterpieces (even though the first 100 ones are not exactly masterpieces)' _

Well, nobody is taking ONE piece off the accepted list. The collapse of Mozart's compositional achievements has been happening for the last 200 years. Aren;t you even aware of it ? Don't you know that HUNDREDS of works were once 'Mozart' but have been dropped off the list ? Don't you know that entire works were 'Mozart' which, today, have been removed from the list. Dozens and dozens and dozens of them.

And how many new works have been added in this time ? The traffic is moving in only one direction and it now includes some of the most famous 'Mozart' works of them all. The stream has become a river and it's now heading out to the sea. That is the plain fact of the matter.

So it's not just ONE work. It's literally DOZENS AND DOZENS of works. We have today clear, undeniable, evidence of fakery and deception playing a major role (even during Mozart's lifetime) in his supposed compositional achievements. The truth has finally caught up with the icon.

Mozart's repuation was falsely created. That is the fact of the matter. The scale of such deception is what we are here discussing.

Regards


----------



## Guest

Mr Newman

I regret to say you are clearly being either incredibly naive or plain awkward. 

All I am asking is what is your understanding of the standard view of how the Requiem was commissioned. I'll give you a big clue: think of Count Walsegg. Now has the penny dropped? Just tell us your understanding of the Walsegg connection as conventionally understood, and then criticise it if you wish. I want to see exactly what it is you are criticising, or rather exactly what aspects of the Walsegg account you dispute. I take it you are familiar with the current thinking on this matter by proper, acknowledged Mozart scholars. If not try digging around the CMG site, the one you were banned from last September for allegedly being an utter nuisance. I assure you it's all set out there, and if you can't find it well tough. 

And let's also have some answers to the earlier questions I lobbed at you about all this Modena nonsense, involving material with no dates, and the so-called 5 year waiting time before Luchesi's works could be claimed by anyone. Where is it written down anywhere that this 5 year wait was part of the deal, and what is the logic behind it? It seems utterly ludicrous that someone would produce a work for someone else and say it mustn't be used for 5 years. Don't forget (as you have done repeatedly) to answer my request for advice on what happened to all the works by Luchesi from Dec 1786 that were awaiting the 5 year period to elapse. Do tell us please. What is your excuse for this awkward fact? 

And do tell us what works we can listen to by Luchesi that stands comparison with the late works of Mozart. Merely saying they're all by Luchesi won't do, as this argument is circular, which I trust even you might be able to see. For your case to stand even a remote chance of success you have to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Luchesi was a very highly gifted composer, not just by reputation but by demonstrable works of top drawer quality that he actually wrote. There aren't any are there?

I await enlightenment on these questions but I am not in the slightest bit optimistic you will oblige. We will probably get more claptrap and question dodging. If so, I do not intend to respond to any more of your nonsense, and can only suggest that others do the same. In fact, they are all amazingly quiet for some reason. Perhaps they have all gone, or just soaking up how evasive you are when come up against a bit of real pressure.


----------



## robert newman

Mango, 

The real pressure is on you. Please answer the 3 questions on the Requiem if you wish to show that your 'traditional' view has a shred of factual support. But you cannot and will not do so. Let readers judge for themselves. I rest my case. 

You say you are not optimistic that I will educate you about the life and career of Andrea Luchesi. Well Mango, unlike you (who wants only to personalise these issues) I am more than happy to give an outline and a comparison between the real Mozart and the real Andrea Luchesi. Just to make you better informed, you understand ? 

1. Mozart was never at any time employed in an employed post as an adult composer (with the single exception of a largely token employment for court music at the end of his life and as an unpaid organist shortly before his death). The simple and plain fact is that for years your 'genius' composer was not deemed to be worthy of obtaining any employment post. 

2. Andrea Luchesi was employed for 24 years continuously in one of the leading musical posts of the entire Holy Roman Empire - Kapellmeister at Bonn. This post was one of the most prestigious. Luchesi was the true teacher of the young Beethoven and a string of other talented pupils there. 

3. Unlike Mozart (whose token visits to teachers such as Padre Martini are an example) Luchesi actually STUDIED music. He (Luchesi, Beethoven, and every other composer other than Mozart) went to school. In fact, Luchesi studied for years under the greatest teachers and theorists of his time. The same is definitely NOT true of Mozart. 

4. Luchesi (and not Mozart) was chosen as a widely aciknowledged musical talent to becoime Kapellmeister at Bonn - a position he retained for 24 years. 

5. In publications of the time (e.g. Essai sur la Musique - several volumes - by de la Bordes - written in Paris in the early 1780's - the name of Luchesi has an entry saying that his symphonies are in 'great demand among German princes for their beauty'. Luchesi is also praised by Charles Burney, a leading musicologist of the time, Compare this, Mango, with the fact that this same de ka Bordes publication has NO ENTRY at all for either Haydn or Mozart as being writers of symphonies !. And ask yourself which composer, Luchesi or Mozart, was actually the more famed writer of Symphonies at this time. The plain fact is Mozart's first 20 symphonies (so-called) lack any real evidence to attribute them to W.A. Mozart. He, Mozart was NOT known as a writer of symphonies at this time. 

6. Luchesi was the first composer to have music published at Bonn. A set of sonatas for violin and keyboard that anticipate by over 15 years the style and emotional content of Ludwig van Beethoven. 

7. Luchesi was the true teacher of Beethoven and of many other talented pupils at Bonn. 

8. In 1783 (during a one year stay in Italy) Luchesi composed an opera seria 'Armida' for the state visit to Italy of the King of Sweden, 

9. The works of Luchesi composed in Bonn between 1771 and his retirement in 1794 have mysteriously disappeared despite the fact that the Bonn archives now at Modena contain 9 symphonies today attrributed to Mozart - when, in fact, Mozart is not even known by a single work at Bonn in 1784 - the year of the last music inventory in that city. 

10, That Luchesi was a highly talented composer is a plain fact of musical history according to several sources (including Italian, French and German). 

There are still extant several works by Luchesi (including the Sonatas Op.1) but also several symphonies and other pieces. The vast majority are, however, today attributed falsely to either Haydn or Mozart as repeatedly said here and elsewhere. 

If you would provide me with your email address I will happily send you a symphony and other pieces by Luchesi - these indisputably by him. 

I do hope that you will begin to question versions of music history rather more than you seem willing to do at present. All that is asked is for you to distinguish between fact and popular myth. 

Regards


----------



## Leporello87

robert newman said:


> If you would provide me with your email address I will happily send you a symphony and other pieces by Luchesi - these indisputably by him.


Do have pieces beyond what are posted on the italianopera.org website? I would also be interested in hearing more pieces of Luchesi. These sonatas that "anticipate Beethoven" sound like they would be interesting to listen to.


----------



## robert newman

Yes Leporello. If you can send me an email address I can sort this out. There are several works that I can send you. And to any other reader who may be interested.

Reference the Op. 1 Sonatas of Luchesi - (this found online) -

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...html+luchesi+sonatas&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

_ANDREA LUCHESI (1741-1801): 6 Sonatas for Piano and Violin Obbligato, Op. 1. A remarkable find. Luchesi was maestro di cappella at the same court where Beethoven's grandfather had been in charge and the young Beethoven spent much time with Luchesi in the court musical activities. How startling to find "Beethovenian" characteristics sprinkled here and there in Luchesi's sonatas published six years before Beethoven's birth! These are works which look ahead from the late Classical period to the Romantic ideal - especially their several meditative, melodically intense andantes. Maria Grazia Baiocchi (piano), Carlos Garfias (violin). Agora AG 210.1 (Italy) 12B031 $18.98_''

There is also a very fine symphony in D Major (dating from around 1780) which I personally think is the best surviving example of Luchesi's remarkable talents at that time. Bear in mind that the vast majority of his works from those Bonn years have completely disappeared - even those operas and stage works which he composed using a pen name 'D'Anthoine' both before 1784 and after 1791.

Regards


----------



## Evan Roberts

Hi Robert Newman, I've been following this thread quite closely, and while I do not yet feel that the facts presented lead only to the conclusions you have come to, I do feel that they are concrete enough to require answers from those who believe faithfully in the integrity of Mozart.

I would be very interested in hearing the works from Luchesi, If you send them to my email address [email protected] I will do my best in attempting a comparison to the works credited to Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven.


----------



## Handel

Evan Roberts said:


> I will do my best in attempting a comparison to the works credited to Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven.


If Luchesi really composed, for example Mozart's Jupiter symphony and Haydn's 102nd symphony, there should be stylistic similitudes. If not, Luchesi is a heck of composer.


----------



## robert newman

Hi Handel, 

Thanks for your comment. Perhaps I should clarify something from the start. Nobody is saying that all the works of Mozart (or all the 'Mozart' symphonies) were actually composed by Andrea Luchesi. This understanding of things has caused a great deal of misunderstanding so I think it should be clarified. What IS being said is that Mozart was actually being provided with a string of musical works by other composers - a virtual network of composers - the net result of which grossly inflates and exaggerates Mozart's true compositional achievements. 

Now, regarding the two works in question (the 'Jupiter') and the 'Haydn Symphony No. 102' I think it may be best to deal with these separately. 

It is my view (shared by several other researchers) that the 'Jupiter' Symphony is not a symphony by W.A. Mozart. It is of course described in countless textbooks ('ad nauseum') as being the 3rd in a trilogy of symphonies composed by Mozart in the summer of 1788. And, for sure, that is what Mozart himself claims (as we see in his thematic catalogue). The assumption is therefore that this 'prodigy of nature' composed in around 6 weeks these 3 extraordinary works, symphonies known generally as 39, 40 and 41 'Jupiter'. 

But this amazing achievement (a truly amazing one when we bear in mind the true achievements of Mozart with symphonies prior to 1784) is yet another plank in the structure that we can call 'tradition'. We believe that he, Mozart, was able to write us a concerto before breakfast, an opera before lunch, and mass or two before dinner. We are told (on grounds that are, frankly, false) that he did 'miracles' of this kind virtually from the time that he first sat in front of a keyboard. That Mozart, in around the same span of time (according tio his supposed librettist da Ponte) composed in 6 weeks also none other than the amazing opera 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. Or that Mozart, from the sheer power of his memory was able, in Rome, to write down from memory a sacred church piece that was otherwise inaccessible to others. The plain facts are very, very different. 

I believe the true composer of the 'Jupiter' symphony (and why is it named such ?????) was not Mozart but another, greatly neglected and truly talented composer in Germany, J.H. Knecht. A composer with a formidable reputation as a teacher and composer as well as a published expert in organ, keyboard and in church music. Knecht's music was used at least twice in Mozart's life to inflate the latter's supposed achievements. 

Now, I realise you will ask for justification of this view and I will be criticised for not providing one here. Sorry for that but I don;t have many of my notes here. I will just say that the real 'godfather' of this mythical Mozart was Abbe Georg Vogler - a composer of medium talent whose role was to acquire for Mozart works by composers all around Catholic Europe. And thus the 'Jupiter' is, in fact, a work composed by JH Knecht, a composer so talented and so scandalously ignored that he can be compared to Andrea Luchesi in terms of his talents. 

Mozart was not commissioned to write any of the 'last 3 symphonies' that bear his name. They are (as are virtually all 'Mozart' symphonies) far less certainly his than is often supposed. I agree that more detailed argument is required before anyone would accept this point of view. But at least I've made a rough start. 

Regarding 'Haydn's' symphony 102 (one of the very last) there is considerable evidence that 'Haydn's' symphonies were almost entirely by other composers - this including (for the greater part) Sammartini and the previously mentioned Andrea Luchesi. So too many masses falsely attributed to Haydn. It was of ciourse no coincidence that Haydn, on his way to London for his famed music tour, stopped off in Bonn - a place where he was very well known and where, as usual, he could pick up works that he would have published as his own. It happened time and time again in the real career of Haydn. And the list of those whose works became 'Haydn's' included even the little known 'Swedish Mozart' Joseph Martin Kraus (1756-1792) - a composer who also helped Mozart with 'Idomeneo' and who at one time wrote almost 10 works falsely attributed to Mozart. 

At the time of Haydn's retirement from Esterhazy all the works there became 'Haydn' works though, in fact, no concert programme from Esterhazy credits him with being the composer of these works. We have considerable evidence that Sammartini was supplying Esterhazy and other places with symphonies at the rate of several a month. In addition, Luchesi is recorded even before his arrival in Bonn in 1771 tio have supplied Esterhazy with several symphonies of his own. And we have clear evidence from manuscripts at Modnena and elsewhere that autographs of 'Haydn' symphonies were actually written far more recently than their supposed date of composition. The entire subject of what Haydn wrote (and what he did not) is riddled with contradcitions and discrepancies. 

Some of 'Haydn's' latest works (such as the 7 Last Words) were not, in fact, composed by Haydn at all. That particular work was composed by Andrea Luchesi and it is refered to by name in the 1784 music inventory at Bonn - years before its supposed (and imaginary) composition for Cadiz by 'Haydn'. 

There is institutionalised dishonesty in the 'official' careers of both Haydn and Mozart that deserves to be called such. Books are written quoting still earlier exaggerations and downright errors - the net effect of which is perpetuate a myth for these two 'geniuses'. 

I hope to be able to post here on 'Haydn 102' but not for a few months. 

Best regards


----------



## robert newman

Thanks Evan Roberts, 

I will try to sort out some things for you in the next few days. 

Regards


----------



## Guest

Mr Newman

I was not going to comment any further on the highly dubious material you continue to spew out but annoyance has got the better of me. It is truly astonishing how you dodge all critical questions put to you. From the last few of your posts alone, you have clearly demonstrated that you have no evidence to support your views and that your whole position is based on mere assertion with no proof. From an analysis of your style, you are clearly relying to a large extent on the hope that, if you write long enough pieces, and repeat all the assertions over and over gain, it will look as though you are answering questions. You are in fact just making a bigger fool of yourself, as this question-dodging merely demonstrates the wholly vacuous nature of your position. I wonder how much, for example, Leporello87 and Mark Harwood have learned that’s new from your recent writings: absolutely nothing at all I should think, as we have heard it all before. 

As regards your arguments to suggest that there was a virtual network of composers supplying Mozart and Haydn, I can see why you have re-fashioned this part of your argument. Clearly even the most handicapped type of dimwit could see through the stupidity of your former assertions that it was all mainly the work of Luchesi. Even with this “refinement” the thesis still doesn’t hold water because the list of other alleged suppliers is notorious for their non-entity status. Further, this alleged proliferation of composer sources makes your task even more difficult because you are now really saying you haven’t a clue who composed what or when. It’s all completely random, isn’t it Mr Newman. How on earth do you know it was J H Knecht that composed Symphony 41 “Jupiter”? There is not the slightest shred of evidence for this. And who the heck is Knecht? What else did he compose. Can we have a list please?


Let me re-iterate that your arguments are highly questionable for a number of reasons, among which are:

•	It is completely illogical for any composer or group of composers to forgo the credit of composing high quality works to be passed off as someone else’s without a very strong motive and documentary proof (e.g. evidence of contracts or proof of payments), etc. I cannot think of anyone in the normal course of events who would allow their reputations to be so devalued, or usurped by others, and it is utter nonsense to suggest otherwise.

•	The Modena documents are not dated, and their provenance is very murky. They don’t prove a thing.

•	There is no logic in the alleged 5 year rule preventing works produced by the true composer to be claimed by others. If this is true, what happened to the Luchesi works allegedly written by him after 1786?

•	There is nothing of any value by Luchesi. What little there is is weak.

•	You cannot explain why Mozart output stopped after Mozart’s death, if your claim is correct that he was supplied. Why didn’t the source(s) find some other outlet, or publish in their own names? 

•	You cannot reconcile the differing styles of Haydn and Mozart if they were both supplied by Luchesi.

•	It is not true that many Mozart works have been discredited. There has been one of any note in the past 100 years (symphony 37). 

•	You cannot point to one single work (of proven identity published in their own names) by any of these mythical supplying composers that remotely matches the quality of late Mozart.


Incidentally, it is not true that there is no evidence to show that Mozart was commissioned to write the Requiem. You are talking rubbish on this, as you are on everything else. There are several web sources discussing this matter, and, as I explained, there is a further analysis on this very topic in a Mozart thread on the CMG forum several months ago, but I do not intend to mention here the names of those involved. I suggest instead you (and any others who might be interested) look for it. It’s not that difficult to find and contains the provenance of the Requiem by an authoritative source, and is far more convincing than the mind-bogglingly facile “denial” twaddle you have come out with.


----------



## Guest

Further to my previous post, another of Mr Newman’s arguments is the notion that because the quality of Mozart material post 1783/84 was markedly higher than that before this date, it must suggest a change of “supplier(s)”. Yet another position suggested earlier in the thread by one or two simple minds - endorsed by Mr Newman, who of course is grateful for any support - is that Mozart must be a fraud simply because he wrote so much material in such a short life span! 

Such arguments prove nothing. Take Schubert, for example. The volume of his output was probably higher than Mozart’s and was accomplished in a much shorter timescale. The quality of Schubert’s works increased substantially from good, to very good to superlative in the space of about 15 years from his juvenile start until his premature death at age 31 (4 years younger than Mozart). Quality change is simply part and parcel of some (many?) composer's musical evolution.

That Mozart was a genius of the very highest level is beyond doubt. This is accepted the world over. Only a tiny handful of people think otherwise. The latter remain seemingly unshaken by criticism, and often adopt the hurt “turn the other cheek” attitude, while they merely carry on spewing out the same rubbish in defiance of established wisdom and scholarship.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Mango,

Readers of this thread had real hopes that you would prove to be a saviour of Mozart's gargantuan reputation and would finally offer some straight answers to each of the 3 specific questions asked repeatedly on 'his (supposed) Requiem. But it was not to be. Please tell us if you approve of circulating a pastoral letter to the Mozart faithful - reassuring them that Mozart scholarship has survived these insane attacks on your hero and is still in the good hands of approved Fatima 'experts'. Are we now to expect Mozart's statue in Salzburg to weep tears this year ? Are there morale boosting plans to canonise Koechel and to raise Constanze Mozart to the status of a blessed icon ? Should we have another year of 'wall to wall' Mozart ? Does Mozart's music really help growers of tomatoes to obtain higher yields ?

You see, I am struggling to understand how such a blatant disregard of the real issues and a clear avoidance of direct questions can impress anyone. It's still another proof that defenders of Mozart's compositional reputation live on a quite different planet from everyone else.

You ask, _'Who the heck is JH Knecht' ?_ (This outburst neatly matches the question of one of your fellow Mozart devotees who recenty asked, _'Who the hell is Luchesi_ ?' - Mango, such examples of the fog that you and the zealots of Mozart live in with respect to other musicians is typical. Don't you know that JH Knecht was one of the leading musical minds of late 18th century Germany ? An author of books on theory that were owned and widely read by many composers of his tiime including one Ludwig van Beethoven ? Has it escaped you Mango that the same Knecht was a pioneer in Singspiel productions ? Are you ignorant of his great reputation as a composer of church music and of organ works ? The Pastoral Symphony of this same JH Knecht has movement names that are virtually identicial to those used years later by Beethoven himself. But what is the point of exposing the ignorance of those whose musical universe has planets revolving around a Mozartean sun ?

There is nothing illogical about a network of composers working to falsely enhance the reputation of another. Especially if they did so willingly, The first network in the Mozart story is so plain and so well known that even you, Mango, will surely admit to its existence. I mean of course the father and sister of Mozart - who grossly inflated and aided to Mozart's supposed achievements as a boy, youth and even that of his last years. That works were also published in Mozart's name by leading publishers which, in point of fact, were composed by other composers (even during his lifetime) is, again, an embarrasing and indisputable fact of history. And so on.

You say the Modena documents are not dated and their provenance is very murky. Mango, this sudden knowledge of the music held in 'Mozart's' name at Modena is very impressive. Has it come from a nameable source ? Or is it the first proof that one of your mythical Mozart experts has finally got off his backside to study these documents ? You surely cannot be ingorant of the fact that many of these works have numbers on them left over from musical inventories, in other cases the initials of copyists, and that all are written on paper that has checkable watermarks etc. So the business of knowing each piece and where it came from is not quite so unknown or unknowable as you suppose, Since Mozart 'experts' have never at any time written on these documents (nor 'experts' on Haydn) we must certainly hope that Mozart expertise will finally be competent enough to buy and use a map of Modena.

So I can't explain why Mozart's output stopped after Mozart's death ? Mango, one good reason was, of course, that Mozart was dead. But you are quite right that works contiinued to be written in Mozart's name, even after his death in 1791. Not by Luchesi, however. The Requiem is one such example. There are others.

You say that only one work by 'Mozart' has been dropped from the Koechel list in the past 100 years. Please tell that to the editors of Koechel who will be surprised to learn of it.

May I suggest, dear Mozartean, that you gain a little more knowledge of Mozart's contemporaries ?


----------



## robert newman

Mango, in your latest defence of Mozart you argue that his 'genius of the very highest level is beyond doubt'. Well, the very fact that we are having this debate suggests there is real doubt. 

That works of a very high musical quality exist in Mozart's name is not, of course, disputed. But that he, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, was their true composer IS disputed. And not only by me. 

The 'established wisdom and scholarship' to which you refer is very conspicuous on this thread by its absence. Music lovers have learned more by its absence than by its presence. 


Regards


----------



## Manuel

> The 'established wisdom and scholarship' to which you refer is very conspicuous on this thread by its absence. Music lovers have learned more by its absence than by its presence.


Not really. I think we have already agreed that real Mozart experts will not spend their time in amateur musical forums.

And it seems, as I quoted from CMG, that when you find them you violently attack them.
I suppose those who doesn't succumb to your agressions are bored to tears with your repetitive Mumbo jumbo.

Let me rephrase myself. 
You have no proofs. And so you proved nothing. Your theories are interesting, but without evidence, they are not to be considered nothing else than fiction. For the time being, they are mere *fantasy*.
You do act as a fiction writer: you study real facts, and invent relations between them.


----------



## robert newman

Manuel, 

If yuu were asked why you believe Mozart was not a fake you would appeal to textbooks based on earlier textbooks, these in turn based on other textbooks, and ending, finally, in the lies, exaggerations and well known falsehoods of such early sources as Constanze Mozart, Nissen, Maximilian Stadler, and F. Niemetscheck. 

Constanze Mozart (just for your information) was time and time again exposed as a liar and a peddler of other people's music in her husband;s name even during the lifetime of Mozart himself. That's FACT and I will hapoily provide evidence of it. She lied and lied again about the Requiem. She repeatedly lies in many, many aspects of Mozart's life and on his supposed achievements. Why don't you ask me for examples ? 

The Mozart biography of Nissen (second husband to Constanze Mozart) was not, in fact, even written by Nissen. He wrote (in actual fact) not a single word of it. Not one. It was actually written by Constanze Mozart, aided and abetted by her mythmakers. Nor did Nissen ever once meet Mozart. 

F. Nimetscheck (a consumate liar also) also never once met Mozart. Yet he is credited with the first biography of the composer. This same Niemetscheck nevertheless adopted one of Mozart's children. 

You have such blatantly dubious material as the basis for much of the myth of Mozart, supported of course by a mass of correspondence (much of it grossly exaggerated and plain wrong). In the case of Mozart's father (a Jesuit educated mediochre compooser and showman) it ican shown beyond reasonable doubt that up until the year of his death in 1787 he falsified, faked, exaggerated his son's supposed talents and achievements and was helped to exaggerate almost every aspect of his 'genius'. Mozart was groomed (by his hdden patrons) to become a glory of Vienna (in the same way that Hadyn was) - and a network of great musical works were attributed to W.A. Mozart which, in actual fact, he never wrote. 

Having clearly shown this is the case in the infamous 'Requiem' the 'fantasy' (to quote your own word) is entirely with those who clearly refuse to present evidence in support of Mozart's traditional reputation. That failure is crystal clear here on this thread.. And it becomes ever more obvious. 

We have achieved a great deal. We see plainly that when the Mozart myth is challenged on grounds that are fair, open and honest, (i.e. by comparing rival versions) it crumbles to dust - but not before the traditionalist in his/her ignorance slurs and personalises those whose interest is solely in establishing fact and in truth.

Please rescue your side of this fascinating (and often enlightening) debate.

The creation of Mozart was an 'inside job' - a corporate project whose truth has effectively been hidden.


----------



## Leporello87

robert newman said:


> Nor did Nissen ever once meet Mozart.


So I take it you don't subscribe to the theory that Mozart faked his death in 1791, ran off, and returned years later as "Nissen", marrying Constanze for a 2nd time around?


----------



## Guest

Manuel said:


> Not really. I think we have already agreed that real Mozart experts will not spend their time in amateur musical forums.
> 
> And it seems, as I quoted from CMG, that when you find them you violently attack them.
> I suppose those who doesn't succumb to your agressions are bored to tears with your repetitive Mumbo jumbo.
> 
> Let me rephrase myself.
> You have no proofs. And so you proved nothing. Your theories are interesting, but without evidence, they are not to be considered nothing else than fiction. For the time being, they are mere *fantasy*.
> You do act as a fiction writer: you study real facts, and invent relations between them.


I quite agree. Mr Newman's reply to my last two posts is, of course, utterly pathetic.

I would only add that it is perfectly clear that his weird, preconceived views are only supported at best by a highly selective reading of the facts. His approach is, I believe, called "data mining", i.e. choosing the facts to fit the theory. I think he must realise that the game is up, and I cannot think why he carries on, as he is clearly getting nowhere.

Such is his miserable plight that I am beginning to feel slightly sorry for him. Maybe I should lay off the heavy criticism pro tem, especially as it doesn't seem to pay off. All we get is yet more fiction. Actually, some of it is highly amusing like the crazy story about a Mr J C Necht. Whatever next? Looking back, perhaps the funniest story is the one that stated boldly (no maybe or possibly about it) that Mozart's late piano concertos (19-27) were composed by some non-entity of a thing whom no one has ever heard of.

I wonder how many posters here think that Mr Newman's views are either wholly or substantially valid, based on what he has presented thus far. If there are any supporters could they possibly speak up now? He has had a good run run for his money. Let's have a vote.


----------



## Manuel

> F. Nimetscheck (a consumate liar also) also never once met Mozart. Yet he is credited with the first biography of the composer.


Mary Jane Phillips-Matz Never met Verdi, does this turn her biographies false?

I don't think David Brown met Tchaikovsky either.

Do you now see how weak some of your ideas are?


----------



## robert newman

Manuel, 

Mary Jane Phillips-Matz never met Verdi but nobody suggests that her biography is vital for studies of Verdi or his compositional history. In the case of Mozart we have clear and indisputable cases of fabrication - this fabrication coming during Mozart's own lifetime by people who, later, would carry on their fabrications in biographies and other accounts that are of the same kind. The two cases are very, very different. 

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Dear Mango,

I see you are on good form today. The _'crazy story about a Mr JC Necht'_ makes me laugh. You are surely refering to (or trying to refer to) JH Knecht, aren't you ?

I'm not sure which 'non-entity' you are talking about. The last time you talked about a supposed non entity you didn't even know who Knecht was. The same of Luchesi. So now, at the third time of trying, you say that the true composer of Mozart concertos was a person 'no-one has ever heard about' - or you claim that is what I am saying. WHO were you actually refering to Mango ? If it's von Paradis the musical world of Mozart's time knew Maria Theresa von Paradis very well. You do not. As a strong candidate for being the true composer of 'Mozart' piano concertos you surely couldn't describe her as a 'non-entity'. She was, in actual fact, one of the greatest pianists and composers of piano works of the entire 18th century, though she was blind from early age. She was hugely regarded in France (where she toured no less than 18 times) and was also hugely celebrated in London and her home country of Austria.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Manuel,
> 
> Constanze Mozart (just for your information) was time and time again exposed as a liar and a peddler of other people's music in her husband;s name even during the lifetime of Mozart himself. That's FACT and I will hapoily provide evidence of it. She lied and lied again about the Requiem. She repeatedly lies in many, many aspects of Mozart's life and on his supposed achievements. *Why don't you ask me for examples ?*


OK, Mr Newman, this is a formal request, pursuant to your offer above, to provide full details of the lies you consider Constance Mozart made about the Requiem. These details should:


relate exclusively to the alleged lies about the Requiem;
be provided here in this thread now, giving quotations, the exact sources of all material, with dates; 
include an explanation of the relevance of each part of your "evidence", showing exactly how it relates to the standard provenance of the Requiem.

This is precisely what I was asking you to provide in the earlier posts, along with answers to several other matters. All you supplied was further claptrap. You are the claimed "expert" on Mozart the Alleged Myth, so it should be easy for you. Come on, Mr Newman, answers *NOW* please to each of the bulleted points above, not in 6 weeks or whenever.

Watch this folks. It should provide a bit of humour to keep this show on the road for a few more days. Oh, it's pathetic, I know, but it's quite comical, let's face it. I bet that all of you have sussed out this this guy by now, but if any of the slower ones haven't just watch this one unfold. The wriggling and squirming could be quite painful to watch, so the more sensitive of you might want to get parental permission to continue.


----------



## Guest

For the composer of Mozart's Piano Concertos 19-27 you say:



robert newman said:


> I'm not sure which 'non-entity' you are talking about. The last time you talked about a supposed non entity you didn't even know who Knecht was. The same of Luchesi. So now, at the third time of trying, you say that the true composer of Mozart concertos was a person 'no-one has ever heard about' - or you claim that is what I am saying. WHO were you actually refering to Mango ? If it's von Paradis the musical world of Mozart's time knew Maria Theresa von Paradis very well. You do not. As a strong candidate for being the true composer of 'Mozart' piano concertos you surely couldn't describe her as a 'non-entity'. She was, in actual fact, one of the greatest pianists and composers of piano works of the entire 18th century, though she was blind from early age. She was hugely regarded in France (where she toured no less than 18 times) and was also hugely celebrated in London and her home country of Austria.


Strong candidate? Who are the others? What are the odds for each one?

Can you point to one work of Ms Paradis in her own name that matches the quality of PCs 19-27?


----------



## robert newman

Dear Mango, 

I was saying to a colleague here in the 'Sunshine State' of Florida (when he took me to a market where there were all sorts of exotic fruits) that I never thought the day would arrive when I would feel compassion for a mango. 

He asked what I meant, but I did not explain. 

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Dear Mango -

You write - 
_
OK, Mr Newman, this is a formal request, pursuant to your offer above, to provide full details of the lies you consider Constance Mozart made about the Requiem. These details should:

* relate exclusively to the alleged lies about the Requiem;
* be provided here in this thread now, giving quotations, the exact sources of all material, with dates;
* include an explanation of the relevance of each part of your "evidence", showing exactly how it relates to *standard provenance of the Requiem.

This is precisely what I was asking you to provide in the earlier posts, along with answers to several other matters. All you supplied was further claptrap. You are the claimed "expert" on Mozart the Alleged Myth, so it should be easy for you. Come on, Mr Newman, answers NOW please to each of the bulleted points above, not in 6 weeks or whenever.

Watch this folks. It should provide a bit of humour to keep this show on the road for a few more days. Oh, it's pathetic, I know, but it's quite comical, let's face it. I bet that all of you have sussed out this this guy by now, but if any of the slower ones haven't just watch this one unfold. The wriggling and squirming could be quite painful to watch, so the more sensitive of you might want to get parental permission to continue._

Well, thank you for finally providing this thread with specific things to talk about since, in fact, the lies and examples of deceipt by Constanze Mozart alone are so numerous that nobody could speak of them in detail without using up pages and pages of notes.

I agree to your request subject to you first agreeing -

1. That you provide sources here in support of your current view on Constanze's handling of the Requiem issue.

2. That you agree that in a case where lies by Constanze Mozart are proved to have been told during this exchange of views you agree to change your views on Constanze's handling of the Requiem issue in proportion to the importance of those lies.

These seem reasonable requests to ask of you since, to date, you have made error after error in your 'defence' of Mozart and his reputation and have shown no sign of having learned anything despite being so often corrected.

In short, let us agree in advance to use the same fair, equal, reasonable and publicly accountable standards for readers to judge this issue and I will happily agree to debate with you (despite having no notes to hand) as to whether or not Constanze Mozart lied and deceived in the matter of 'Mozart's Requiem'

Regards


----------



## Manuel

> Well, thank you for finally providing this thread with specific things to talk about since, in fact, the lies and examples of deceipt by Constanze Mozart alone are so numerous that nobody could speak of them in detail without using up pages and pages of notes.
> 
> I agree to your request subject to you first agreeing -
> 
> 1. That you provide sources here in support of your current view on Constanze's handling of the Requiem issue.
> 
> 2. That you agree that in a case where lies by Constanze Mozart are proved to have been told during this exchange of views you agree to change your views on Constanze's handling of the Requiem issue in proportion to the importance of those lies.
> 
> These seem reasonable requests to ask of you since, to date, you have made error after error in your 'defence' of Mozart and his reputation and have shown no sign of having learned anything despite being so often corrected.
> 
> In short, let us agree in advance to use the same fair, equal, reasonable and publicly accountable standards for readers to judge this issue and I will happily agree to debate with you (despite having no notes to hand) as to whether or not Constanze Mozart lied and deceived in the matter of 'Mozart's Requiem'


*You sick twister*. You did it again. If you had any relevant material to prove your points about Costanze Mozart and the Requiem it's obvious you would have already exposed it here. Any wise guy willing to defend his ideas will inmediately unfold the consistent material. That's far more important that knowing what your contraries say.

Let's see the evidence I have about the Requiem.

...
This guy, Harnoncourt, recorded it and says it's by Mozart.









And I don't think he is a cheater, like you are.

But there's more on this subject. This other guy, Karajan, released it as a work by Mozart.










And he is to be trusted, not like you.

If you had any relevant proofs you would have already shown them, for the sake of your theory.
You proved nothing. You have nothing. Yours is a fantasy. A perverted view on history.
You are nothing but fake. And your consistent avoidance of requests for information to back up your fairy tales proves that.

Mods should close this thread because you are using this forum strictly on personal benefit. You have managed to develop this thread into a 15 page exposition about your unproven myths. You are trying to gain internet popularity using Talk Classical, and that should be stopped right now. I will not let this thread have a single page of your, by the time being, *lies* without having my correspondent request for proofs.

Extend this thread to 30 pages. And you will have at least 30 request for real backup information. For other web surfers to know you are fake.


----------



## Keemun

robert newman said:


> I agree to your request subject to you first agreeing -
> 
> 1. That you provide sources here in support of your current view on Constanze's handling of the Requiem issue.
> 
> 2. That you agree that in a case where lies by Constanze Mozart are proved to have been told during this exchange of views you agree to change your views on Constanze's handling of the Requiem issue in proportion to the importance of those lies.
> 
> These seem reasonable requests to ask of you since, to date, you have made error after error in your 'defence' of Mozart and his reputation and have shown no sign of having learned anything despite being so often corrected.


On the contrary, your requests are hardly reasonable. You started this thread with a position that challenges the conventional history of Mozart and the compositions attributed to him. Thus, the burden of proof lies with you to support your position. If you allege that there are lies concerning the Requiem, provide the evidence to support your allegations. To take such a position and then insist that others prove you wrong is absurd.


----------



## robert newman

Manuel,

I realise you aren't really interested in fair, open and rational debate on Mozart and his supposed compositional achievements. But many ARE interested. We've narrowed down this issue to one piece in particular, the Requiem, and I'm responding to a request made by Mango, to show that Constanze Mozart lied about its creation - something I've already agreed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. 

You cannot deny that, so far, no defender of Mozart has yet answered my 3 questions asked repeatedly about the Requiem here on this thread. So the record at the moment is very clear to see. 

I do not ask Mango or anyone else to prove anything. But if people wish to defend traditional beliefs or othoddox views it's surely reasonable, even logical, for us all to know what 'traditional beliefs' and 'orthodox views' ARE on this very issue of Constanze Mozart and the Requiem. Isn't it ? Or shall we have yet another example of the fanatical 'Mozartean' method of rubbishing everything whenever it calls in to question popular myth on Mozart ? I say we must use fair, open, and evidence based arguments on this thread to win our case. We must treat Mozart in the same way we treat the history and achivements of all other composers. 

You are trying to defend an 'expertise' that does not, in fact, exist. If it takes 30 pages to prove it, so be it. As far as the Moderators of this forum are concerned, they have the right, the expectation, that you will stop your personalised attacks and start to defend what you believe is 'established truth'. They have the same expectation of me. The difference is that so far one side is producing evidence and the other has already resorted to viscious personalised insults and slurs. This is all too typical of Mozartean zealots but it does not impress fair minded readers. 

I say, and will shortly produce evidence, that Constanze Mozart was one of various people who lied repeatedly about the real origin of the 'Mozart Requiem'. Let readers judge this thread fairly as we begin examining this issue fairly, openly and honestly. Their vote and their opinion on the outcome of such a debate means more to me than your nasty, personalised and, frankly, ignorant slurs. 


Thank You


----------



## robert newman

Keemun, 

Thank you for your post. I agree (as you say) that the onus is on me to show that the traditional view of Mozart's Requiem is wrong. True. In fact, I've agreed to show that Constanze Mozart was a liar in this matter. 

I merely suggest that defenders of 'orthodoxy' and of 'tradition' can at least tell us what orhtodoxy and tradition actually IS on this issue. 

But even this simple request is denied. 

No problem - I will post soon as promised.


----------



## Guest

Mr Newman

In regard to Constance Mozart you said in a post yesterday adddressed to Manuel:



> She repeatedly lies in many, many aspects of Mozart's life and on his supposed achievements. Why don't you ask me for examples?


I asked you for examples, and I knew very well that you both couldn't and wouldn't give any. Thus, I was sure you would renege on this offer, just as you have failed to answer all of my other questions.

In particular, your pathetic excuse for a non-reply on this matter is clearly excruciatingly embarrassing for you. I warned people to watch out for this and you have obliged in abundance. I knew that I would be able to expose you in due course beyond any reasonable doubt.

My main surprise is just how tolerant various people on this Forum have been towards you. You have taken them for a ride, and I can only imagine that some of them might now be feeling a little remorse in even listening to your claptrap and mumbo jumbo. As I noted previously, it's also surprising that many didn't appear to know that you have been booted out of all other reputable music forums for peddling nonsense, and for being a pain and insulting with it when you meet opposition.

Now we can all see what a complete fake you are, what are you going to do? Don't you think it's time for you to push off?


----------



## Evan Roberts

Mango, your posts are getting increasingly annoying. Every one seems to be a polemic against Robert Newman, repeating in unnecessarily strong language how fake his claim is, etc. Implying that Mr Newman is purposely and knowingly misleading us amounts to a personal attack, and is not appropriate for this forum.


----------



## Guest

Evan Roberts said:


> Mango, your posts are getting increasingly annoying. Every one seems to be a polemic against Robert Newman, repeating in unnecessarily strong language how fake his claim is, etc. Implying that Mr Newman is purposely and knowingly misleading us amounts to a personal attack, and is not appropriate for this forum.


I couldn't care less what you think. If you like being conned by a fake it's up to you. My comments are no worse than others'. Wake yourself up and have a read of a few other recent posts. You will see that others have used exactlly the same terminology. I have not resorted to any bad language and my manner is tame compared with the kind of thing that passes off as normal on other forums. The kind of comment that Mr Newman was getting on other Forums makes this look like a vicar's tea party. You must be some kind of "wet" if you think polite and diplomatic language will get you very far in dealing with this man. You have to be persistent and respond in the same manner as he does. He is on the lookout all the time to dodge questions. Or maybe you are one of those who feel a bit stupid for being taken in for so long by this man.


----------



## Manuel

> On the contrary, your requests are hardly reasonable. You started this thread with a position that challenges the conventional history of Mozart and the compositions attributed to him. Thus, *the burden of proof lies with you to support your position*. If you allege that there are lies concerning the Requiem, *provide the evidence to support your allegations*. To take such a position and then insist that others prove you wrong is absurd.


BRAVO. I can only agree with this.



> Mango, your posts are getting increasingly annoying.


His posts are the annoying here? Would you like to pass this through meditation?

Lets see how things went:
- Newman claims Mozart and Haydn are fakes. While the standard knowledge is they are amongst the most important musical figures in history.
- He says he has evidence that confirms his theories, but when it's requested ...
- he challenges us to prove the standard knowledge is right.
- He apparently begs us to request for proofs in a certain subject. And when we do so...
- He challenges us again to prove our ideas are right.

Is that how this works? I don't have any doubts on Mozart, I don't need to prove anything. The absurd point here is this clown thinks we should present our evidence, when he is the one trying to bring history down.

I repeat. The fact that you ask me to prove why I believe Mozart was true, while YOU are trying to bring him down is hilarious. This is the paroxysm of stupidity. You are trying to convince us your theory is strong and valid, show your proofs here.



> Implying that Mr Newman is purposely and knowingly misleading us amounts to a personal attack, and is not appropriate for this forum.


He has already done this several times. He makes profit from this type of forums exposing his unproven theories here. Any amateur music lover running a Google search on Mozart may be directed here and read what he writes. He gets direct personal benefit from this place. This is not personal against Newman (for whom I don't even feel sorry), this is personal for the welfare of that non-well informed music interested people that may eventually fall in this net of deceptions and lies.


----------



## robert newman

Mango, 

The facts so far show people want a fair debate. One that does not personalise issues but judges them on the evidence produced here on this thread. Your side have so far refused to answer 3 specific questions on the 'Mozart' Requiem. That's a fact. 

We are now going to look at my claim that Constanze Mozart lied repeatedly about the genesis of 'Mozart's Requiem'. This, to you, is absurd. In fact, you and several others think this is ridiculous. Fine. No doubt the moderators will decide who is presenting evidence and who is not. 

In the meatime I advise you to find out what 'orthodoxy' actually IS on this issue. But it's up to you. If you can't tell us I'll do it for you.


----------



## Manuel

> Your side have so far refused to answer 3 specific questions on the 'Mozart' Requiem. That's a fact.


No. Not at all. *Don't twist it.* You claim you know something that will bring down the history of Mozart. You are supposed to prove that. 
You created this idea of the controversy, you are the one who needs to prove that. Don't you realise you are making a clown of you?

You come here and publish this



> Hello there ! I'm a new member of the Forum and would like to ask other Members if they are aware of the huge controversy now surrounding claims that many works by Haydn and Mozart were, in fact, written for them by a string of other composers - a central person involved in this affair being the Kapellmeister of Bonn (between 1771 and 1794), the little known Italian composer Andrea Luchesi.


And then you want us to prove that's not real? You don't really have evidence of any kind to support your side, do you? *If you had such a thing, it's most reasonable to think you would have already exposed it.*


----------



## Manuel

> *I'm a new member of the Forum and would like to ask other Members* if they are aware of *the huge controversy* now surrounding claims that many works by Haydn and Mozart were, in fact, written for them by a string of other composers


The first section in bold confirms my idea that you are using this great forum to spread your ideas only. In other words, you are using Talk Classical (supported and financed by Frederick Magle) in your own benefit. I haven't read anything relevant from you in any other thread.

The second bold section is false. There's not such thing as a great controversy, because those who support this theories don't seem to be willing to spread the evidence. There's no controversy but fairy tales. You can make the difference offering real facts.

But we all know you won't. You will most likely twist this post into some weird thing that explains why I refuse to give you something. Throughout the last 16 pages the only thing you proved real is that you don't have nothing relevant to say.


----------



## robert newman

Manuel, 

I will shortly give you plenty to think about. I suggest you do your homework. 

Incidentally, I am perfectly happy to put forward my case first. You can then consuilt as many textbooks as you like in your reply. Others will judge which version is more reliable. That's my final statement to you before I present evidence of Constanze Mozart and her lies about the Requiem. 

It would be great if you focused on this issue. You owe it to this great site.


----------



## robert newman

I would like to address these opening remarks to the many fair-minded readers of this thread who want to know if fakery, deception and downright falsehood featured in the genesis of that work which we today call 'Mozart's Requiem' as far as Constanze Mozart is concerned.

The circumstances of such a debate are not ideal but debates are rarely conducted in ideal circumstances when they call in to question traditional beliefs on Mozart or 'expert' opinion (so-called). . For example, I can't and won't use hundreds of arguments from almost 30 years of 'Mozart's' supposed career to show that Mozart was up to his eyeballs in musical fakery, though I could easily do so. No, I will focus only on one small part of this gigantic fraud that is the iconic musical status of Mozart - the question of whether Constanze Mozart (wife of Mozart) lied and misled the public repeatedly on the true history of 'The Requiem'. I will show by a few simple arguments that Constanze not only lied repeatedly about the Requiem, but continually changed her story over many years - adding layer upon layer of confusion.. In fact, she is one of the chief reasons why confusion reigns on this most controversial musical piece.

Nor will I refer in any detail to a number of myths spread about the writing of the Requiem, though these were spread with the full knowledge and permission of Constanze Mozart. For example, the myth of the 'grey messenger' having arrived to commission Mozart to write such a piece. That story is now widely agreed to be false. So too the story that Mozart rehearsed the Requiem in his final days. This too is false. No, I will focus on downright lies - by Constanze Mozart. And I will begin with a few simple examples. From sources that can be checked online, by anyone. Sources you can check for yourself.

1. Constance Mozart lied when she wrote and told others that at the time of her husband's death in December 1791 the Requiem was in a state of virtual completion - so complete, she said that 'a copyist of any talent would have been able to finish the work'. This claim, by Constanze Mozart, was made repeatedly by her over many years. And it's a lie that is now recognized as such by virtually every single musical researcher today.

2. Constanze Mozart also lied when she claimed (in later years) that the Requiem was removed from Mozart's house shortly after Mozart's death on the request of the commissioner. This is a downright lie. Yet it began with her and it first appears in the biography of Nissen, her second husband, who wrote not a word of it himself and who never once met Mozart nor was aware of these events.

Let me now introduce some recognized facts on Constanze and her true part in the Requiem story. We can start with the Wikipedia article on Mozart's Requiem. I quote as follows -

a) ) _*The "Requiem" has a complex history riddled with deception and manipulation of public opinion*_

Wow ! Another Newman ? No, just an honest writer.

b)_* The confusion surrounding the circumstances of the Requiem's composition was created in a large part by Mozart's wife, Constanze.*_

By who ?????

c) .* It is Constanze's efforts that created the flurry of half-truths and myths almost instantly after Mozart's death. Source materials written soon after Mozart's death contain serious discrepancies which leave a level of subjectivity when assembling the "facts" about Mozart's composition of the Requiem.*

I can provide many other sorts of sources. But these opening remarks are perhaps enough. Let us see if they are denied or rejected by defenders of 'tradition' and 'orthodoxy'.


----------



## Guest

I see that Mr Newman is now on the defensive. In response to Keemin he has clearly repented and has at last decided to offer some so-called evidence in support of some of his crazy theories. He could hardly do anything else, given the trap he fell into in refusing to answer my last request about Constance Mozart without imposing the most ludicrous conditions on me. 

Please note that, even now, Mr Newman is being very highly selective in what is reluctantly forced to discuss. He has not volunteered to present evidence about anything else. I have asked a long list of questions, as too have others. A recent one from me - which he has conveniently ignored completely – is a request for further information on this super-wondrous blind female, Maria von Paradis, who allegedly composed Mozart’s Piano Concertos, 19-27. What a complete laugh. This shows what I know already that, when you probe, you find that non-entities like Luchesi are just the tip of the iceberg. He scarcely mentions all the others, except when pressed, because he knows it sounds daft. As you may gathered, I have seen it all before on other Forums. Unfortunately, a lot of these dialogues were scrapped after he was banned. Otherwise you could see what a pain in the neck he was. In this Forum, probably the last sizeable one left him, he is being a lot more careful. But be assured that he can turn very unpleasant indeed, and relishes attacking proper experts. See below. 

In answer to another of Mr Newman’s persistent themes, let me clarify something that shouldn’t need clarifying, although I can see there may be one or two here who may benefit. The reason why no serious Mozart scholar will debate with Mr Newman is that they are understandably reluctant to demesne themselves in talking to fakes like him. If anyone thinks this sound in any way weak, ask themselves would they expect any proper, qualified expert with an established reputation in any field (medicine, music, science, anything you like) to debate a basic issue with an unknown entity with no credentials whatsoever? Of course they would not. Mr Newman is simply trying to boost his reputation by associating his name with those of true experts for the purpose of search engines, and is thus trying to get a “free-ride” on other people’s reputations.

Mr Newman has had ample opportunity to persuade people of the merits of his case, but has failed. It's the same story wherever he goes. A few posts ago I asked for a vote on his views, asking for anyone here who thinks he is on the right track to come forward and say so. No one has yet come forward. It looks like Mr Newman is on his own. 

What does he expect if he chooses to invent complete fairy stories about the musical achievements of two of the greatest composers in history, present no real evidence in support, and then proceeds to challenge all others - aggressively if pressed - to defend the status quo.


----------



## Manuel

> a) ) The "Requiem" has a complex history riddled with deception and manipulation of public opinion


And this is leading you to claim not only the Requiem is fake, but after this sentence you can also point out who its real composer was.

Doesn't this require a great deal of deduction?


----------



## robert newman

OK, I've begun the debate on whether Constanze Mozart was a liar in the matter of 'Mozart's Requiem'. And your answer is ????????????????


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> OK, I've begun the debate on whether Constanze Mozart was a liar in the matter of 'Mozart's Requiem'. And your answer is ????????????????


Utterly pathetic. Is this all we get? If this is the type of evidence you pin your faith on I make no wonder you are totally misguided. At least we are now seeing what a load of old cobblers your hard "evidence" boils down to: mere headlines and snippets from Wikepedia. I'm surprised it's as complex as that, actually.

When are you going to tell us more about Maria von Paradis, the pianist no one has ever heard of but who somehow managed to write Mozart's Piano Concertos 19-27? This little story should be very amusing. I trust you have proof of this achievement and it's not another fairy story.

I'm also waiting anxiously to hear what happened to all the compositions written by Luchesi after Dec 1786, allegedly destined for Mozart.


----------



## robert newman

We agreed to deal with this issue of Constanze Mozart and the Requiem. Let's finish it first and then we can move on to any other subject you wish. We are still waiting for your reply on Constanze Mozart and the Requiem.

Or will this be the 4th straight time that no reply is offered ?

(In 1825 the editor of the leading musical journal in Germany '_Caelicia_' (and musicologist) Gottfried Weber published a detailed article on 'Mozart's' Requiem condemning the absurd contradictions, musical errors and examples of fakery that had dogged the piece from the time of its supposed composition and concluded after detailed examination that it was a clear and obvious fake. (Weber had not learned that the signature was fake at that time but would not have been surprised to learn of it). A year later the 'friend' of Constanze Mozart (and arch-faker) Maximilian Stadler rushed to defend _the 'authenticity' _of the piece in an article entitled. _'On the authenticity of the Requiem'._ Stadler presented no new evidence. He repeated almost word for word tha absurd lies of Constanze Mozart, arguing that the piece had been 'virtually completed at the time of Mozart's death and could have been finished by any copyist'. Such blatant lies have always been told by defenders of the piece. In actual fact not a single researcher today claims such a thing. We know these lies are simply part of a campaign to keep the truth hidden.

The great composer Robert Schumann agreed saying 'Mozart's' Requiem is _'wholly inauthentic in every respect and none of it is by Mozart' _)

It's almost ridiculous that the Mozart 'establishment' should portray Maximilian Stadler as successfully defending the authenticity of the Requiem when, in fact, he merely repeated Constanze Mozart's lies. The same establishment carefully ignores the detailed analysis and condemnation of the piece by Gottfried Weber, the clearly faked signature, the contradictory story of Sussmayr (its supposed completor) and dozens of contadictions and falsehoods that have always featured in its history. A fair minded person, judging both sides of this issue would, I believe, agree that this piece is little more than crude propaganda - the last such case in Mozart's fake career.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> We agreed to deal with this issue of Constanze Mozart and the Requiem. Let's finish it first and then we can move on to any other subject you wish. We are still waiting for your reply on Constanze Mozart and the Requiem.
> 
> Or will this be the 4th straight time that no reply is offered ?


Oh dear, Mr Newman, your attention span is clearly highly defective, in addition to your delusional problems. Remember that you are here to prove your case that Mozart (and his wife) were frauds. We are not here to defend the status quo. This was explained to you the other day. After arguing the toss in typical fashion, you finally agreed to this and said in reply to Manuel:



> I will shortly give you plenty to think about. I suggest you do your homework.
> 
> Incidentally, I am perfectly happy to put forward my case first. You can then consuilt as many textbooks as you like in your reply. Others will judge which version is more reliable. That's my final statement to you before I present evidence of Constanze Mozart and her lies about the Requiem.
> 
> It would be great if you focused on this issue. You owe it to this great site.


(Incidentally, I note the sycophantic reference in the last sentence. Does this mean you are getting worried about getting the boot here too? It looks like it.)

The so-called "evidence" you have thus far offered on the Requiem doesn't amount to a row of beans. It's headline stuff taken out context. A complete idiot could do far better than this. For example, could you please tell us whether you are aware - as any serious student knows already - that the Gottfried Weber you refer dreamed up the story about the Requiem merely in order to boost the declining sales of his journal "Caecilia". And are you aware that Gottfried Weber used to slag off other major musical figures, including Beethoven, for the same reason, i.e. mere publicity?

Come on, Mr Newman, the game's up. You know you are peddling mere rumours, and that you have no clear evidence to prove any of your wild accusations. It's time to out the comic books away and take up something a bit more useful. Before you do so, however, could you kindly oblige in attempting an answer to some of the many other questions I and others have posed. And let's have straight answers, please, not the usual twisted stuff you have so far given us.


----------



## robert newman

OK Mango, nobody wants to get stuck on any issue. Simply answer in your next post the question of whether Constanze Mozart lied by saying the Requiem was virtually complete at the time of Mozart's death in December 1791. 

That is the single issue we are discussing. As soon as we finish that point I will happily discuss any other Mozart issue that you may choose. 


Regards


----------



## Manuel

robert newman said:


> OK Mango, nobody wants to get stuck on any issue. Simply answer in your next post the question of whether Constanze Mozart lied by saying the Requiem was virtually complete at the time of Mozart's death in December 1791.


That's something we all know. The work wasn't completed at the time of WAM's death, and that's why on records you see things like completed by Sussmayr, or by Beyer...

How does a lie like this one prove he wasn't the author? As I said before, this whole thing requires a bit of a heavy deductive process.


----------



## robert newman

Of course the fact that the Requiem was not finished at the time of Mozart's death doesn't prove anything except (of course) that Constanze Mozart claimed the very opposite and kept doing so all her life. The same lie was repeated by the main publicist for the works 'authenticy', Maximilian Stadler, in 1826 - the very man Constanze Mozart trusted with access to Mozart's manuscripts soon after his death. We therefore have a campaign by two liars about the state of the work. We also have the fake signature. We have repeated lies by Sussymayr (it's supposed 'finisher') and we have numerous other acts of deception - all obscuring the fact that not a shred of evidence has ever exusted that Mozart was commissioned to write a Requiem. 

So Sussmayr 'completed' the Requiem ? I don't believe it. I want to know what state of 'completion' this Requiem actually WAS at the time of Mozart's death ? Bear in mind that, according to both Constanze Mozart and also Maximilian Stadler the work was able to be completed by virtually any copyist. That's what they said and wrote. 

Now, a copyist's job is to copy - not to compose. So, again, what state of completion was the Requiem in at the time of Mozart's death ? 

You see Manuel, this subject is a minefield of deception, lies and downright fraud. Committed by those who first argued for its authenticity.


----------



## Guest

Mr Newman, from your answers over the past two weeks or so, I think It is now perfectly clear that there is only one fake in this debate, and that’s you. 

All you do is pour out bold statements alleging that Mozart is a fake, and that you can prove it. However, you can’t and you definitely haven’t. You merely trot out the same allegations, present distorted headlines from Wikipedia, and mention the names of other possible composers. When the going gets tough, you ignore all questions, bolt down a hole, and challenge others to defend the status quo. We have seen this repeatedly. For example, I have responded to your nonsense about Gottfried Weber, and you have nothing more to say.

I think the source of your gross misunderstandings is probably that you read too many comic books. You must try to grow up a bit.

I have already told you (and this Forum) where there is proper information about Constanze Mozart’s involvement in the Requiem after W A Mozart’s death. I am not going to spell out any further details, or give any names, as I’m not interested in promoting any other Forum, whether or not it does attract a far more professional clientele. 

As I have also said, no respectable expert on the subject wants their name connected with yours in Internet debates on the subject because it merely gives you an opportunity to challenge them with your maniacal musings, and they gain nothing from such encounters because you are a nobody. Besides, you can get insulting when you come into contact with real experts, rather in contrast in your mealy-mouthed approach here chatting to a bunch of (very largely) amateurs.


----------



## Manuel

> So Sussmayr 'completed' the Requiem ? I don't believe it.


Care to say why?


----------



## robert newman

Mango, you are back to your normal insults again. Just as we were about to congratulate you for agreeing that Constanze Mozart and Maximilian Stadler were both liars about the true state of the Requiem - which was the purpose of this debate. 

This forum is the opportunity for experts and amateurs to share their views/findings on such issues. It is far superior to others in allowing this to occur. We have established the point here and there is no dispute. Maximilian Stadler, author of a 'Defence of the Authenticity of the Requiem' (published 35 years after Mozart's death, is merely repeating the same lie as Constanze Mozart. 

I rest my case on this point.


----------



## robert newman

Manuel, 

If you read the various statements given by Sussmayr on the Requiem you will soon see that he contradicts himself over and over about what work he did on the Requiem. In some accounts he claims to have written entire movements. In others he claims to have done much less. The story was finally invented, decades after Mozart's death, (by Constanze Mozart) that he worked on his 'completion' of the Requiem with a pile of sketches made by Mozart himself. This lie (invented to cover more lies) is proved by the fact that no such pile of sketches has ever been known to exist and, more importantly, Sussmayr was in contact with the eventual publisher of the piece (1799/1800) at great length and never once mentions having such 'sketches' with which to work. 

You may spend your entire life arguing that the Requiem is not a fake. The facts will forever tell the other story. What is clear is that a network of composers and propagandists have created the myth of 'Mozart's Requiem' - this completely typical of Mozart's reputation as a whole.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Mango, you are back to your normal insults again.


Your very presence here, making all these stupid claims, is an insult to all. I'm surprised the hosts have allowed you to peddle all this rubbish on such a long term basis, with no evidence of having established any kind of following. You are more an object of ridicule. I'm simply throwing back at you some obvious questions that you seem to have largely escaped thus far.



> Just as we were about to congratulate you for agreeing that Constanze Mozart and Maximilian Stadler were both liars about the true state of the Requiem - which was the purpose of this debate.


This proves you must live in cloud-cuckoo land.



> This forum is the opportunity for experts and amateurs to share their views/findings on such issues. It is far superior to others in allowing this to occur. [


Of course, but that's not what I said. I said that experts using their real names won't bother wasting time talking to you, since you have no credentials, talk rubbish, and are insulting.



> We have established the point here and there is no dispute. Maximilian Stadler, author of a 'Defence of the Authenticity of the Requiem' (published 35 years after Mozart's death, is merely repeating the same lie as Constanze Mozart.


What are you talking about? You have established nothing except your gross deception and completely vacuous arguments.



> I rest my case on this point.


Is this your "case"? I thought the twaddle you have offered thus far was merely the beginning. I was expecting a great deal more than this. Did you not promise a lot of material? I guess you must feel more vulnerable now that someone is pulling you up on all the junk you issue.

So what pile of nonsense are you moving on to next? Do please tell us more about this superkid, Maria von Paradis, who you reckon composed Mozart's Piano Concertos 19-27. This one should be very funny indeed.


----------



## robert newman

I did not promise a great deal more material to prove the simple point that Constanze Mozart was a liar in the matter of the Requiem. You just don't read carefully. I actually said lots more material COULD be produced to support this view. It's not necessary to produce more on this thread since you yourself agree on the issue being presented.

Constanze Mozart was a liar, as was Maximilian Stadler, (the two leading advocates of the works 'authenticity' over decades in falsely claiming as they did. The fact they lied is accepted, even by yourself. 

But if, even at this stage, you decide she was not a liar in this matter please present your evidence. 

Perhaps you will shock us, by at last presenting contrary arguments, rather than personal insults ??


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Constanze Mozart was a liar, as was Maximilian Stadler, (the two leading advocates of the works 'authenticity' over decades in falsely claiming as they did. The fact they lied is accepted, even by yourself.


I think you must be completely bonkers. You are clearly mixing me up with a comment made by Manuel. I never made any such admission.


----------



## robert newman

You never admitted Constanze Mozart lied about the true state of the Requiem at the time of Mozart's death. Great. 

No Mango, your actual input on this point (the very point under dispute) is, in fact, zero. Which makes me wonder what input you will ever have here (other than to heap personal abuse on me). 

It's a bit like extracting teeth to make you see plain fact, let alone to accept it. With such achievements you may well deserve a medal or some award from the Mozarteum as a 'defender of Mozart's reputation'. (God help us) !


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> You never admitted Constanze Mozart lied about the true state of the Requiem at the time of Mozart's death. Great.


Thanks for the apology. Oh well, at least we have got that settled.

But why do you keep making these monumental errors of attribution? You seem to have an uncanny knack at confusing simple facts. Just over the past week or so, you first accused Manuel of suggesting something which in fact Mark Harwood suggested. Most recently you accused me of agreeing with your view that Constanze Mozart "lied" about the Requiem, when I clearly made no such admission.

Regarding your so-called "evidence" that Constanze Mozart lied about the Requiem, I am truly astonished at its extremely facile nature. Painful though it may be, I invite other readers to go back over the past few days to read this if they haven't already done so. It shows you have nothing to offer when pressed. If this is what you consider passes off as "evidence", I make no wonder you are totally screwed up.

BTW, as for my style in asking you questions, this is clearly the only way to get answers from highly devious people like you, as you do not respond otherwise except with yet more tangential and irrelevant rubbish. Even now, you haven't come up with one bit of convincing evidence to substantiate any of your arguments.

It's about time this thread was closed. It has gone so stale that it stinks.


----------



## robert newman

This thread has achieved a great deal. It has shown to fair minded readers (and many other examples say the same) that the iconic status of Mozart is guarded by people who cannot operate outside their paradigm and who discourage fair and reasonable standards of debate whenever Mozart's supposed career is challenged on its core assumptions. The Requiem is simply one example. 

The entire musical world agrees that (contrary to popular belief) the Requiem of 'Mozart' was NOT near completion at the time of Mozart's death in December 1791 - this despite dogmatic claims saying the very opposite that were made by Constanze Mozart and her 'advisor' Abbe Maximilian Stadler over many decades - claims that are blatantly false but which remain today part of the tangled mass of lies and deception that feature in Mozart studies. There is not a shred of evidence any Requiem was commissioned from Mozart in 1791 by anyone nor any evidence that a single movement of KV626 even existed at the time of his death. 

Critics want this thread to close. They do not want Mozart's iconic status to be challenged. They want you to say that black is white and that white is black. They don't want you to deal fairly with these issues. 

It is the iconic status of Mozart that is the cause of the stink. 

Thanks to this forum for allowing this thread. Readers are of course quite capable of judging for themselves which side of this 'debate' has tried to be truthful and informative on this issue. 

Every civilization has its myths. The compositional achievements of W.A. Mozart is a myth. A specially virulent myth - but a myth all the same. One that was created in the Holy Roman Empire and sustained by hidden backers at every stage of Mozart's life - for vested interests. Mozart is, in fact, vested interests in the musical realm, bended truth, exploitation, misinformation, Jesuitry, suppression of facts on a wholesale scale, a complete disregard of fair and reasoanble standards of criticism from outside its own dogmatic assumptions and is of course an ongoing chocolate coated fairy story.

Do I believe that harm can come of teaching the Mozart myth to young students of music ? No. But nor do I believe harm comes from teaching children of Father Christmas. The harm comes only if we, as adults, do not throw away our childish toys.


----------



## AndreasvanHaren

I just found this discussion about Mozart not being the real composer of the music known as written by Mozart. The posts are too long for me to spend my valuable time on but the first question that came to my mind was: Which composer would write such beautiful works and then not want his name attached to it and give them to a fake name? If I could write like Mozart, I would like to have my name on it.

André


----------



## robert newman

Hi Andreas,

Well, in a science such as mathematics (not a million miles removed from music) there have been huge and elegant solutions to mathematical puzzles made by men who remained anonymous and even those which remain unknown or unappreciated till this day. Take, for example, wartime developments with ciphers and code breaking such as '_Enigma_' and rare talents such as Alan Turing. Such things happened 'behind the scenes' of course and such things are created anonymously I agree that such cases are highly unusual.

Perhaps it's fair to say (even for everyone to agree with) that the body of music today known as _'Mozart' _is far from consistent in musical quality and is by no means all beautiful. Do you agree ? We have in this same body of music (much of it lacking any firm evidence on which to attribute it to Mozart or anyone else) a great deal of music that is banal or even poor. We have chamber music, symphonies, concertos, choral works, sonatas, etc. that are, to say the least, of no real musical value. Since this is surely true it's unfair, perhaps, to portray it as a seamlessly beautiful library of music. It's actually a complex mass of music - some of it outstandingly beautiful (as we all agree) and much of it not outstanding in any way. We have, in actual fact, a paradox.

Andreas, given the fact that we've had virtually 150 years or Koechel and of the Mozarteum, we may also agree by examining the history of Mozart attributions that we are dealing here with a very, very special case. One where literally dozens of works which have been attributed to him at one time or another have subsequently been proved NOT to be by him. A fact recognised by that conservative insitutute which was created to further his reputation - the Mozarteum. Isn't this true ? But which composer has such a huge history of false and highly advertised achievements ? Which composer has had such a 'porous' reputation ? Even since the time of his death ?

Again, during Mozart's own lifetime, there were huge arguments about what he did or did not compose.

Thirdlly, we have clear and indisputable examples of music being published in Mozart's lifetime in his name which, in fact, he did NOT compose. Take, for example, the publication of works by Anton Eberl, for example. These were so serious that Eberl himself twice wrote publicly in German newspapers to complain of it.

Or, again, take for example the clear evidence of fakery in works such as KV582, or in this most controversial issue of the Requiem - cases where the long track record of falsehood and exaggeration must surely have some impact on our opinion.

Is it not logical that we, as fair minded people, at least appreciate that the Requiem is not unique but is simply the last in an extraordinary series of highly controversial compositions. That Mozart's oeuvre is not, in fact, normal. That it has in dozens of cases been dogged by, accompanied by, fakery, exaggeration and false attribution at each and every stage of his supposed career - both before 1791 and ever since ?

I do not think such things are typical of composers as a whole. They are, I believe, uniquely proved to be so of the music (supposed) of W.A. Mozart.

Regards


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

AndreasvanHaren said:


> If I could write like Mozart, I would like to have my name on it.


A good sentiment, but somewhat Romantic. I think that in the 18th Century, composers were still very much servants and were much more interested in money than in fame.


----------



## Guest

Kurkikohtaus said:


> A good sentiment, but somewhat Romantic. I think that in the 18th Century, composers were still very much servants and were much more interested in money than in fame.


Why is it implicitly assumed that in the 18th C musical world fame and wealth were somehow mutually exclusive? Something odd with the logic here I think. Rather, if money was the main motive, it's all the more reason for selling the music in their own name rather than to an imposter.

Although a good point, Andreas's comment has been made several times before on this thread, so I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing new here. However, good points are ignored by Mr Newman. They are like water off a duck's back. He can handle this sort of mild stuff in his sleep, i.e. by ignoring it and merely repeating all over again the same old list of accusations with not a shred of evidence to back up any of it.

When are we going to get the proof that Maria von Paradis was the true composer of Piano Concertos 19-27?


----------



## Leporello87

Mango said:


> When are we going to get the proof that Maria von Paradis was the true composer of Piano Concertos 19-27?


Don't forget about Piano Concerti 11-18, also supposedly composed by Paradis.


----------



## Handel

I'm still stuck at the reason why to elevate one guy instead of another. There would be some jealousy.


----------



## Guest

Leporello87 said:


> Don't forget about Piano Concerti 11-18, also supposedly composed by Paradis.


Those too, I guess. I didn't want to make it too hard for Mr Newman, in addition to PCs 19-27.

This matter of the true composer of Mozart's Piano Concertos is, of course, simply to ask Mr Newman to re-focus on just one among many outstanding questions put to him over the past couple of weeks. Notice how all such questions just slip by completely unanswered, while he falls back in repeating all the old simplistic waffle.

Finally, on the Requiem, Mr Newman wanted to focus on this topic for some reason which wasn't clear to me. I really was expecting a far better case than what he put up, which was really pathetic.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Mango said:


> Rather, if money was the main motive, it's all the more reason for selling the music in their own name rather than to an imposter.


Just a guess, but my thought was that perhaps the fee was higher when someone was buying it for the reason of passing it off as their own (or someone else's work). Also, this type of setup would create a steady demand for works that were well paid for, as opposed to "going it alone" and trying to make a name for yourself. _That_ is the Romantic notion that I was alluding to.


----------



## AndreasvanHaren

I had never heard of Paradis before, no wonder after looking for her in Google:

Works by Maria Theresia Paradis:

Stage Works:
Ariadne und Bacchus, melodrama, 20 June 1791, lost
Der Schulkandidat, landliches, 5 Dec. 1792, pt of Act 2 and all of Act 3, lost
Rinaldo und Alcina, zauberoper, 30 June, 1797, lost
Grosse militarische oper 1805, lost
Zwer landliche Opern oper, lost

Cantatas:
Trauerkantata auf den Tod Leopold II 1792, lost
Deutsches Monument Ludwigs des Unglucklichen 1793
Kantata auf Wiedergenesung meines Vaters lost

Instrumental Works:
Pianoforte Concerto in g lost
Pianoforte Concerto in C lost
12 Piano Sonatas 1792, lost
Pianoforte Trio 1800, lost
Fantasie in G, pf 1807
Fantasie in C, pf 1811
Kbd Variations lost
An meine entfernten Lieben, pf lost

Various songs and lieder totaling at least 18 works, of which two are lost. 

Lots of lost in here. I wonder if maybe she is the one who never really existed...


----------



## Rod Corkin

Hexameron said:


> I see Mr. Newman PI you're up to your old tricks again. But you know... it's just not the same without Peter or Rod offering rebuttals.


Rod is here now. My rebuttals concerned Robert's theories about Beethoven and Luchesi, I'm less concerned with his ideas re Mozart and Haydn. I agree with him the quality of Mozart's attributed output varies greatly, some of the chamber pieces in particular sound as if they could have been written by anybody and are average fodder at best. I thought his ideas about Haydn were the most interesting and is probably safer ground for Robert - nobody is interested in Haydn enough to be offended!!


----------



## Handel

Rod Corkin said:


> nobody is interested in Haydn enough to be offended!!


I absolutely beg to differ.


----------



## Leporello87

AndreasvanHaren said:


> Instrumental Works:
> Pianoforte Concerto in g lost
> Pianoforte Concerto in C lost
> 12 Piano Sonatas 1792, lost
> Pianoforte Trio 1800, lost
> Fantasie in G, pf 1807
> Fantasie in C, pf 1811
> Kbd Variations lost
> An meine entfernten Lieben, pf lost
> 
> Various songs and lieder totaling at least 18 works, of which two are lost.
> 
> Lots of lost in here. I wonder if maybe she is the one who never really existed...


*tongue planted firmly in cheek*

Well, of course they could be "lost" because they are all attributed to Mozart!

For example, this "lost" Piano Concerto in G minor could simply be the original version of KV 466, which Mozart, the expert arranger (but not composer) could have transcribed into D minor. The "lost" pianoforte concerto in C you mention? Sounds like a good candidate for KV 467 or 503.

It might also be fortuitious that most of the works in her name appear in 1792 and beyond, once Mozart had died, meaning she could now start to write for herself once more, just as Luchesi could begin writing as "D'Anthoine" in 1792.

*tongue popped out of cheek*

This is another situation in which I will have trouble believing Paradis is the true composer unless it's clear that her music -- music which is definitely _her_ music, in her own name -- is on the level of Mozart's. I have heard precisely none of her music, so I couldn't judge. However, the great piano concertos of Mozart date mostly date from 6-8 years before we appear to have any music at all from her (save the last concerto KV 595, which is contemporaneous with the first works in that list Andreas supplied), so if Paradis was able to compose such fantastic music in the 1780's, then her later music from the 1790's and beyond must be absolutely sublime. For anyone reading this who might have listened to the music of Paradis: is it sublime?


----------



## Rod Corkin

Handel said:


> I absolutely beg to differ.


Well this was the case at the Beethoven Reference Site at least. I easily dealt with Robert concerning Beethoven/Luchesi. On musical grounds alone it was clear enough to see there was no connection between early Beethoven compositions and Luchesi's.

But strangely his ideas concerning Mozart raised the most offense there. Haydn passed by without much comment, though ironically I thought Robert had something more tangible to present in this case.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Well, there's a difference between disagreement and taking offense. For the most part, I don't take offense to the topic here. Having said that, though, I want to share my thoughts on the direction of this subject. 
One of our loyal posters (who shall remain nameless, although I respect him _tremendously_), posted in a "parallel universe" that he was shocked, _shocked_, I tell you, that more people didn't take up the cudgels against the conspiracy hypotheses [the word "theory" is properly reserved for something that carries some proof] raised in this thread. 
I suspect I might be speaking for more than just myself when I say that I analogize approaching this topic to approaching religious zealotry in a public place. (Apologies in advance to any religious zealot who might find this an invidious comparison.) Do most of us stop long enough to engage in theological discourse entered into with the view of refuting the arguments of the zealot, or do we just say "yeah, okay, whatever..." and shuffle along with the goal of minimizing the disruption to our lives?*
For similar reasons, I don't focus a lot on the "least favorite" threads. There is enough in the classical world that merits _celebration_ that I'd rather not get involved in the "sub-optimal" things. I'd rather listen to David Helfgott hack his way through Rach 3 than listen to anything on today's top-40. 
So, to conclude, my lack of focus here is not some sort of acknowledgement that valid points have been raised, any more than cruising by the sidewalk sermonizer means that I'm unable to take issue with his sermon.

*A comedian I once heard had a routine stating that when he was growing up, he thought that Jehovah's Witnesses were a street gang, because his mama said "Nobody move! _Get away from those windows!_ DON'T ANSWER THE DOOR!"


----------



## Guest

Kurkikohtaus said:


> Just a guess, but my thought was that perhaps the fee was higher when someone was buying it for the reason of passing it off as their own (or someone else's work). Also, this type of setup would create a steady demand for works that were well paid for, as opposed to "going it alone" and trying to make a name for yourself. _That_ is the Romantic notion that I was alluding to.


I'm not sure this is right. Suppose we take a "good" piece of music composed by a relatively unknown composer. Assume for simplicity that his main aim is to make as much money as possible from his skill, rather than merely acquire a good reputation. He could try to sell it to a music publisher in his own name, or he could sell it discreetly to a useless composer who wishes to pass it off as his own. Which procedure would likely earn the most money for the unknown composer? In the short term it's difficult to say. In the longer term - assuming the flow of good works from the unknown composer continued - I would suggest it's more likely that he would generate higher returns from selling direct to a music publisher rather than continuing to supply one or more imposters discreetly. I accept that there is some uncertainty as much would depend on the quality of the works in question and the state of competition among publishers.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> Rod is here now. My rebuttals concerned Robert's theories about Beethoven and Luchesi, I'm less concerned with his ideas re Mozart and Haydn. I agree with him the quality of Mozart's attributed output varies greatly, some of the chamber pieces in particular sound as if they could have been written by anybody and are average fodder at best. I thought his ideas about Haydn were the most interesting and is probably safer ground for Robert - nobody is interested in Haydn enough to be offended!!


The same argument about variable quality surely applies to a lot of other famous composers' works.



Rod Corkin said:


> Well this was the case at the Beethoven Reference Site at least. I easily dealt with Robert concerning Beethoven/Luchesi. On musical grounds alone it was clear enough to see there was no connection between early Beethoven compositions and Luchesi's.
> 
> But strangely his ideas concerning Mozart raised the most offense there. Haydn passed by without much comment, though ironically I thought Robert had something more tangible to present in this case.


You had a pushover situation to deal with in connection with Beethoven. Robert Newman was only playing around with a very minor piece of very early Beethoven on the Beethoven Reference Site. I think it was Taboga anyway who generated this idea. It was clear that Robert Newman himself wasn't that committed to it. As you will know, he picked on Mozart far more seriously, partly because Mozart is considered higher up the hierarchy than Haydn is. In addition, I wouldn't mind betting that he thought the audience might be more receptive to his (loony) views given the imbecile image of WAM portrayed by "Amadeus".

Regardless of music forum, Mr Newman meets the same lack of success and cynicism. It's not surprising given the lousy quality of most of his arguments.


----------



## Guest

AndreasvanHaren said:


> I had never heard of Paradis before, no wonder after looking for her in Google:
> 
> Works by Maria Theresia Paradis:
> 
> Stage Works:
> Ariadne und Bacchus, melodrama, 20 June 1791, lost
> Der Schulkandidat, landliches, 5 Dec. 1792, pt of Act 2 and all of Act 3, lost
> Rinaldo und Alcina, zauberoper, 30 June, 1797, lost
> Grosse militarische oper 1805, lost
> Zwer landliche Opern oper, lost
> 
> Cantatas:
> Trauerkantata auf den Tod Leopold II 1792, lost
> Deutsches Monument Ludwigs des Unglucklichen 1793
> Kantata auf Wiedergenesung meines Vaters lost
> 
> Instrumental Works:
> Pianoforte Concerto in g lost
> Pianoforte Concerto in C lost
> 12 Piano Sonatas 1792, lost
> Pianoforte Trio 1800, lost
> Fantasie in G, pf 1807
> Fantasie in C, pf 1811
> Kbd Variations lost
> An meine entfernten Lieben, pf lost
> 
> Various songs and lieder totaling at least 18 works, of which two are lost.
> 
> Lots of lost in here. I wonder if maybe she is the one who never really existed...


She didn't have much luck did she?

So, Mr Newman, how are you going to deal with this revelation? If everything she wrote (except for a few songs) is lost, how can you possibly argue that she was the true composer of Mozart's Piano Concertos? There's no yardstick, is there?

Nevertheless, I'm sure you'll think of something. It would be very interesting to see all your evidence on this matter set out please. No more waffle and mumbo jumbo about the Jesuits etc. Then maybe we'll have a little vote, assuming Andreas can spare the time to hang about long enough.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> The same argument about variable quality surely applies to a lot of other famous composers' works.


Not with Beethoven, every Beethoven piece sounds like Beethoven, be it young or old, all good, which is why I am not really concerned with Mozart. In fact it is no coincidence that the composers I like best are the only ones who composed consistently good music throughout their careers, namely Beethoven and Handel.



Mango said:


> You had a pushover situation to deal with in connection with Beethoven. Robert Newman was only playing around with a very minor piece of very early Beethoven on the Beethoven Reference Site. I think it was Taboga anyway who generated this idea. It was clear that Robert Newman himself wasn't that committed to it. As you will know, he picked on Mozart far more seriously, partly because Mozart is considered higher up the hierarchy than Haydn is. In addition, I wouldn't mind betting that he thought the audience might be more receptive to his (loony) views given the imbecile image of WAM portrayed by "Amadeus".
> 
> Regardless of music forum, Mr Newman meets the same lack of success and cynicism. It's not surprising given the lousy quality of most of his arguments.


As I said above it is a pushover with Beethoven relative to Mozart because there is a level of stylistic consistency with Beethoven which is absent in the Mozart - some have the personal touch, others are as dry and impersonal as one could imagine. There can only be one of two reasons for this - ie Mozart was a very hit and miss composer, or else some of the works attributed to him are infact not his. The latter is not impossible, scholars have got things wrong before attributing ownership to music, but I'm just not interested in Mozart enough to waste time on the matter.


----------



## AndreasvanHaren

I played one page of a piano piece written by Paradis, and saw that she uses harmonies and chords that are not really something you would hear in a Mozart piece. It was only 1 page, but I played enough Mozart music myself during my piano education (sonata's and concerto's) and heard and studied enough music by Mozart that I never would confuse them.

http://www.musicroom.com/LookInside.aspx?catalogno=ED11196&product_id=332319

Andreas


----------



## robert newman

I think we'd all benefit if supporters of the traditional Mozart story would at least admit that on issue after issue their myth is based on gross exaggeration, evidence that does not stand up in open court, and a series of irregularities that are without equal in the entire history of music. That this IS the case can be shown and HAS been shown to some degree here. Both in the general sense and in the specific sense Mozart is a subject where logic and honest admission are all too rare. 

We got, eventually, here on this thread, to focus on one particular piece - the 'Mozart' Requiem. It took time - with many posts here bordering on little more than hostile insults. It is surely proved there's no evidence that he, Mozart, was commissioned to write a Requiem. Such a fact is surprising - it removes the foundation stone on which the entire Requiem myth has been created - and it will not go away. We also see that fakery was again involved in the 'Mozart' signature found on its title page. Again, such a thing is beyond dispute and it's not going to go away. We also saw that the chief architects of Mozart's supposed creation of this piece (Constanze Mozart and her musical 'mentor' Abbe Maximilian Stadler) were prepared to go in to print over many years saying the work was 'so nearly finished at the time of Mozart's death that it could have been completed by virtually any competent copyist' - a shameful lie and one which we have repeatedly asked Mozart supporters to come to terms with . And we saw that, in fact, aspect after aspect of that work's creation is still shrouded in lies, deceptions, contradictions and downright falsehoods Finally, we saw that those who studied this work and the known circumstances surrounding its publication have concluded against a barrage of feeble resistance that KV626 is a fake - a fake used by the religious establishment to create myth after myth on Mozart. 

All these things are, in fact, beyond reasonable doubt, truths. And, as such, they ought to be part of our education, our understanding. That modern Mozart supporters (whose education consists solely of slavishly repeating mythology) have been so reluctant to come to term with embarrasing facts is evidence enough of their attitude and of the scale of their misinformation. 


In the case of Beethoven, I am glad Rod Corkin (who is something of an expert on that great genius) has already made several contributions here. Rod will be first to admit that up until a few years ago hardly anyone including his goodself had even heard of Andrea Luchesi - and certainly not those who had studied Beethoven in some detail. He will admit too (though a little more grudgingly) that it was Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi who was the man in charge of musical education to students at the Bonn Chapel during the decade or so that Beethoven was a musical student there. Catch Rod on a good day and he will even concede that the post of Kapellmeister in chapels of the 18th century and in other centuries had as one of its most important duties the teaching of music to music students. Such a fact would have been so patently obvious in the time of Beethoven that we'd be laughed at if we were to be ignorant of it. A forgotten truth, perhaps. But a truth all the same. And Rod will even admit that the great Beethoven biographers (such as Thayer) have amazingly neglected to refer to this same Luchesi in any connection with Beethoven's Bonn career. Such strange omissions (such 'airbrushed' versions of history) are all too typical, I regret. 


In point of fact, many errors have crept in to Beethoven study because of such 'edits' in just the same way as they have in studies of Mozart. For example, today it's widely believed and taught that Beethoven's first true music teacher at Bonn was Ch. G. Neefe. And that Beethoven was for a short time a pupil of Mozart. Neither are true. In fact Ch. G. Neefe was only temporarily in charge of the young Beethoven's musical education (i.e. during the very limited period 1783-1784 of Luchesi's year in Italy) - the rest of the time Luchesi being in Bonn and being, in plain fact, Beethoven's teacher and teacher also to many other talented musical students. That such a simple act has been so surgically removed from German written textbooks on Beethoven over the past 200 years or so is, of course, a major reason why Luchesi is (was) virtually unknown to music lovers until recently. 

All these things will be easy enough for neutrals to understand and it may not be necessary to go over such ground again with Rod. He may even agree there is good ground for regarding Luchesi as the man who corrected Beethoven's first ever known composition (a funeral cantata now lost but composed in Bonn with the assistance/corrections of none other than his Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi - that cantata being written on the death of the British ambassador Georg Cressner - the same man who financially assisted the Beethoven family). Once again, such a fact is both logical and finds support from evidence. The teacher correcting the young pupil. Nothing controversial about that, right ? 

Again, the two state cantatas performed at Frankfurt in 1790 ( one for the death of the Emperor Joseph and the other written for the accession of his successor) are today portrayed as having been composed by the Bonn student Ludwig van Beethoven - a claim that makes little sense when we bear in mind that Beethoven was not, in fact, in charge of such state music . No, that duty, was also, logically, realistically, that of the official and far more qualified Kapellmeister of Bonn, whose name in 1790 (and had been throughout the entire formative years of the young Beethoven) was......yes, you've guessed it.........Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi. And yet these two state cantatas (which have never been given 'Beethoven' opus numbers and which are given the references of WoO87 and Wo088) have been repeatedly and wrongly attributed to the youth, Beethoven. Such an error is, well, an error. 

Let me not sulk about this. Let me move on quickly to other works from Bonn which have been wrongly attributed to Beethoven - numerous chamber works - though these too have never at any time being given Beethoven opus numbers. And let's not forget the important set of sonatas (Op.1) by the same airbrushed Kapellmeister Luchesi which were indisputably published in Bonn while Beethoven was still drinking baby milk. These sonatas were important enough to be described as the first musical works ever published by the Bonn chapel and have recently been recorded. Those who have listened to them comment on how they strikingly anticipate Beethoven's own style - a fact that has been repreatedly said here and by those who have actually bothered to listen to them. The Luchesi Sonatas Op.1 from Bonn must reasonably be appreciated by those who would write on his formative influences - and I hope Rod will one day hear them and concede to the great influence Luchesi had on the formative years of his young and highly gifted student, Ludwig van Beethoven. If he does so he will at least be numbered among the few honest and fair minded Beethoven researchers on this issue. 


I want to repeat to this forum that Beethoven was definitely NOT involved in the fakery and lies that are such a part of the 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' story. But that too has already been said many times to Rod on other forums. Beethoven's genius was real and he does deserve to be regarded as a composer on a far greater musical level than either Haydn or Mozart. 


But it surely must be conceded that Andrea Luchesi, a greatly suppressed and ignored musician of great musical talent of the late 18th and early 19th century DID have major roles in the careers of all 3 composers, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. The recognition of Luchesi's talents and of his great contributions to music (even though specific works are disputed) is long overdue. 

Which brings me finally to repeat my praise of musical researchers as Prof Giorgio Taboga, Prof Luca Bianchini, Prof Anna Trombetta, and numerous others - all of whom have been working so hard (often against silly insults) to make music lovers everywhere aware of facts that have so often been ignored, marginalised or rubbished by their critics on the official careers of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven Their work on manuscripts at Modena, Regensburg and elsewhere etc. have truly opened a debate that will continue to have major implications for our understanding of the Vienna Classical Period in the years ahead. I'm glad to be involved in applauding and enouraging such research and am also pleased to have played perhaps a small role in bringing these issues to the public attention of English speaking students of music. 

The neutral reader always does well to give credit where it is due. Nothing more is asked.


----------



## robert newman

Hi there Andreas, 

I do agree (and have said so earlier on this thread) that the few surviving works today attributed to Von Paradis do not seem to indicate she wrote music in a 'Mozartean' style. I am in full agreement with this. 

But there are a number of issues here. First is the little known fact of Georg Vogler being the very man who 'arranged' Mozart's fake status and that this very same Vogler is described as having been the 'composition teacher' of Paradis. Such things alone make me suspicious. Second is the indisputable scale of von Paradis's talent - a talent that is certainly not reflected in the surviving pieces to which you refer (and which appear to be student works) but are confirmed in many other ways - e.g. in her being 15 times on tour in France as a professional pianist and composer and by her huge Viennese reputation up until the early 1780's there. Third, her known association with the Mozart family and the recorded fact that she visited the Mozart family at Salzburg, The 'official' story is that Mozart composed for her, rather than vice-versa. Fourth, in her being credited with knowing by heart at least 30 piano concertos. And in the curious case that virtually all her major keyboard works have simply 'vanished'. That she disappears from Vienna at virtually the same time as Mozart begins being credited with 'his' piano concertos is, to say the least, another of those remarkable coincidences. That she had contacts with Dr Mesmer (as did Mozart) - this too. And so on. 

But I will not be dogmatic on this issue. The subject of where Mozart's piano concertos orginated (beginning as we all know with pastiche concertos that he never actually wrote and also including at least one concerto given to him by Luchesi) is fascinating and I believe it willl reward any person who studies the subject of Mozart's concertos in detail. I have NOT made detailed study on them. In fact, I brought up this issue (as you can see from posts on this thread) only in passing. 

Regards


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Hi there Andreas,
> 
> I do agree (and have said so earlier on this thread) that the surviving works attributed to Von Paradis do not seem to indicate that she wrote music in a 'Mozartean' style. I am in full agreement with this.
> 
> But there are a number of issues here. First is the little known fact of Georg Vogler being the very man who 'arranged' Mozart's fake status. This same Vogler is described as having been the 'composition teacher' of Paradis. This alone makes me suspicious. Second is the indisputable scale of von Paradis talent - a talent that is recognised in her being 15 times on tour in France as a professional pianist and composer. Third, her known association with the Mozart's. Fourth, in her being credited with knowing at least 30 piano concertos. And in the curious case that virtually all her major works have simply 'vanished'. That she disappears from Vienna at virtually the same time as Mozart is being credited with 'his' concertos is, to say the least, one of those remarkable coincidences.
> 
> But I will not be dogmatic on this issue. The subject is fascinating and I believe it willl reward any person who studies it in detail. I have not made detailed study on it. In fact, it was mentioned (as you can see on this thread) only in passing.
> 
> Regards


You said earlier in this thread that there is evidence that Maria von Paradis was the true composer of many of Mozart Piano Concertos. The truth is - as was perfectly clear at the time - there isn't any such evidence. Now under the spotlight, you are forced to admit it. It's pathetic.

Let's move on to the operas. Forget about the very early ones which you like to waffle on about. Let's hear your views on the true composer of all the Mozart operas written after 1784. If you do not believe that Mozart wrote them, who did? Full details please, and no more waffle of which we've had tons already: just the facts please, with alternative names and the evidence.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> Mango said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same argument about variable quality surely applies to a lot of other famous composers' works.
> 
> 
> 
> Not with Beethoven, every Beethoven piece sounds like Beethoven, be it young or old, all good, which is why I am not really concerned with Mozart. In fact it is no coincidence that the composers I like best are the only ones who composed consistently good music throughout their careers, namely Beethoven and Handel.
> 
> As I said above it is a pushover with Beethoven relative to Mozart because there is a level of stylistic consistency with Beethoven which is absent in the Mozart - some have the personal touch, others are as dry and impersonal as one could imagine. There can only be one of two reasons for this - ie Mozart was a very hit and miss composer, or else some of the works attributed to him are infact not his. The latter is not impossible, scholars have got things wrong before attributing ownership to music, but I'm just not interested in Mozart enough to waste time on the matter.
Click to expand...

I thought you only liked Beethoven, and to a much lesser extent Handel.

I fully agree with you about the unmistakeable Beethoven style. But I was referring to consistency of quality, not style, as I thought was clear from what I wrote (see text above). After my "honeymoon" era with Beethoven, I don't think that everything Beethoven wrote is of uniform high quality. I accept, however, that even the weaker stuff may be better than most other composers' efforts. While Beethoven and Schubert are my two favourite composers - and I'm familiar with most of their works - in all honesty I can't say that I believe it's all high quality. Nevertheless, because I like their styles and because enough of their output is good/very good quality, I can happily place them at the top of my composer list and sing their praises along with the rest of you.

You are also possibly overlooking the fact that Mozart's output was arguably higher than Beethoven's, and was written over a shorter timescale (I'm mainly referring to the the best of Mozart's output after about 1782). Clearly Mozart started very much younger than Beethoven and died age 35 just when Beethoven was getting into his swing. In the case of Schubert - in my opinion a potentially superior composer to Beethoven - he died at an age when Beethoven had only more or less just begun his career. It's a separate topic but I do think Schubert had equivalent superb orchestration abilities to Mozart and Beethoven, but was overall better in the melody department than either. Some late Beethoven suffered from a deteriorating melodic quality in my view, albeit with considerable inventiveness of new style.

My opinion is that some early Mozart is poor. There is also some later Mozart of which I am not greatly enamoured. However, the quality of many later Mozart works - operas, sacred works, concertos, chamber music - is second to none. Mozart produced enough high quality works to rank him alongside Beethoven, Bach, Schubert, Brahms as the greatest 5 composers, at least in my book.


----------



## robert newman

Well Mango, nobody is running from talking of von Paradis. In fact, the opposite is true. She is yet another composer whom you hardly heard about till I mentioned her here on this thread. Isn't that true ? And if you read what I wrote on this thread reference her and the 'Mozart' piano concertos you would see what I said (and what I did not). 

I am really very happy to move on to discuss any mature 'Mozart' that you care to talk about. You suggest the operas. Great ! Which operas ? How about the one that he and his father tried to fool Vienna with (the one that was ghost written FOR Mozart). Or perhaps that one doesn't count ? Will you accept the oratorio written 'by Mozart' for Italy which, in point of fact, he, Mozart actually had written for him by Josef Myslivececk ? Or would you care to discuss the story of Idomeneo, or even of L'Oca del Cairo or of Lo Sposo Deluso (these last two existing in fragments), or how about the real story of Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail, or even of the Impresario or Le Nozze di Figaro, or others such as Zaide ?

Far from 'running away' I think you will admit that we are able (if you really wish) to have a fair, open and honest exchange here too on Mozart's involvement (real or invented) in these works. But I am still far away from my notes in England. Still, yes, we can at least chat about these as you like.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> I thought you only liked Beethoven, and to a much lesser extent Handel.


Don't know where you got that idea. Beethoven was my first love, Handel only over the past 5 or 6 years as good recordings have started becoming available. There was a time where I thought Handel was just another composer, but I think like everyone else I was a victim of the cult of Bach in musical academic circles that has done Handel a dis-service for 150 years. Now I am certain Handel is the King of stage music (oratorio, operas, odes etc). Certainly surpassing Bach's endless output church cantatas and lessons (though Handel's output amount to Beethoven and Bach's put together). I discovered Beethoven didn't rate Handel as the greatest composer who ever lived for no reason.



Mango said:


> I fully agree with you about the unmistakeable Beethoven style. But I was referring to consistency of quality, not style, as I thought was clear from what I wrote (see text above). After my "honeymoon" era with Beethoven, I don't think that everything Beethoven wrote is of uniform high quality. I accept, however, that even the weaker stuff may be better than most other composers' efforts. While Beethoven and Schubert are my two favourite composers - and I'm familiar with most of their works - in all honesty I can't say that I believe it's all high quality. Nevertheless, because I like their styles and because enough of their output is good/very good quality, I can happily place them at the top of my composer list and sing their praises along with the rest of you.
> 
> You are also possibly overlooking the fact that Mozart's output was arguably higher than Beethoven's, and was written over a shorter timescale (I'm mainly referring to the the best of Mozart's output after about 1782). Clearly Mozart started very much younger than Beethoven and died age 35 just when Beethoven was getting into his swing. In the case of Schubert - in my opinion a potentially superior composer to Beethoven - he died at an age when Beethoven had only more or less just begun his career. It's a separate topic but I do think Schubert had equivalent superb orchestration abilities to Mozart and Beethoven, but was overall better in the melody department than either. Some late Beethoven suffered from a deteriorating melodic quality in my view, albeit with considerable inventiveness of new style.
> 
> My opinion is that some early Mozart is poor. There is also some later Mozart of which I am not greatly enamoured. However, the quality of many later Mozart works - operas, sacred works, concertos, chamber music - is second to none. Mozart produced enough high quality works to rank him alongside Beethoven, Bach, Schubert, Brahms as the greatest 5 composers, at least in my book.


Well for me Beethoven is the most poorly performed composer, everything is played half tempo with 10 layers of syrup. Maybe I'll live long enough for this to be realised. Although Mozart apparently produced this huge output by the age of 35, I would say Beethoven's sonatas, duo and trio sonatas etc produced at a similar age are vastly more advanced than Mozart's. Beethoven was certainly 'in the swing' 10 years or more before the age of Mozart's death. Consider also B composed the Eroica at the age of 34. I suggest If Mozart had lived another 50 years he wouldn't have surpassed this.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Well Mango, nobody is running from talking of von Paradis. In fact, the opposite is true. She is yet another composer whom you hardly heard about till I mentioned her here on this thread. Isn't that true ? And if you read what I wrote on this thread reference her and the 'Mozart' piano concertos you would see what I said (and what I did not).
> 
> I am really very happy to move on to discuss any mature 'Mozart' that you care to talk about. You suggest the operas. Great ! Which operas ? How about the one that he and his father tried to fool Vienna with (the one that was ghost written FOR Mozart). Or perhaps that one doesn't count ? Will you accept the oratorio written 'by Mozart' for Italy which, in point of fact, he, Mozart actually had written for him by Josef Myslivececk ? Or would you care to discuss the story of Idomeneo, or even of L'Oca del Cairo or of Lo Sposo Deluso (these last two existing in fragments), or how about the real story of Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail, or even of the Impresario or Le Nozze di Figaro, or others such as Zaide ?
> 
> Far from 'running away' I think you will admit that we are able (if you really wish) to have *a fair, open and honest exchange *here too on Mozart's involvement (real or invented) in these works. But I am still far away from my notes in England. Still, yes, we can at least chat about these as you like.


Another tedious and devious reply from you. You clearly said (around page 5 or 6 of this thread) that you had evidence that Maria von Paradis was the true composer of many Mozart PCs. Now you are admitting that the "evidence" is entirely circumstantial. In fact, I would say that merely because she know the Mozart Family, knew 30 PC's, and travelled around Europe is not even circumstantial evidence; it's irrelevant, if not a complete joke. But this is your stock-in-trade: wild claims, no evidence, boring waffle, changing the subject, ignoring questions, twisting what other people said. I make no wonder this thread is 19 pages long, with not an ounce of substantial proof offered by you.

What you mean by "a fair, open and honest exchange" is that you make some bold, unsubstantiated claim about a work by Mozart and then expect us to justify the status quo. It was pointed out to you previously that the onus is on you to prove your case. So let's take, for example, _The Magic Flute _and you tell us why you think it wasn't composed by Mozart (if that's what you think) and who did so instead, offering as much evidence as you can muster.


----------



## robert newman

The tedium is from yourself Mango. If you would read this thread and what I have written here (in total) on Maria von Paradis (a person you didn't even know had any mortal existence on this planet when she was first discussed, let alone that she had considerable musical talents) then, I think, you would save some bandwidth on this subject. 

I will nevertheless happily give you reasons on the subject you selected - i.e. of why Mozart was NOT the true true composer of the 'Magic Flute' - perhaps readers will find that more interesting than your evasive attitude on specific issues such as the 'Mozart' Requiem and your faith in the mountain of lies that are an integral part of 'Mozart's last work'. 

You are suffering from that incurable condition of believing every Mozartean textbook and every morsel of the regurgitated Mozart myth broadcast on him and his supposed achievements. I rather suspect you may have shares in Mozart memorabilia or in the sale of those chocolates that have his portrait, or may be working for the Austrian Tourist Board. That you have not, to date, had the good grace to recognise a single error being pointed out to you on Mozart and things popularly believed of him is, well, typical of that ailment called 'Mozarteana fatalis'. No cure exists but you are certainly entitled to a good rest. The condition can at least be slowed down by omitting marizpan chords from your musical diet such as those attributed so typically to Mozart and by listening rather more to Beethoven or Mr Bach.


----------



## AndreasvanHaren

I found this info about Paradis and didn't see it mentioned here, or maybe I missed it. She was blind? How then did she write all the Mozart music? By dictation? That must have been an enormous job. 

"Maria Theresa von Paradis was the daughter of the Imperial Secretary of Commerce and Court Councilor (Joseph Anton von Paradis) to the Empress Maria Theresa, for whom she was named. The Empress, however, was not her godmother, as was often believed. Between the ages of 2 and 5 she lost her eyesight. Paradis was treated by the famous Anton Mesmer from late 1776 until the middle of 1777, who was able to improve her condition temporarily until she was removed from his care, amid concerns on the one hand of possible scandal, on the other hand at the potential loss of her disability pension. In either case, at this departure from Dr Mesmer the blindness came back for good.

She received a broad education in the musical arts from:

* Karl Friberth (music theory and composition)
* Leopold Kozeluch (piano)
* Vincenzo Righini (singing)
* Antonio Salieri (singing and composition)
* Abbe Vogler (music theory and composition)."


----------



## Handel

Rod Corkin said:


> Well this was the case at the Beethoven Reference Site at least. I easily dealt with Robert concerning Beethoven/Luchesi. On musical grounds alone it was clear enough to see there was no connection between early Beethoven compositions and Luchesi's.
> 
> But strangely his ideas concerning Mozart raised the most offense there. Haydn passed by without much comment, though ironically I thought Robert had something more tangible to present in this case.


Actually, it's the "nobody is interested in Haydn enough" part I beg to differ. Poor Haydn.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Handel said:


> Actually, it's the "nobody is interested in Haydn enough" part I beg to differ. Poor Haydn.


I knew what you were referring to, and my response was based in relation to this. Robert's radical ideas concerning Haydn met with little interest, those concerning Mozart caused him to be barred, even from a so-called Beethoven forum. I need say no more. Personally I didn't give a damn what he had to say about Mozart, whilst others couldn't handle it.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> I knew what you were referring to, and my response was based in relation to this. Robert's radical ideas concerning Haydn met with little interest, those concerning Mozart caused him to be barred, even from a so-called Beethoven forum. I need say no more. Personally I didn't give a damn what he had to say about Mozart, whilst others couldn't handle it.


I understood that, on the Beethoven Reference forum, of which you were a Mod, Robert Newman made a nuisance of himself by boring other folk to death with his wild claims that no one else took seriously. His claims were way over the top. After a long run he was warned by Admin to cease posting any more on the subject, but he couldn't stop doing so and hence got banned. I understand that you walked out in sympathy.

The situation on CMG (to which he then moved) was one of very similar disbelief of his wild Mozart claims by all concerned. He started getting insulting with regard to one of the resident Mozart experts, and the fear was that his "game" was merely to acquire a status by free-riding ion on the back of other people's reputations. He got banned from there too.

He then turned up here when this forum was miniscule. It's amazing he is still going. Most people are clearly astonished at his wild claims. I'm just having having a bit of fun pointing out all the stupidities of his position.


----------



## Guest

AndreasvanHaren said:


> I found this info about Paradis and didn't see it mentioned here, or maybe I missed it. She was blind? How then did she write all the Mozart music? By dictation? That must have been an enormous job. "


Oh yes, we know that.

It must have kept her busy nights for sure. Pity she then lost all the works. A right pain, that.


----------



## Guest

Robert Newman said:


> The tedium is from yourself Mango. If you would read this thread and what I have written here (in total) on Maria von Paradis (a person you didn't even know had any mortal existence on this planet when she was first discussed, let alone that she had considerable musical talents) then, I think, you would save some bandwidth on this subject.


I have read it. This is what you wrote originally on this subject (page 5):



> There is evidence many works by the very gifted blind Austrian pianist Theresia von Paradis (virtually all of them 'lost') are somehow involved in the modern 'Mozart' list. Paradis left Vienna to tour round Europe around the very time Mozart was holding very successful series of keyboard concerts with new material (1783), is known to have travelled to see the Mozart family in Salzburg and has traditionally been described as commissioning Mozart for his 18th Piano Concerto. It's more likely Paradis IS the true composer of that concerto. (She is recorded as playing a new concerto at the Concert Spirituel in Paris during 1784). She had an immense reputation as a pianist and composer and it's said she had a phenomenal memory for over 60 concertos. She and Nannerl Mozart may prove (eventually) to have played vital roles in the creation of the 'Mozart piano concertos'.
> 
> This too is an area now under active study.


This text doesn't actually make any sense: "_has traditionally been described as commissioning Mozart for his 18th Piano Concerto_" (???). Ignoring this, it's another example of pure assertion and guesswork. It's also utterly pathetic and incredible.



> I will nevertheless happily give you reasons on the subject you selected - i.e. of why Mozart was NOT the true true composer of the 'Magic Flute' - perhaps readers will find that more interesting than your evasive attitude on specific issues such as the 'Mozart' Requiem and your faith in the mountain of lies that are an integral part of 'Mozart's last work'.


Yet another strong claim, and we will see if you can deliver. I suspect, however, it will contain nothing of any value and will comprise the usual mumbo jumbo about Jesuits, D'Anthoine, the Elector of Hanover, and Freemasons.



> You are suffering from that incurable condition of believing every Mozartean textbook and every morsel of the regurgitated Mozart myth broadcast on him and his supposed achievements. I rather suspect you may have shares in Mozart memorabilia or in those chocolates that have his portrait, or may be working for the Austrian Tourist Board. That you have not, to date, had the good grace to recognise a single error being pointed out to you on Mozart and things popularly believed of him is, well, typical of that ailment called 'Mozarteana fatalis'. No cure exists but you are certainly entitled to a good rest.


Not very amusing. Before you accuse me of any such things, remember it's you who is in the tiniest of minorities on this general subject. It's perfectly clear from the responses you have had both here and elsewhere that hardly anyone takes you or these claims seriously. You have dug such a deep hole for yourself in making these wild claims that you lack any credibility. If you had merely suggested that some of the early works are still a bit debateable (not something I would personally accept) then I doubt that it would have caused a stir. But your claims are completely outlandish and there is no way that they can be true. It's completely impossible that anything like such a big faking exercise could have been carried for so long, and have taken this long to have been allegedly discovered. Moroever, if there was any truth in any of it there would have a far more interest than you have been able to generate.


----------



## robert newman

Hi Mango,

Thank you for quoting one reference of many I made here on the little appreciated career and talent of Maria von Paradis. The coincidences in dates between her known career as a virtuoso pianist and composer and the arrival of 'Moizart's' mature piano concertos include known relationships between Paradis and the Mozart family in Salzburg are certainly not products of an over fertile imagination. I have, in fact, a mass of evidence on Mozart's supposed career being loaded with false claims and false attributions in the years leading up to Mozart's arrival in Vienna in the early 1780's. This would make any fair minded researcher highly suspicious. I've admitted I am highly suspicious of the true origins of 'Mozart's' piano concertos.. The fact that a 'Mozart piano concerto is even said to have been supplied TO Paradis by Wolfgang when the two met in Salzburg certainly confirms there IS a direct compositional relationship between the two as far as piano concertos is concerned. And so on. Such evidence IS circumstantial - and I admit once again that I have not studied this issue in the depth that it deserves. But yes, I strongly suspect that here, with the 'Mozart piano concertos' are further examples of false attribution. Perhaps you will, one day, agree, that a track record of falsehood is itself good reason to have suspicions.

(Neither the 'Elector of Hanover nor the Freemasons' have ever been mentioned in anything I've written on Mozart in this thread. Did you mention them to confuse us) ?

You say 'SOME of the early works are still a bit debatable'. What an understatement ! In fact the early works of 'Mozart' are loaded with false attributions and those that are very dubious. The same disturbing trend is also a persistent feature of MANY of 'his' middle period works. By the time of his maturity (the Vienna period) we can even predict a continuation and, sure enough, we find them, right up to the mythical Requiem.

You say it's _'impossible that anything like such a big faking exercise could have been carried for so long, and have taken this long to have been allegedly discovered. Moroever, if there was any truth in any of it there would have a far more interest than you have been able to generate._

I agree. But that's because the fakery of Mozart is not a new subject but was actually WELL KNOWN to the musicians of Vienna in Mozart's own time. Mozart was NOT known as writer of symphonies in 1780. J.B. de La Borde's, 'Essai sur la musique', Paris 1780 has no reference to Mozart writing any symphonies. Nannerl Mozart had at least as great a reputation for keyboard composition and keyboard performance as he. No Mozart symphony had been published up until the embarrasing events of Paris and nobody in Mozart's lifetime claimed differently. The exaggerations of Mozart and his supporters are a matter of plain record.

For example, On 10th January 1768 the 12 year old Mozart and his father Leopold arrived in Vienna. The family hoped Wolfgang would obtain success in the city as a composer of works for the stage.

But things did not work out well. Vienna was already very suspicious of Mozart's supposed musical abilities. Don't take my word for it. Here is Leopold Mozart writing to a friend in Salzburg at this time -

'_The people here in Vienna carefully avoid every chance of seeing us and of admitting to Wolfgang's musical skill, so that many times when they can be asked if they have heard this boy's (Wolfgang's) music and what they thought of him, they could always say they had not heard him or his music and that it could not possibly be true - that his reputation was completely fiction and foolishness - that everything he did was all pre-arranged - that Wolfgang was given music by other people which he already knew - that he was ridiculous etc ....'_ - (Leopold Mozart, Vienna, January 1768 - Letter to Salzburg friend on the reaction of the Viennese public and musicians about Wolfgang, his son).

Here, in Vienna, we see, Mozart and his father were simply not trusted. Leopold's reaction to this was predictable. He used all his influence to obtain a meeting with the Empress Maria Theresa and her son, Emperor Joseph 2nd. Arguing that such discourteous treatment to the 'genius' Wolfgang was grossly unfair it was agreed to commission the 12 year old boy to write an opera buffa for Vienna. Mozart's father continued to protest about their treatment by these unbelieving Viennese and even sent a list of supposed works by his young son to the Empress in defence of his reputation.

The commission given to Wolfgang was for the opera 'La Finta Semplice' - payment to be 100 Ducats on its completion. They were asked to contact the Vienna theatre director Giuseppe Affligio (1722-1788). Leopold, satisfied that the damage was now repaired, went to see Affligio. (Affligio had 1 year before been given a 10 year contract to manage the two largest theatres in Vienna).

(La Finta Semplice' was the name of an opera that had already been staged in Vienna in 1764 with a libretto by Salvatore Perillo - based on an earlier play by Goldon)i.

Leopold and Wolfgang decided a few days later to return to Salzburg and work supposedly began on composition of the new piece. By March Leopold wrote that its composition was going well. By June the score was complete. (It consists of some 558 pages of music).

Father and son then returned to Vienna and presented the finished work to Affligio so that rehearsals could begin.

But it's at this point that a new set of problems brought the issue of fakery back home again. Affligio (who obviously benefits finanically if the opera is performed) is convinced this music has NOT been composed by the 12 years old Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. So are thje singers. He and they dare to say so to Mozart's face. They note that he clearly has no real knowledge of the very score that he claims to have composed. Affligio (agreeing with other musicians in Vienna) then tells Leopold this opera has been 'ghost written' and is definitely NOT the product of the 12 year old boy. Leopold, of course, is deeply offended - once again. But now both the orchestra and the singers (who reluctantly work with the boy Mozart for a few more days on the piece in ever embarrasing circumstances) agree with Affligio - the work is definitely NOT by Wolfgang.

What happens next ? Well, Leopold now writes an angry letter at length to the Emperor and Empress (the Empress keen to know the truth) and encloses with his letter the long list of (supposed) compositions already written by his son. (It's this list which is the first attempted inventory of 'Mozart's music thus far).

But the Emperor, despite having commissioned the work, now decides these matters are becoming a public scandal. He decides there are good reasons to abandon the whole opera and to withdraw his association with it. Highly significant is the fact that Mozart is not paid. Also, the performance of 'La Finta Semplice' is cancelled in Vienna and the Mozart's are forced to return empty handed to Salzburg once again. In Salzburg their Jesuit friends arrange for the work to be once performed, in 1769. (But Salzburg, of course, was not part of the Austrian/Hungarian Empire at this time).

As for Affligio, he continued working in Vienna as per his contract but his theatres start to lose money. In a few more years he is obliged to transfer their control to a nobleman, Count Kohary. And, most remarkably, in 1778 Affligio is arrested. (Mozart at this time is now 22 years old). Affligio is himself accused of forgery. And, the following year, the man who dared to publicly challenge Mozart and his father is condemned to life imprisonment on the island of Elba - the island where, 9 years later, this same Affligio dies.

With the 'genius' statis of Mozart in some dispute it was decided that he and his father would be well advised to go on tour yet again.

"La Betulia Liberata KV118/74c

Mozart, as a supposed 'prodigy' of the Holy Roman Empire was to tour 3 times in Italy during his lifetime. The story of him writing down from memory a sacred mass in Rome is, of course part of the myth despite it being largely fiction (the written music already available for his study in Vienna long before his arrival in Rome). But, to restore the family prestige Mozart was able to obtain, by 1770, the Order of the Golden Spur, a papal knighthood. This, for a composer nurtured by the Catholic Church, seemed highly appropriate. Surely, this high profile award would improve his battered status ? So too his short association with the illustrious Padre Martini ?

Among works attributed to Mozart from his time in Italy was an oratorio, 'La Betulia Liberata'. This piece, with a libretto by Metastasio, is specifically refered to in a letter by Leopold Mozart of March 1771 - '_We spent the 13th March in Padua and stayed in the Palazzo of the nobleman Pesaro' he wrote - 'We saw a lot of the city in one day and Wolfgang was asked to play at two houses_. _Mozart received a commission to compose an oratorio for Padua, which he can do at his own convenience'. _

The commission had actually come from Don Giuseppe Ximena of Padua, Prince of Aragon. He specified that it was to be ready for performance in the city by the following Lent.

But there is, in fact, no evidence '_La Betulia liberata' _was ever sent to Padua by Mozart ! In fact, the Mozart's never returned to Padua after their visit to Milan in December.

And, although '_La Betulia liberata'_ WAS performed in Padua at Lent in 1772 the libretto of that performance (which still survives) identifies the composer of the music, NOT as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, but as being by a local composer, Giuseppe Callegari ! What happened ? How then do we explain the manuscript of 'Mozart's'_ La Betulia liberata _? It's definitely not by Callegari.

Well, to solve this little mystery we must look at this problem from another angle. In fact, from another composer.

By the time of Mozart's arrival in Padua there were important new developments within music. For example, it was clear that Jesuit control of musical education in Europe (which was huge) would probably suffer considerably soon in all countries of the Holy Roman Empire if the Order was to be annulled. The prospect of Jesuit extinction was coming to a head. And it finally arrived in 1773.

And Mozart had a problem. He had a commission. His good friiend (also in italy at this time) Josef Myslivececk provided the solution.

JOSEF MYSLIVECECK

I introduce in to this story details of Josef Myslivececk (b.Prague 1737 - d. Rome 1781). According to the 'Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians' Josef Myslivececk was a Czech composer and elder of identical twins. There is some speculation he was a pupil of Benda. Attendance at the Jesuit Gymasium in the Prague Clementinum has been posited. He most definitely attended Charles Ferdinand University (now Charles University).

In the early 1760's Myslivececk abandoned his family business for music and began study of composition with Franz Haberman, then Josef Seger, organist at the Tyn Church in Prague. According to Pelel he was able to compose 6 symphonies in the early 1760's though none survive in his name from this tijme. If they survive they may be misattributed. Myslivececk soon established an excellent reputation as a violinist. In November 1763 he left Prague for Venice, being funded for Italy partly by his brother Jachymn and also by his long-standing patron Count Vincent von Waldestein.

His music studies in Italy with GB Prescetti brought fast results. In his first opera 'Semiramide' (1765) at Bergamo and Alessandria (1766). His first great success came a year later (1767) with 'Il Bellorfonte' at Theatro S Carlo in Naples. In 1771 Myslivececk was even admitted in to the Accademia Filarmonica of Bolgona after befriending Padre Martini. (The very same school as the one Mozart attended - for all of 3 weeks).

Myslivececk is known to have made 3 musical trips to North Europe. The first, a triumphant return to Prague in 1768. The second, in 1772, to Vienna was not so successful though he met there Charles Burney, the English musicologist. that September. The third was at the invitation of the Elector of Bavaria, Maximilian 3 Joseph in 1777-8 when he is known to have visited Munich. (Reports of an earlier visit to Munich have not been confirmed). While in Munich 1778, his opera 'Ezio' and an oratorio 'Isacco' were both staged but their composer was in need of medical treatment. He is also known to have received commissions from Earl Cowper in Venice for 6 symphonies - these published in England and recently recorded for the first time,

On his return to Italy in 1778 this same Myslivececk enjoyed further successes in Naples and Venice but his final decline came at the same time as failure of two operas he wrote for Carnival in 1780 - '_Armida'_ for Milan, and '_Medonte_' for Rome. Myslivecek died shortly afterwards in Rome in abject poverty, his funeral held at the St. Lorenzo in Lucina and paid for by a mysterious Englishman named 'Barry' (a former pupil ?).

Myslivececk's adventurous life has been the subject of numerous treatments in Czech and German literature including the opera, '_Il divino Buemo' _(1912) by Stanislav Suda.

Relations with the Mozart Family

Which brings us to Myslivececk and Mozart. Myslivececk first met the Mozarts in Bolgona in March of 1770. He remained a friend of the family for some 8 years. Their friendship soured in 1778 when he failed to fulfil a promise to arrange an opera commission for Mozart at the Teatro S Carlo for Carnival in 1779. Leopold was also resentful of the fact that Myslivececk had been successful in obtaining patronage through the Prince Archbishop Colloredo of Salzburg. (A vital link between the creative ouput of both composers). Myslivececk is in fact the most commonly mentioned composer in the entire Mozart family correspondence. 

Recent research has proved that Mozart undoubtedly turned to Myslivececk for his own stylistic models. For example, Mozart's very first opera seria '_Mitridate'_ has direct musical references to Myslivececk's own '_Nitteti'_ and, in addition, Mozart borrowed copiously from Myslivececk's music in numerous concertos, symphonies and keyboard sonatas. (See Freeman -1995).

The incipit of a Myslivececk symphony specially admired by Mozart (which its composer used as the Overture to the opera 'Demofoonte' in 1769) is also quoted in a postscript to a letter written by Leopold in Milan in December 1770.

Today, the most famous composition of Myslivececk is rarely credited to him - 'Il caro mio bene'. This today is better known as an arrangement by 'Mozart' and goes by the name of 'Ridente la calma'.

Myslivececk adopted Italianate models of expression in virtually all his works. In fact, in the long period 1765-1780 he was the most prolific composer of opera-seria in all of Europe.

At first, he composed works dominated by elaborate 'del segno' arias with brilliant passage works and sophisticated arrangements. But around 1773 (corresponding with the official end of Jesuit musical influence) he began to create music associated with a reform in opera. He starts to construct operatic arias in sonata and other forms. He also begins, from around this same time (1773 onwards), to use simpler more tuneful themes. Starting with the opera 'La Calliroe' (1778) his operas feature even more elaborate sections of highly accompanied recitatitve and many arias of the slow/fast rondo type in which Myslivececk was specially talented. He uses very rich melodic ideas and has skillful techniques of phrase extension.

His setting of Metastasio's 'Isacco figura del redentore' is perhaps his greatest work.

Concertos

The violin concertos of Myslivecek (many of them lost of attributed to other composers such as Mozart) were very fine. He was even recognized in the 1770's as one of the greatest composers of this form. 8 violin concertos are indisputably credited to him but questions exist on the 5 of 'Mozart'.

Reference books on Myslivececk's works -

Evans and K Dearling - 'J Myslivececk' - Thematic Catalogue (Munich, 1999) of Instrumental and Orchestral Works

Operas

Semiramide - (1766)
Il Bellorofonte - 1767 Jan
Fernace - Nov. 1767
Il trionfo di Clelia - Metastasio - Dec.1767
Demofoonte - Metastasio - Jan 1769
L'Ipermestron' -Metastasio - March 1769
La Nitteti - Bologna - April 1770
Motezuma - Jan 1771
Il Gran Tamerlano - Dec 1771 Milan
Il Demetrio - Metastasio - May 1773
Romolo ed Eruilia - Metastasio - Naples - August 1773
Antigona - Turin - Dec 1773
La Clemena di Tito - Metastasio - Jan 1774 - Venice
Aride - Padua - June 1774
Artasarse - Metastasio - Naples - Aug 1774
Il Demofoonte (2nd version) - Naples - Jan 1775
Ezio - Metastasio - Naples 1775
Adriano in Siria - Metastasio - September 1776 - Florence
Ezio - (2nd version) - Metastasio - Carnival 1777 - Munich
La Callioroe - May 1778 - Naples
L'Olimpiade - Metastasio - Nov 1778
La Circe - Venice - 1779 May
Demetrio - Metastasio - Naples - Aug 1777
Armida - Milan - Dec 1779
Il Medonte - Rome - Jan 1780
Antigono - Rome - April 1780

Oratorios

* Betulia liberata - Metastasio - Padua 1771 (lost)
La Passion di Nostro Signore Gesu Christo - Metastasio - Florence 1773
La liberazione d'Israele - Easter 1775 - (lost)
Isaac figura del redentore - Metastasio - Florence - March 1776 (parts attributed to Haydn and parts to Mozart)

Instrumental

At least 45 symphonies
Lost 6 early symphonies (possibly attributed to others)
Lost 5 symphonies (c.1776-7)
A symphony in C formerly in Berlin Staatsbibliothek destroyed during 1945

Other Sources

G. de Saint-Fox 'Mozart d'apres Myslivececk' ReM Vol 9/4-6 (1927-8) p.124-8

M Shaginyan - 'Resurrection from the Dead - J Myslivececk' - Moscow 1964 - translated into Czech language 1965

R Pecman - 'J Myslivecek und sein Opern - Brno 1970 (with extensive list of minor literature including stories of Myslivececk's life and career)

M. Flothius - 'Ridente la calma - Mozart oder Myslivececk - MJb - 1971/2 - p.241-3

D.E. Freeman - 'Josef Myslivececk'

COMMENTS

It is surely a remarkable coincidence that Mozart, commissioned to write the oratorio 'Betulia liberata' for Padua was unable to do so, and yet the very same piece was composed by Josef Myslivececk in that same city of Padua, in that very same year of 1771 - now lost !

The solution is therefore simple. Mozart accepted the commission for '_Betulia liberata' _in Padua but was unable to write it. His friend and great helper Josef Myslivecek came to his rescue. But, by this time, delay in Mozart providing the piece made it necessary for the commissioner to obtain the same work for Padua from a local composer, Callegari. The Callegari version is certainly the only oratorio of that name performed in Padua at Lent in 1772.

There is no record 'Mozart's' work of that name (actually by Myslivececk) was performed other than once back home in Salzburg during Mozart's lifetime. Nor any record that it was sent to Padua.

Once again, the clear inference is that Mozart's reputation was being manufactured by men who, just prior to the dissolution of the Jesuit Order, wanted to promote him, Mozart, as a symbol of musical excellence. Myslivececk was also very probably the true composer of the violin concertos attributed today to Mozart. The works of Myslivececk are indisputably similar in style to those we today associate with Mozart. (Recently recorded arias by this composer are virtually 'Mozart', stylistically).

The Mozart/Myslivececk relationship ended with the death of Myslivececk in Rome. Mozart's debt to this Jesuit educated Czech composer is enormous. It will only increase. And with rediscovery/appreciation of Myslivececk's music (and that of others such as Andrea Luchesi, JM Kraus and others) will surely come long overdue recognition of the true composers of many works falsely/traditionally attributed to Mozart.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> I understood that, on the Beethoven Reference forum, of which you were a Mod, Robert Newman made a nuisance of himself by boring other folk to death with his wild claims that no one else took seriously. His claims were way over the top. After a long run he was warned by Admin to cease posting any more on the subject, but he couldn't stop doing so and hence got banned. I understand that you walked out in sympathy.


Robert made a nuisance of himself to some people at the BRS but not once broke the forum rules. Considering the general banality of the other contributions there I was of the opinion he should be tolerated on the gounds that radical opinions always generate interest and debate, whether I agreed with those opinions or not.

For the record but I did NOT walk out in sympathy for Robert, the reason I left had little or nothing to do with Robert. I quit because of the above mentioned banality which was actively encouraged by the management. When I openly complained about this the management said to the effect it was 'me or him', so I made the decision for him and left. Peter encouraged the Newman connection as the reason to cover the truth about his lack-lustre management which I could tolerate no longer after many years.

When I first got involved with Beethoven in the net 7 or more years ago as moderator at the Edepot Beethoven forum (still the best classical music forum I have witnessed or been a part of, before the site owner dismantled it..) I was given threats of violence for promoting the idea that period instruments were the way to go for Beethoven. I was regarded as a loony then too, only in my case the loony was absolutely correct. So you see i have a little sympathy for loonies.

PS I might add that one look at the viewing figures for Robert's chain here proves my point about keeping him at the BRS...


----------



## Guest

Robert Newman said:


> Hi Mango. You say 'SOME of the early works are still a bit debatable. What an understatement ! In fact the early works of 'Mozart' are loaded with false attributions and those that are very dubious. The same disturbing trend is also a persistent feature of MANY of 'his' middle period works.


You twister. I said nothing of the sort. This is what I wrote:



Mango said:


> … You have dug such a deep hole for yourself in making these wild claims that you lack any credibility. If you had merely suggested that some of the early works are still a bit debateable (not something I would personally accept) then I doubt that it would have caused a stir. But your claims are completely outlandish and there is no way that they can be true.


Most of the rest of your last post is yet more historical twaddle, and is not worth commenting upon, except the following:



Robert Newman said:


> But things did not work out well. Vienna was already very suspicious of Mozart's supposed musical abilities. Don't take my word for it. Here is Leopold Mozart writing to a friend in Salzburg at this time -
> 
> 'The people here in Vienna carefully avoid every chance of seeing us and of admitting to Wolfgang's musical skill, so that many times when they can be asked if they have heard this boy's (Wolfgang's) music and what they thought of him, they could always say they had not heard him or his music and that it could not possibly be true - that his reputation was completely fiction and foolishness - that everything he did was all pre-arranged - that Wolfgang was given music by other people which he already knew - that he was ridiculous etc ....' - (Leopold Mozart, Vienna, January 1768 - Letter to Salzburg friend on the reaction of the Viennese public and musicians about Wolfgang, his son).


Assuming this letter is genuine, and that you haven't tampered with it, its content doesn't surprise me in the slightest as it's all about a *12 year old's *reputation in Vienna, when Mozart lived in Salzburg.



Robert Newman said:


> The Mozart/Myslivececk relationship ended with the death of Myslivececk in Rome. Mozart's debt to this Jesuit educated Czech composer is enormous. It will only increase. And with rediscovery/appreciation of Myslivececk's music (and that of others such as Andrea Luchesi, JM Kraus and others) will surely come long overdue recognition of the true composers of many works falsely/traditionally attributed to Mozart.


This is prime nonsense because if ever it became accepted that other composers were the true composers of works attributed to Mozart then their current value would be decimated. Look what happened to Symphony 37. Michael Haydn was a virtual nobody before 1907 (the time of re-attribution) and is still a nobody. Symphony 37 is hardly ever played as it's considered tainted. But no further re-attributions will happen because you are entirely wrong in your assertions. In any event, I happen to think that general interest Mozart has peaked and is now on a long term cyclical decline relative to other top-class, later composers, such as Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms etc. This has nothing whatsoever to do with your claims.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> Robert made a nuisance of himself to some people at the BRS but not once broke the forum rules. Considering the general banality of the other contributions there I was of the opinion he should be tolerated on the gounds that radical opinions always generate interest and debate, whether I agreed with those opinions or not.
> 
> For the record but I did NOT walk out in sympathy for Robert, the reason I left had little or nothing to do with Robert. I quit because of the above mentioned banality which was actively encouraged by the management. When I openly complained about this the management said to the effect it was 'me or him', so I made the decision for him and left. Peter encouraged the Newman connection as the reason to cover the truth about his lack-lustre management which I could tolerate no longer after many years.
> 
> When I first got involved with Beethoven in the net 7 or more years ago as moderator at the Edepot Beethoven forum (still the best classical music forum I have witnessed or been a part of, before the site owner dismantled it..) I was given threats of violence for promoting the idea that period instruments were the way to go for Beethoven. I was regarded as a loony then too, only in my case the loony was absolutely correct. So you see i have a little sympathy for loonies.
> 
> PS I might add that one look at the viewing figures for Robert's chain here proves my point about keeping him at the BRS...


I followed much of the debate concerning alleged fakery on the Beethoven Reference Site (BRS), without any direct involvement.

Incidentally, the original Mozarteum discussions (pre-BRS) were quite fascinating. There the response was more one of shock-horror, and a genuine feeling of insult to the great man (W A Mozart). It was obvious that Robert Newman wouldn't last long in that place, rather like a chicken on the loose in a wood of foxes. Indeed, they had him for supper pretty sharpish.

As you know, on the BRS it didn't take long to dispose of Robert Newman's allegations concerning alleged Beethoven. You partly saw to that. As you rightly say, there was hardly any interest in those allegations concerning Haydn. The main storm centred on the allegations relating to Mozart. This last fact didn't surprise me in the slightest, as Haydn is of much less interest these days among the generality of classical fans, especially compared with the vastly superior Beethoven and Mozart.

It seemed to me that BRS's "Admin" (I'll use this term as I don't wish to mention names unnecessarily) gave Robert Newman a generous amount of time and space to elaborate his arguments. The questions posed mainly from Admin were, in my opinion, perceptive and intelligent, but the replies were highly evasive. We are now fully accustomed to this from the evidence here. For the first time, Robert Newman met his match with intelligent questions, summaries and rebuttals of the main planks of his position. After a while, it was obvious to me that Admin got completely fed up with his continued flow of mere assertion, and they also began to express concern that it was mainly the product of an obsessed mind rather than based on genuine research. I could thus quite see why Admin gave the request to stop posting any more, but which was very clearly ignored, since the discussion was sterile, and fears were growing that several of the posts were disrupting other threads unrelated to question of fakery per se.

Robert Newman's later move to CMG was bound to incur trouble because of the highly interventionist role of Admin on that site (one in particular). There they watch newcomers like hawks (they assume you are a porn peddler, or even worse a left-winger!). They especially don't tolerate anything that looks like criticism of a few favourite posters, especially grandmothers from "downunder". Exactly the same as here, the discussions about Mozart on CMG were not very productive, and clearly no one had any sympathy with the thesis put forward by Robert Newman. When he got embroiled in hot debate with one esteemed member, his future had "curtains" written all over it. It was possible to see, several weeks before it actually happened, that he was going to be sunk without trace and fed to the sharks. Admin was clearly just waiting for the right moment to strike, and when it happened it was surgical. It was all very amusing because they posted a notice on the front door of the Forum explaining why they had banned him. He was a real outcast.

Undeterred, he next turned up here and I've been keeping tabs on his progress. This place stands out as being far too accommodating to his nonsense (a point made recently by another poster).

His views were brought up on another once big site a few months ago (by a third party observer watching developments here) but they were considered such nonsense that the topic never took off. Mind you, this site has since almost died a death and now only has about 5 active members. Even the Mod can hardly be bothered to turn up any longer, and it's pathetic watching it die.

In response to your last point, I suspect the high viewing figures are more to do with the fun and games we're having at the present time in challenging all this nonsense, rather than any intrinsic interest or belief in what Mr Newman has to say on the substantive issues. He's at his best (or worse depending on how you look at it) when he is on the defensive and made to work to defend his nonsense. People like watching squabbles.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> His views were brought up on another once big site a few months ago (by a third party observer watching developments here) but they were considered such nonsense that the topic never took off. Mind you, this site has since almost died a death and now only has about 5 active members. Even the Mod can hardly be bothered to turn up any longer, and it's pathetic watching it die.
> 
> In response to your last point, I suspect the high viewing figures are more to do with the fun and games we're having at the present time in challenging all this nonsense, rather than any intrinsic interest or belief in what Mr Newman has to say on the substantive issues. He's at his best (or worse depending on how you look at it) when he is on the defensive and made to work to defend his nonsense. People like watching squabbles.


These are your most pertinent points to my mind.

The BRS site, which i had been an active member and contributor of much material, became so banale that even I had little interest in it, and the frustration got to me in the end. Robert's appearance brought a refreshing change to the status quo and some lengthy exchanges ensued, even though the Mozart and Haydn elements were irrelevant to a Beethoven forum. After he was kicked out the banality immediately returned.

The thing is to do as I did, simply challenge him with the music itself, not historical investigation. Either way you don't have to follow his line of argument, create your own for the counter attack. I actually met Robert in person a few times and we exchanged CDs of the Beethoven music in question and also material by Luchesi. These debates only become squabbles if you let them, as long as forum rules are obeyed everything should be allowable. As an experienced moderator I will be watching with interest how he is dealt with here.

If nobody raised a finger of complaint about the extremely radical things he had to say about Haydn and Beethoven, then it is clear the problem here and now is more with his attackers than with Robert. 'Publish and be damned' should be the motto of a good forum.

Nothing he had to say about my beloved Beethoven annoyed me in the slightest, but then I am the kind of person who rises to this kind of thing.

If Robert is talking such utter nonsense about Mozart, it should be utterly easy for you to destroy him here.

PS if you think people are viewing here for 'fun and games' I think either they or you should get out more!


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> The BRS site, which i had been an active member and contributor of much material, became so banale that even I had little interest in it, and the frustration got to me in the end. Robert's appearance brought a refreshing change to the status quo and some lengthy exchanges ensued, even though the Mozart and Haydn elements were irrelevant to a Beethoven forum. After he was kicked out the banality immediately returned.


I got the impression from what I recall reading on BRS that you seemed piqued at being increasingly side-lined by Admin in dealing with Robert Newman. Was there a power struggle, which you lost, which really caused you to leave?



Rod Corkin said:


> The thing is to do as I did, simply challenge him with the music itself, not historical investigation. Either way you don't have to follow his line of argument, create your own for the counter attack.


This is definitely not fair comment. Looking back on this thread just about every possible line of argument to form a counter-attack against Mr Newman's position has been tried. On purely musical issues, the following were asked:

i. The obvious question of asking for evidence that Luchesi wrote high quality music was met by the argument that it was all either lost or sold to Mozart.

ii. The question was also asked several times how Luchesi was able to write in different styles for both Haydn and Mozart. The answer given was that Luchesi was such a clever chap he could compose in any style.

iii. When asked about the evidence that Maria von Paradis wrote Mozart's mature PCs, we find that all the works she wrote have been lost!​
Were does one go from here, except to question the historical evidence? This itself is full of holes and inconsistencies but Mr Newman is completely unabashed. He just changes the subject.

It was very easy to tackle Mr Newman's allegations concerning Beethoven because they were confined to a very small number of insignificant pieces at the outset of Beethoven's career. Because Beethoven's style was unique and consistent, it was straightforward to dispute these claims. He didn't put up much of a fight to defend his views on Beethoven. Thus, it was very clear that Mr Newman's tactics in referring to Beethoven on the BRS was a mere ploy to launch his main attack on Mozart, and to a lesser extent Haydn. You will note, however, that Mr Newman is still arguing the matter about Beethoven, so he hasn't actually accepted what you thought was a defeat on that score.



> These debates only become squabbles if you let them, as long as forum rules are obeyed everything should be allowable. As an experienced moderator I will be watching with interest how he is dealt with here.


This sounds rather sanctiminious. "As an experienced moderator". Balls to that. Anyone can do it. Mods are two a penny, and they use kiddies on many sites.

As for watching for action by Admin, I doubt there will be anything to watch. There hasn't been so far. I doubt they know we are here.



> If nobody raised a finger of complaint about the extremely radical things he had to say about Haydn and Beethoven, then it is clear the problem here and now is more with his attackers than with Robert. 'Publish and be damned' should be the motto of a good forum.


What does this mean? If someone comes along and challenges widely held views on any particular subject using highly dubious arguments and constantly giving evasive replies, the problem is with person making the attacks not on those defending the status quo.



> Nothing he had to say about my beloved Beethoven annoyed me in the slightest, but then I am the kind of person who rises to this kind of thing.


That's probably because he didn't say very much about Beethoven. What he is saying about Mozart doesn't bear the slightest comparison. If he had said similar things about Beethoven you'd be frothing at the mouth, so come off it with me chum.

Nor does he bother me in the slightest. All I'm doing is questioning him harder than hitherto on this Forum. Given his experience on other sites, the discussion here from the outset has been too genteel by far, and he has had far too easy a time. Some people's English has been a slight problem too in probing his thinking. Hopefully, I don't have that problem.



> If Robert is talking such utter nonsense about Mozart, it should be utterly easy for you to destroy him here.


It is obvious to me. I reckon most other people here, and on other forums who have seen it, have reached the same conclusion. He has been destroyed time and time again, but like an "Aunt Sally" he keeps popping up again with a new argument.

..........................

As for your suggestion that I might get out a bit more, I could say the same to you but I won't do so because I'm too polite to make such a suggestion.

Finally, I'd be very interested to hear how far you believe Mr Newman's allegations about the fakery of Mozart. It rather looks like you have been asked to come and lend him some badly needed support. If you left BRS partly on his account I guess this must be the case.


----------



## robert newman

Rules of Engagement to deal with those who call in to question the true musical achievements of W.A. Mozart -

1. Personalise the issues of these 'revisionists' and never admit you've been grossly misinformed on the real life and career of your hero. 
2. If examples of musical fakery, lying, deceipt and misinformation are proved to have featured at each and every stage of Mozart's official career these, in themselves, should never be admitted to be of a serious nature.
3. Maintain, at all costs, the line that 'experts' have proved Mozart's modern reputation to be entirely justified
4. Explain to doubters that 'experts' do not waste their time answering such misinformed people as Newman, Taboga and others. 
5. Bear in mind that the musical education of children would be greatly harmed by pointing out that Mozart did NOT write music like 'dictation' and that all great composers actually study music in great detail. 
6. If glaring errors and downright lies do seem to be a feature of much of early Mozart literature (these invented and spread by known liars) these embarrasing facts should not be interpreted as victories for those terrible revisionists.

and finally -

7. Bear in mind that Mozart is never to be studied or criticised in the same way that we would study or criticise Bach, Beethoven or any other composer in the entire history of music. No, we must understand and hold the view that we are dealing in Mozart's case with miracles - and miracles, as everyone knows, should never be accessible to reason and to logic.

Arm yourself, dear reader, with these maxims and you too may become a fully fledged member of the 'Mozart establishment'.

As a member of that minority who see Mozart as an unschooled, uneducated, mediochre musical talent (who was the focal point for the manufacture of a fake reputation) I take heart in the fact that one side of this debate is doing their homework on issue after issue while the other has never (like Mozart) seen the inside of a school.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Rules of Engagement to deal with those who call in to question the true musical achievements of W.A. Mozart -
> 
> 1. Personalise the issues of these 'revisionists' and never admit you've been grossly misinformed on the real life and career of your hero.
> 2. If examples of musical fakery, lying, deceipt and misinformation are proved to have featured at each and every stage of Mozart's official career these, in themselves, should never be admitted to be of a serious nature.
> 3. Maintain, at all costs, the line that 'experts' have proved Mozart's modern reputation to be entirely justified
> 4. Explain to doubters that 'experts' do not waste their time answering such misinformed people as Newman, Taboga and others.
> 5. Bear in mind that the musical education of children would be greatly harmed by pointing out that Mozart did NOT write music like 'dictation' and that all great composers actually study music in great detail.
> 6. If glaring errors and downright lies do seem to be a feature of much of early Mozart literature (these invented and spread by known liars) these embarrasing facts should not be interpreted as victories for those terrible revisionists.
> 
> and finally -
> 
> 7. Bear in mind that Mozart is never to be studied or criticised in the same way that we would study or criticise Bach, Beethoven or any other composer in the entire history of music. No, we must understand and hold the view that we are dealing in Mozart's case with miracles - and miracles, as everyone knows, should never be accessible to reason and to logic.
> 
> Arm yourself, dear reader, with these maxims and you too may become a fully fledged member of the 'Mozart establishment'.
> 
> As a member of that minority who see Mozart as an unschooled, uneducated, mediochre musical talent (who was the focal point for the manufacture of a fake reputation) I take heart in the fact that one side of this debate is doing their homework on issue after issue while the other has never (like Mozart) seen the inside of a school.


The above of course is yet a further smokescreen to hide your inability to offer the slightest evidence of proof on any of your claims. I thought you were supposed to be dealing with the Magic Flute right now. To be honest I've rather lost count of all the non-answered questions I and others have asked you. It's laughable.

Anyway, just to deal with the above crazy load of rubbish, the main problems are:

•	You haven't provided any evidence of fakery, lying, deceit and misinformation. It's all the result of your highly faulty reading and interpretation of history.

•	There is nothing wrong in believing the widely-held, standard, expert line on matters of this nature. It would far more questionable to believe the word of an obscure Italian professor in something or other (what is it, by the way?) whose main apparent interest is in promoting the cause of Italian classical music. Or to believe the utterings of some complete unknown who turns up at odd places on the internet (after repeated previous bannings elsewhere) and who hasn't written one single piece in any accredited music journal.

•	It is the case that no recognised experts will wish to debate in public with you after the insults you have hurled at them based on your loony views and misreadings of history.

•	Your examples of so-called "glaring errors and downright lies" are entirely fictitious. All you do is misrepresent small issues and turn them into huge problems. They are only big problems in your head.

•	As I have said repeatedly, if you have anything worthwhile to say on this matter of alleged fakery by Mozart you should prove it by getting a respectable publisher to print your fully reasoned arguments and evidence, instead of continuing to skulk around places like this. Actually, I reckon you have tried but failed, in which case it must prove that your opinions have no market value and hence are literally not worth the paper they are written on.​
I do hope one day you will put down your comic books and get real. You might start by picking up a few decent text-books on the Mozart family. Start with a few about Constanze. I'm sure you will find she was a real sweetie in due course.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> I got the impression from what I recall reading on BRS that you seemed piqued at being increasingly side-lined by Admin in dealing with Robert Newman. Was there a power struggle, which you lost, which really caused you to leave?...


You are living in fantasy island here Mr Mango. I had no power to lose at the BRS, it was not my site or my forum, I was only made moderator because I offered myself to delete the porn postings that were plaguing the place towards the end of my stay there. Out of 7 years participation I was moderator for only a few weeks. My experience was gained at Edepot and I was offered the job because I contributed the most. Also for most of the past 4 years I had my own site and forum devoted to Handel, but I had no time for it anymore and closed it up.

I left the BRS forum because the site owner made my position untenable - he barred himself as long as I was still posting there! So at the end in a way it was myself who had won the power struggle, if there ever was one. It's just that the prize wasn't worth winning, so I quit.

I'm afraid your tone is so immature, deluded and unpleasant I feel the remainder of your ill informed post is not worth responding to.

I've said all I have to say in this chain, Mozart is not my concern.


----------



## robert newman

Mango, it seems you are living in fantasy after all. 

As for posting here on reasons why Mozart did not compose 'The Magic Flute' - well, you can read the number of my posts in recent days (most of them in response to others) to see that I am not running from anything. 

I will post shortly on 'The Magic Flute' and will be happy to do so.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Mango,

In a letter dated 12th January 1783 Mozart wrote to his father in Salzburg of the visiting Italian composer and piano virtuoso Maurizio Clementi (1752-1832) : "Clementi plays well, as far as execution with the right hand goes. His greatest strength lies in his passages in thirds. Apart from that, he has not a kreuzer's worth of taste or feeling - in short he is a mere mechanicus". In a subsequent letter, this most modest Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart even goes so far as to tell his father (with typical arrogance) - "_Clementi is a charlatan, like all Italians'_. Welcome to another episode of the fake world of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, whose vanity and preposterous boasts towards musicians who happened to be rivals is almost without parallel in musical history. If musicians did not like Mozart they are, of course, described as 'jealous'. If they are superior in keyboard skills or in matters of musical talent they are ridiculed or portrayed as useless. This is the same Mozart whose offensiveness made him deeply mistrusted by musicians other than those who circled around his greatly faked reputation. And, nearly 8 years after the above letter appeared that most glorious 'Mozart' opera, 'Die Zauberflote'.(The Magic Flute) with it's extraordinary overture beginning, in actual fact, with music that had actually been composed nearly 10 years before by the same Maurizio Clementi (his B Flat Major Sonata Op. 24 No. 2).! - the main theme of which had been blatantly stolen by Mozart for that opera.

'Ah', you will say, 'it was nothing but a bit of friendly borrowing by Mozart'. Well, we have the plain fact that this theft by Mozart so angered Clementi that each time his Op. 24 sonata No. 2 was published he included a written note on its title page explaining that the sonata had been composed nearly ten years before 'Mozart's Magic Flute'.

I hope to show reasonable grounds for arguing, over the next few posts, that here in the 1791 opera 'The Magic Flute' are sufficient grounds for us to view with great suspicion the assumption, the tradition, that Mozart was its true composer.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> You are living in fantasy island here Mr Mango. I had no power to lose at the BRS, it was not my site or my forum, I was only made moderator because I offered myself to delete the porn postings that were plaguing the place towards the end of my stay there. Out of 7 years participation I was moderator for only a few weeks. My experience was gained at Edepot and I was offered the job because I contributed the most. Also for most of the past 4 years I had my own site and forum devoted to Handel, but I had no time for it anymore and closed it up.
> 
> I left the BRS forum because the site owner made my position untenable - he barred himself as long as I was still posting there! So at the end in a way it was myself who had won the power struggle, if there ever was one. It's just that the prize wasn't worth winning, so I quit.
> 
> I'm afraid your tone is so immature, deluded and unpleasant I feel the remainder of your ill informed post is not worth responding to.
> 
> I've said all I have to say in this chain, Mozart is not my concern.


Oh dear, somewhat rattled I see. I am afraid, Mr Corkin, that your position doesn't make any sense on several scores:

1. If Mozart is not your concern - a point I accept you have made at least twice - why are you constantly interjecting and offering an opinion? If you make pointless comment and suggestion, you should expect that someone might pick you up on it. For example, your post 292 gave basic advice - to me I presume - on how to validate what Robert Newman has been telling this Forum since last September, namely to look at the music itself. In reply, I have pointed out to you that of course this has been tried in several different ways by various people, but this guy is as slippery as an eel and side-steps the issue with a raft of answers along the lines which I set out. Do you think he has answered these purely musical questions adequately?

2. You chose to drag into this discussion your incarnations on other music forums. No one asked you about this. You also stated how you intend to monitor what action by Admin is taken here in regard to the way Mr Newman is treated in future, given your former Mod status on one of the previous forums. I simply remarked that I couldn't care less what your former status was, and nor could anyone else for that I would guess. I could not see the relevance of your former Forum involvement to this discussion. Are you intending to police this place?

3. You said you were unphased by Mr Newman's allegations about Beethoven's fakery of works by Luchesi. I simply drew a distinction between what Mr Newman was saying about Beethoven's alleged fakery and that by Mozart. They are two completely separate matters, one extremely minor and the other extremely major. Would you not agree?​If you wish to cop out of answering these questions it's up to you.


----------



## robert newman

Mango, I really must correct you. Nobody has ever said that Beethoven 'faked' anything. 

Such a clumsy mistake is all too typical of your style. Rod Corkin and I have discussed early Beethoven's career over years and nobody has ever suggested that Luchesi faked anything for Beethoven. Why don't you take more care ? 

Let me make this so simple that you can understand it clearly. There are various works from Bonn on which there are different views as to who composed them. They include the cantatas WoO87 and WoO88. But NOBODY has ever said that Luchesi FAKED them or that Beethoven FAKED them.

I have never at any time spoken of 'Beethoven's fakery' since I believe (unlike Mozart) Beethoven was a great musical genius who AT NO TIME was involved in any musical fakery. 

Really Mango, you surely must read things more carefully or you will have Rod Corkin as one of your critics - one of the most learned Beethoven writers on the internet.


----------



## robert newman

Mango, 

I admit that any attempt to show that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart did NOT compose the great opera ‘The Magic Flute’ or that he did NOT compose, for example, ‘The Requiem’ (both in 1791) is in one sense a quite ridiculous thing - since the proving of a negative is itself ridiculous. Better by far (you will surely agree) to show by fair and reasonable proofs that he, Mozart, had, by his last year of 1791 a track record of having been secretly supplied a whole string of musical works so as to falsely inflate his supposed compositional achievements - these supplied to him with the full knowledge of his patrons by a chain of miscellaneous composers - of which these two last works are merely examples of his fakery. Better to show, in fact, that in the fake career of Mozart there never was a time when fakery, deception and downright falsehood was not the main feature of his supposed musical career, But let it also be admitted that this big job is already in progress and that we have touched on that subject here on this forum, and that it can be seen argued in more detail elsewhere. We deal with a specific case here and not with the general thesis. 

Having said all this, you were asked to choose any ‘Mozart’ stage work and you chose (eventually) ‘The Magic Flute’. You could of course have chosen ‘The Marriage of Figaro’ or ‘Cosi Fan Tutte’, or ‘Idomeneo’, or ‘Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail’ or any of the other ‘Mozart’ stage works. But you chose ‘The Magic Flute’. So, whatever your reaction is to my argument you must surely agree that the choice was yours and that I have at least given you a reply. To make reply to you matters, since I would not wish you to think that I was avoiding your question, or that I had run out of steam, or that I was trying to mislead you. If the thesis that Mozart was really a giant musical fake is correct, then, of course, there must be some sort of argument to hear in respect of your preferred choice, one of the truly great operas of classical music, ‘The Magic Flute’, premiered as it was in Vienna during the Summer of 1791. 

Well, I want to make a start here and will follow it up with two more posts on this thread. 

Mango, there are a number of facts that I would like you to accept. The first is that operas are generally written for a reason. Either because they have been specially commissioned or because their premiere coincides with an event or a special day, or because they capture the mood of a special time in history, etc. There is nothing controversial in pointing this out. Nor would you disagree that in virtually every case a commission to write an opera involves the use of a script, or a text, or a libretto. And if we go along with the general view that Mozart was commissioned to compose this particular opera by his friend Emanuel Schickaneder of the Freihaus Theatre in Vienna ’, this simply to capture the popular mood for magical works by fickle Viennese audiences of the late 18th century, then, we might ask, with which poet or with which librettist, did he, Mozart, actually create this opera ? Ponder on that question for a moment, if you will. And when you begin to look for an answer you will find (in typical fashion) that we start to run in to real problems. 


Let me tell you plainly that the librettist of ‘The Magic Flute’ is a subject so shrouded in mystery and in falsification that a great deal has been written on the subject without it ever being resolved to the satisfaction of anyone. It’s almost as if the question itself is wrong. And that’s because, in fact, this opera did not have a librettist in the ordinary sense of the term. Why not ? It’s because, in fact, this opera is not an ordinary opera. It is, in fact, the product of the ‘establishment’ - I.e. of those who patronized the fake career of Mozart from the beginning. 


Secondly, although this opera uses symbolism that is commonly used by Freemasons we must appreciate that, in fact, there was a movement within Freemasonry which had very little to do with Freemasonry - I mean, specifically, that movement which is called the ‘Illuminati’. The Illuminati, Mango, was a product of the very Jesuit Order which (you know) had patronized the boy Mozart, the Order that Mozart’s domineering father was educated by, and which had, nearly 20 years before the ‘Magic Flute’ been banned by the papacy in Rome. The Illuminati used Freemasonry to further its aims. But it was, in actual fact, one of the main enemies of all that Freemasonry represented. 

Imagine, if you will, the infiltration of a democratic government by members of, say, a powerful sect. That is what the Illuminati were. They were a rich, powerful sect. And their origins are to be found in a breakaway sect of the Jesuit Order - that Order having been dissolved officially in 1773. 

‘The Magic Flute’ is not so much a Freemasonic or magical opera. It’s an Illuminati opera. And, just as Mozart’s career had been nurtured and falsely created by Jesuit backers from his childhood (for reasons that must be explained in detail) so too this late opera of ‘Mozart’ is a Jesuit/Illuminati opera. Out of the ban on the Jesuits from 1773 came this new movement, the Illuminati. And out of the Illuminati came those who would, in time, suppress Freemasonry and which would usher in draconian restrictions on human freedom and liberty. It was around this very time (1791) that Austria, after the death of the Emperor Joseph 2nd, returned to a harsh, dictatorial police state. The enlightened reforms of the 1780’s were suddenly reversed. Austria and the Empire became a highly repressive place. The Illuminati continued to have major importance in restricting freedoms up until, in fact, the full return of the Jesuit Order in 1814. But until that time the Jesuit/Illuminati movement was of huge if hidden significance. This is the background to ‘Mozart’s’ opera ‘The Magic Flute’. 

The Illuminati were of course a movement of highly influential men within society. But so too were those who, unofficially, worked towards the restoration of the Jesuit Order. In many respects they were one and the very same. 

So there are two basic things - 

1. The Magic Flute is NOT really a Freemasonic opera - it’s actually an Illuminati opera. 
2. This opera can be shown to have a libretto that has huge significance for the Jesuit Order and for the Illuminati movement. 

These are two reasons why, in fact, the ‘librettist’ is so hard to agree about. The opera, actually, is based on themes that were well known to architects of the Holy Roman Empire, of which the Jesuits were of course always a prominent part. 

Scholars have identified many of the real sources for the libretto of the ‘Magic Flute’. Some chief ones include such works as - 

1. ‘Sethos - Histoire ou vie tire des monuments - anecdotes de lanciene Egypt’ - this being a novel by the Abbe Jean Terrason (Paris 1731) that was translated into German in 1778 - 5 years after the Jesuits were banned by the Empress Maria Theresa. It was the symbolisms used in this novel which became quickly accepted by the Freemasonic movement and, of course, by the arrival of the Illuminati. Eventually, Freemasony was to be ruthlessly persecuted by the Illuminati and were potrayed (falsely) as being threats against the state. In actual fact, it was not Freemasonry but the Illuminati who were the real threat. 


The chief origin of the libretto to ‘The Magic Flute’ is actually to be found in the Jesuit educated Spanish playwright Calderon’s play, ‘El Purgatorio de San Patricio’ written in the 16th century - a play that, in fact, glorifies the Holy Roman Empire through its use of such symbolisms (an Empire whose confessors were, of course, for centuries Jesuits). Terrason’s play was itself derived from Calderon’s. It’s from these sources that we can see quite clearly the ‘Magic Flute’ is an Illuminati opera. Mozart was, of course it’s official composer. But, (as I hope to show in the next part of this submission) he, Mozart, was of course simply faking his part, as usual. The rise of the secular state (which was very much favored by Emperor Joseph 2nd) was resisted by the Jesuit Illuminati. And so this opera, ‘The Magic Flute’ is in a very real sense an ‘establishment opera’ (a world in which the Empire continued with Jesuits in control) and had little to do, in fact, with real freedom or toleration. It’s true meaning was (like the career of Mozart himself) shrouded behind falsehoods and fakery. In the next submission I will present some evidence that Mozart was not the real composer of this music.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> Oh dear, somewhat rattled I see. I am afraid, Mr Corkin, that your position doesn't make any sense on several scores:
> 
> 1. If Mozart is not your concern - a point I accept you have made at least twice - why are you constantly interjecting and offering an opinion? If you make pointless comment and suggestion, you should expect that someone might pick you up on it. For example, your post 292 gave basic advice - to me I presume - on how to validate what Robert Newman has been telling this Forum since last September, namely to look at the music itself. In reply, I have pointed out to you that of course this has been tried in several different ways by various people, but this guy is as slippery as an eel and side-steps the issue with a raft of answers along the lines which I set out. Do you think he has answered these purely musical questions adequately?
> 
> 2. You chose to drag into this discussion your incarnations on other music forums. No one asked you about this. You also stated how you intend to monitor what action by Admin is taken here in regard to the way Mr Newman is treated in future, given your former Mod status on one of the previous forums. I simply remarked that I couldn't care less what your former status was, and nor could anyone else for that I would guess. I could not see the relevance of your former Forum involvement to this discussion. Are you intending to police this place?
> 
> 3. You said you were unphased by Mr Newman's allegations about Beethoven's fakery of works by Luchesi. I simply drew a distinction between what Mr Newman was saying about Beethoven's alleged fakery and that by Mozart. They are two completely separate matters, one extremely minor and the other extremely major. Would you not agree?​If you wish to cop out of answering these questions it's up to you.


OK just this once then I'm done

Your unpleasant presumptive nature has blinded you to the fact that my name was mentioned here in this chain long before I was a member, in relation to my dealings with Robert at the BRS. I was merely responding in relation to this, and was in fact the reason why I joined the forum.

I am here now because you have demanded a reply, otherwise my name will be no longer seen in this chain unless Robert's Beethoven theories are resurrected. I think Mozart is overrated as a composer, his operas especially tire me, so I leave it for you guys to deal with.

I was concerned on the reaction of the admin here purely as a matter of interest to see how long Robert lasts before he gets booted out. Though I think it would be a mistake on their part.

Finally I see 'minor' Beethoven as a more important issue than 'major' Mozart. Some of the Beethoven pieces in question - the 3 Piano Quartets WoO36 - composed around the age of 15, are more advanced pieces than Mozart produced at a much later age.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Mango, I really must correct you. Nobody has ever said that Beethoven 'faked' anything.
> 
> Such a clumsy mistake is all too typical of your style. Rod Corkin and I have discussed early Beethoven's career over years and nobody has ever suggested that Luchesi faked anything for Beethoven. Why don't you take more care ?
> 
> Let me make this so simple that you can understand it clearly. There are various works from Bonn on which there are different views as to who composed them. They include the cantatas WoO87 and WoO88. But NOBODY has ever said that Luchesi FAKED them or that Beethoven FAKED them.
> 
> I have never at any time spoken of 'Beethoven's fakery' since I believe (unlike Mozart) Beethoven was a great musical genius who AT NO TIME was involved in any musical fakery.
> 
> Really Mango, you surely must read things more carefully or you will have Rod Corkin as one of your critics - one of the most learned Beethoven writers on the internet.


Yet more twisted nonsense from you. You write the most appalling load of drivel imaginable at the best of times, but the above post is utterly scandalous. I make no wonder you were banned from more sites than most of us have even heard of.

If anyone is interested in seeing the truth about this crazy post above then please go to this thread on the Beethoven Reference Site:

http://www.gyrix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2407&highlight=luchesi

I hope the link works. The thread sets out just one of Mr Newman's several attempts to persuade the Beethoven fans on that site that young Beethoven (before the age of 21) wrote virtually nothing and it was all the work of Luchesi, including 3 works normally ascribed to Beethoven. You will see the general contempt they had for him on that site. He was known as the peddler of nonsense and half-baked facts. There was also a palpable irritation at his devious replies, and the seeming inability to pin him down, as he constantly changed tack when questioned. Perhaps the best summary on this thread is "_Robert you go round in circles_". See if you can find it.

There are several other threads on different themes. Have a look and you'll see what a complete joke most of them thought he was. A fair summary is that the general opinion was that Mr Newman was reading far too much into data sources which have many gaps, all based on an unjustified predisposition that Mozart was a fake. In other words, Mr Newman was "data-mining" and all his views and assertions are rubbish.

I wish I could point to some corresponding posts on the CMG forum, to which Mr Newman fled after being booted off BRS. In case anyone doesn't know, CMG is a big USA-based classical music forum, with a generally good clientele. Unfortunately, all the Newman posts have been deleted. Please trust me that the majority of posters there were mostly horrified at what they perceived to be the lunatic views of this man. And they showed it in what they wrote, unlike the generally feeble pussy-footing around that's gone on here hitherto. Even now, 9 months after he was booted off CMG for peddling nonsense and dishing out insults to proper experts, the name of Robert Newman still draws a hostile response. A friend of mine mentioned it once and almost got his head bitten off.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> Your unpleasant presumptive nature has blinded you to the fact that my name was mentioned here in this chain long before I was a member, in relation to my dealings with Robert at the BRS. I was merely responding in relation to this, and was in fact the reason why I joined the forum.


First, you are being far too sensitive, especially from someone who says he was a Mod. You must have seen far worse than what I wrote which was positively mild. Second, the reference to which you refer was made in October last year - post 2 on page 1 of this thread - merely in passing, and there was virtually no follow-up involving your name. Hence there was absolutely no need for you to jump in at this stage - 8 months later - except to lend some support to a friend obviously in dire need of support for his loony views.



Rod Corkin said:


> I am here now because you have demanded a reply, otherwise my name will be no longer seen in this chain unless Robert's Beethoven theories are resurrected.


Presumably you are here now because I have asked for a reply to my questions about your provocative statements concerning how to prove or disprove Mr Newman's assertions concerning Mozart, albeit a subject in which you profess to have no interest or special knowledge. Even now you have not answered my questions.



Rod Corkin said:


> I was concerned on the reaction of the admin here purely as a matter of interest to see how long Robert lasts before he gets booted out. Though I think it would be a mistake on their part.


I don't think there's any danger Robert Newman will be booted out. This is not that kind of forum. People only get booted out of forums generally if they offend the proprietors, or if they offend a significant number of highly-ranked other posters, who then complain. I do not think that either is the case here.



Rod Corkin said:


> I see 'minor' Beethoven as a more important issue than 'major' Mozart. Some of the Beethoven pieces in question - the 3 Piano Quartets WoO36 - composed around the age of 15, are more advanced pieces than Mozart produced at a much later age.


Sorry to disagree, but I do so in the most vehement terms. In my book, and in the "book" of the vast majority of classical music fans, Mozart was about equal rank to Beethoven in terms of overall greatness. Your views obviously differ but I think you are completely wrong if you believe that Mozart was significantly weaker. The disputed works - mainly a few disputed WoO - of Beethoven are miniscule in comparison with the virtual totality of works by Mozart which are being called into question by the likes of Mr Newman. These include all the great symphonies, PCs, and Operas, plus just about everything else witten by W A Mozart. How can you possibly assert that these works are insignificant in comparison with a few Beethoven WoOs. This is even more ridiculous than Mr Newman's stupid claims that virtually all of Mozart's works were written by other composers.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Mango,
> 
> I admit that any attempt to show that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart did NOT compose the great opera 'The Magic Flute' or that he did NOT compose, for example, 'The Requiem' (both in 1791) is in one sense a quite ridiculous thing


I'm glad you now agree. This is what I've been telling you all along. But what's happened? Have you suddenly come off the pills, or what? It's quite amazing. Good for you. Do keep coming back as we'll all try to help your recovery.



Robert Newman said:


> ... you were asked to choose any 'Mozart' stage work and you chose (eventually) 'The Magic Flute'. You could of course have chosen 'The Marriage of Figaro' or 'Cosi Fan Tutte', or 'Idomeneo', or 'Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail' or any of the other 'Mozart' stage works. But you chose 'The Magic Flute'. So, whatever your reaction is to my argument you must surely agree that the choice was yours and that I have at least given you a reply. ...


You sound like a magician!



> Well, I want to make a start here and will follow it up with two more posts on this thread.


I can't wait. It's rubbish so far, but I guess it can only get worse, if the past is any guide to the future. Incidentally, I thought you said you hadn't mentioned the Freemasons so far in your arguments. If so, you must be catching up now. When does Emperor Ming come into the equation?

BTW. How much longer are you in Florida? Once you get back to England you are going to be mighty busy answering all these hitherto unanswered questions.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> Yet more twisted nonsense from you. You write the most appalling load of drivel imaginable at the best of times, but the above post is utterly scandalous. I make no wonder you were banned from more sites than most of us have even heard of...


I can interject on the grounds that we are discussing Beethoven. Although I totally disagreed with Robert's notions regarding the origins of these early Beethoven works, the notion of fakery in this case was never really flogged by Robert, only the issue ownership. The Joseph and Leopold Cantatas and the juvenile piano concerto WoO4 were only discovered long after Beethoven's death and their origins were, initially at least, uncertain. The conductor of the recording I have of WoO4 states in the liner notes he is doubtful it is Beethoven's. I believe even B's one time pupil Ferdinand Ries could not bring himself to believe WoO36 was Beethoven's. So there you do have some grounds for debate. Nevertheless I am convinced all the above works belong to Beethoven. Though this debate got heated it never occurred to me for one moment that Rob should be kicked out.

There have been works genuinely miss-attributed to Beethoven in the past. Something that immediately comes to mind are the so-called 'Modlinger' Dances - you can still get recordings of these sold in B's name but no way on God's earth are they his. I have a cd of the 'complete Handel violin Sonatas' yet four of the sonatas are not Handel's. In both cases acts of fraud committed by the CD publishers even now. I am certain Mozart and Haydn have ample scope for miss-attribution as well, but I have not the time nor the interest to persue this. I only like the very very best classical music has to offer. Call me Mr Crazy but Beethoven surpasses Mozart in every compositional genre they are comparable with, and there are quite a few other people who believe the same. But maybe you'll think I'm a loony for rating Handel above JS Bach and Mozart (as, by coincidence, did Beethoven), so perhaps the only sane person left on Earth is you Mango. And I bet you're the kind of person to believe this to be true.


----------



## robert newman

Mango,

This is becoming ridiculous. In your letter no. 299 to this very thread you write (and I quote) -

''*Mr Newman's allegations about Beethoven's fakery of works by Luchesi. I simply drew a distinction between what Mr Newman was saying about Beethoven's alleged fakery *''

MANGO - I REPEAT (IN CAPITAL LETTERS SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE IT) - *I HAVE NEVER, AT ANY TIME SUGGESTED THAT BEETHOVEN FAKED ANYTHING. NEVER, ON ANY FORUM. IF YOU CAN SHOW US A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF ME DOING SO I PROMISE TO STOP THINKING OF YOU AS INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING PLAIN ENGLISH *

Yet you continue to accuse me of _'Beethoven fakery'_. You continue to say (falsely) that I am the one writing nonsense.

Will you please stop accusing me of things which I have never at any time said, suggested or written ?

Scour every single website on the internet. If you can find me even once accusing Beethoven of fakery please produce the evidence of it here on this forum. Otherwise, PLEASE, PLEASE stop talking such nonsense.

I repeat, for the final time that there are a number of musical works from Bonn (most of them written between 1781 and 1791 and available in the hands of copyists only) which are traditionally attributed to Ludwig van Beethoven but which have never been given Beethoven opus numbers. Various of these have never with complete certainty been attributed to the young Beethoven. Everyone in the entire Beethoven world knows this. These works (which include the famous cantatas WoO87 and WoO88) may in fact be by Andrea Luchesi and they may mistakenly have been attributed to the young Beethoven. Such things are grounds for reasonable discussion and Rod Corkin holds one view on them and I another. But such a difference of opinion on these works has been fairly discussed in detail on Beethoven Reference website. Never once has anyone ever suggested fakery was involved. UNTIL THE ARRIVAL OF MANGO ON THIS WEBSITE.

I hope this simple message finally persuades you to stop making a fool of yourself and to start understanding what has actually been written on this subject and what is simply the product of your imagination. I have never accused Beethoven of faking anything. Nor would I ever do so. These attributions were made by people AFTER Beethoven's death and have nothing to do with Beethoven himself. IS THIS CLEAR ???

WHICH PART OF THIS MESSAGE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ?

Thank You


----------



## Guest

Mr Corkin



Rod Corkin said:


> Nevertheless I am convinced all the above works belong to Beethoven. Though this debate got heated it never occurred to me for one moment that Rob should be kicked out.


I understood that Robert Newman was kicked out of BRS because of the annoyance he caused in his postings on Mozart, not in regard to his writings on Beethoven. I recall that he just wouldn't shut up on the subject of Mozart even after a clear and direct warning from Admin to stop posting any more material. Was this not the case?



> I only like the very very best classical music has to offer. Call me Mr Crazy but Beethoven surpasses Mozart in every compositional genre they are comparable with, and there are quite a few other people who believe the same. But maybe you'll think I'm a loony for rating Handel above JS Bach and Mozart (as, by coincidence, did Beethoven), so perhaps the only sane person left on Earth is you Mango. And I bet you're the kind of person to believe this to be true.


I don't agree with much else of what you wrote above:

•	I think Mozart is still probably slightly more popular than Beethoven overall, certainly among the general masses of those interested in classical music (as opposed to the tiny few who congregate on music forums).

•	Mozart's breadth of coverage was probably greater than Beethoven's.

•	Mozart had equally, if not better, melodic gifts than Beethoven.

•	His orchestration skills were superb, in the same category of excellence as Beethoven's and Wagner's.

•	Despite your own prejudices, Mozart's several magnificent operas are the jewel in the crown, and are second to none. Even many Wagner "nuts" will acknowledge Mozart's outstanding, if not possibly superior, achievements in this genre.

•	Mozart's influence on later composers was just as high as Beethoven's. For example, although Schubert was in complete awe of Beethoven (as a contemporary in Vienna), he had a higher regard for Mozart. Undoubtedly, while Beethoven's influence was huge and unsurpassed for much of the rest of the 19th century, it did begin to run out of steam after Brahms. On the other hand, Tchaikovsky - and later composers such as Ravel and Debussy - were far more interested in Mozart's legacy than Beethoven's.​
Really, there's not much in it between Beethoven and Mozart in terms of any fair, overall objective assessment of the two. I therefore think your assessment is incorrect.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> Mr Corkin
> 
> I understood that Robert Newman was kicked out of BRS because of the annoyance he caused in his postings on Mozart, not in regard to his writings on Beethoven. I recall that he just wouldn't shut up on the subject of Mozart even after a clear and direct warning from Admin to stop posting any more material. Was this not the case?


Yes this was largely the case at the BRS, though I though the nuisance factor was not so great to my mind, Robert posted a number of posts relating to Beethoven that were constructive which balanced the situation.

My point is, and this is a point that seems continuously to be lost on people, is that to me it seems it is not _what_ Rob is saying, it is rather _who_ they are about that is annoying people. Rob would say the very same about Haydn and cause little or no offence - so any judge in court would find Robert not guilty on this ground alone!



Mango said:


> I don't agree with much else of what you wrote above:


Fair enough, I stick by every word that I wrote.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Mango,
> 
> This is becoming ridiculous. In your letter no. 299 to this very thread you write (and I quote) -
> 
> ''*Mr Newman's allegations about Beethoven's fakery of works by Luchesi. I simply drew a distinction between what Mr Newman was saying about Beethoven's alleged fakery *''
> 
> MANGO - I REPEAT (IN CAPITAL LETTERS SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE IT) - *I HAVE NEVER, AT ANY TIME SUGGESTED THAT BEETHOVEN FAKED ANYTHING. NEVER, ON ANY FORUM. IF YOU CAN SHOW US A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF ME DOING SO I PROMISE TO STOP THINKING OF YOU AS INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING PLAIN ENGLISH *
> 
> Yet you continue to accuse me of _'Beethoven fakery'_. You continue to say (falsely) that I am the one writing nonsense.
> 
> Will you please stop accusing me of things which I have never at any time said, suggested or written ?
> 
> Scour every single website on the internet. If you can find me even once accusing Beethoven of fakery please produce the evidence of it here on this forum. Otherwise, PLEASE, PLEASE stop talking such nonsense.
> 
> I repeat, for the final time that there are a number of musical works from Bonn (most of them written between 1781 and 1791 and available in the hands of copyists only) which are traditionally attributed to Ludwig van Beethoven but which have never been given Beethoven opus numbers. Various of these have never with complete certainty been attributed to the young Beethoven. Everyone in the entire Beethoven world knows this. These works (which include the famous cantatas WoO87 and WoO88) may in fact be by Andrea Luchesi and they may mistakenly have been attributed to the young Beethoven. Such things are grounds for reasonable discussion and Rod Corkin holds one view on them and I another. But such a difference of opinion on these works has been fairly discussed in detail on Beethoven Reference website. Never once has anyone ever suggested fakery was involved. UNTIL THE ARRIVAL OF MANGO ON THIS WEBSITE.
> 
> I hope this simple message finally persuades you to stop making a fool of yourself and to start understanding what has actually been written on this subject and what is simply the product of your imagination. I have never accused Beethoven of faking anything. Nor would I ever do so. These attributions were made by people AFTER Beethoven's death and have nothing to do with Beethoven himself. IS THIS CLEAR ???
> 
> WHICH PART OF THIS MESSAGE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ?
> 
> Thank You


*Mr Newman*

You are becoming paranoid. Again you have twisted and manipulated text to suit your purposes. What I wrote, addressed to Rod Corkin, was:



Mango said:


> You said you were unphased by Mr Newman's allegations about Beethoven's fakery of works by Luchesi. I simply drew a distinction between what Mr Newman was saying about Beethoven's alleged fakery and that by Mozart. They are two completely separate matters, one extremely minor and the other extremely major. Would you not agree?


The point I was making - which should be self evident to all but complete dimwits - is that there is a world of difference between the very mild kind of alleged fakery of Beethoven works and the far more extensive kind you have alleged about Mozart. I was simly noting that it is not surprising that Rod Corkin could remain unphased about the insinuations about Beethoven's works, and asked if he would be so unphased if Beethoven were similarly challenged. He hasn't answered. He and you are now tarred with the same brush, so perhaps it's not surprising he's learned a few tricks from you. I wonder if he anticipated this sad decline in his fortunes. I make no wonder he has attempted to jump ship. But note that I keep pulling him back and he kindly responds. Now I've got you both on the run.

In any event, I'm sure you know full well what I mean even though you feign not to know. The point is that you have publicly stated that you believe that some early works of Beethoven are wrongly attributed to him, and that Luchesi was the probable true composer. Now, a "fake" according to dictionary sources is "a thing or person that is not genuine". Thus, you have indeed very clearly been arguing that these Beethoven works are "fakes". I have never accused you of suggesting that these "fake" works resulted from any deliberate fraudulent activity by Beethoven. To my knowledge, you have not explained how you believe this fakery came about. But that is typical of the many huge gaps in all your arguments. So stop the bleating.

It has just occurred to me that you are in the right part of the world for creating fantasy stories: Florida. No doubt you've gone there seeking further inspiration.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> I was simly noting that it is not surprising that Rod Corkin could remain unphased about the insinuations about Beethoven's works, and asked if he would be so unphased if Beethoven were similarly challenged. He hasn't answered.


I was unaware this was being asked of me, but I can answer it here and now. If Robert or anyone had doubts about the ownership of B's 5th Symphony my reaction would have been the same. Actually on the subject of the 5th, the BRS forum did discuss, without Robert, claims that Beethoven's musical ideas in this work were not entirely his own. How can things like this phase me? I'm a Handel fan!!


----------



## Mark Harwood

To quote Mr. Newman, post 307: "This is becoming ridiculous". 
Priceless, that.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mark Harwood said:


> To quote Mr. Newman, post 307: "This is becoming ridiculous".
> Priceless, that.


Don't read this chain then, it's not rocket science...


----------



## robert newman

Mango, 

Ordinary readers can see who is 'twisting words' and who is not. It is their verdict that matters. 

It does not matter to me how heavy a concrete slab may be that conceals truth or which underpins popular myth. Nor does it surprise me that when a slab is turned over by a crowbar we find bugs running away from the light. I am not even surprised you are prepared to make a fool of yourself in defence of the indefensible by introducing musical works that may or may not be by Beethoven and with arguments designed to act as smokescreens. It is enough for people to see you are prepared to adopt standards that are basically dishonest. Let your wilful ignorance be remembered as readers reach their own verdict on these issues.


----------



## Mark Harwood

Rod Corkin said:


> Don't read this chain then, it's not rocket science...


Why not? I could have missed that gem.


----------



## Leporello87

This thread is full of gems, isn't it?

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to keep up with it better than I have in the past few days


----------



## robert newman

Here is the second of three short posts on 'Mozart's' 1791 opera 'The Magic Flute', in which I will try to further develop the proposition that Mozart was not its true composer. It must be brief. In fact, here, in the 'Magic Flute' is a rather typical example of Mozart fakery, deception and popular myth.

Before I begin I'd like to first tidy up a few points raised by others. First, I urge any fair minded reader on these issues to at least make the effort of making themselves aware of the social, religious and political events of Mozart's time and not to rely solely on 'powder-puff' biographies which typically overlook the context of his life and times. Such things have huge importance if we are to understand his life.

In respect of the specific claim that 'Die Zauberflote' IS an Illuminati opera (rather than a Freemasonic opera) readers may care to become aware of what the 'Illuminati' were and what 'Freemasons were' That too is important since, even within Mozart's lifetime, laws were passed in Austria by the Emperor Joseph 2nd himself making it a capital offence to recruit members of the Illuminati ! Such was the seriousness of the threat which they were deemed to pose to Austria. So it's surely reasonable that students of Mozart make themselves aware of who the Illiuminati actually were and to know, if they want to know, the way they exploited Freemasonic symbolism and the way they were able to infiltrate the Freemasonic movement. Such things are easily enough understood. And, as said, there is plenty of evidence the Illuminati inflitrated Freemasonic lodges all over German speaking lands and even in to most other countries of Europe. Mozart, the 'Freemason' is of course familiar to us. Mozart, the Illuminatist, far less so. A simple search engine on -

_Music Of The Illuminati_

or recently published textbooks such as -

_'Mayr, Goethe, Mozart e gli illuminati di Baviera'_ by musicologists Prof. Luca Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta.

These and other sources will at least make you aware of the importance of the subject as far as Mozart's 'freemasonry' is concerned. You will see, in fact, that the Illuminati movement despite being hidden from view in the Austria of Mozart's last years (as were the Jesuits themselves) were hugely important. They were the enemies of modern, secular, accountable government and were, of course, highly conservative in their aims.

As already said, 'The Magic Flute' was an Illuminati opera. Understood as such you will not be suprised to know that many details of its creation are hidden from view, or are typically brushed aside by superficial authors as being merely _'expressions of Freemasonry'._

In the 'Mozart Yearbook' of 1997 appears an article by Michael Freyhan that discusses the text of 'The Magic Flute'. Freyhan's article refers to an original article of his that appeared a decade or so earlier in the Journal of the American Musicological Society - on the subject of the VARIOUS versions of the Magic Flute. (1986 JAMS Volume 39 Edition No. 2 pp 355-380). Freyhan made a detailed study of the original text of the opera in these publications. And what's so special about his findings ? Well, even the most conservative critics of Freyhan agree that he 'makes very strong points suggestive of manipulation of Mozart's opera'. They also agree that he, Freyhan, 'mustered a large amount of real, rather than imagined evidence'.

So, what we have here, in musical journals, is a detailed expose of falsehood and fabrication and manipulation of the opera and what it actually involved. 'The Magic Flute' is, as said repeatedly, the product of a great deal of manipulation in the form we hear it today. This is because, of course, it was actually the product of a group of people working behind the scenes. Yet you know nothing of this. Your textbooks simply credit the work to Mozart and you are given no reason to doubt the tradition.

Let me add to this strange picture by introducing another fact. The music itself. You are taught, of course, that it was entirely composed by W.A. Mozart. But, even here, there are strong reasons to think otherwise. Let me give you one example.

In a book entitled _'La Jeunnese de Beethoven' _by J.G. Prod'homme (Paris - 1927) there appears at the foot of Page 106 several footnotes. The second of these (in its discussion of Bonn) refers to a still surviving letter written by the Bonn music publisher Simrock to Gottfried Weber in Vienna dated 3rd May 1815 - 24 years after Mozart's death. In the letter Simrock writes to his colleague that THE ORIGINAL SCORE OF THE 'MAGIC FLUTE' WAS SENT TO THE ELECTOR OF COLOGNE (BASED IN BONN) BY NONE OTHER THAN MOZART HIMSELF WHILE HE WAS STILL WORKING ON IT, AND CHANGES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY MADE TO ITS CONTENT AND ORCHESTRATION AT BONN PRIOR TO ITS FIRST PERFORMANCE IN THE SUMMER OF 1791

Now, this is very strange. It suggests, in fact, that Mozart was in contact with 'somebody' musical at Bonn and that he (Mozart) was having this opera made ready for performance by using this musical 'assistance'.

Why should Mozart have done this ? Is this fact of the opera well known ? No - of course it is not. Is it well known that Simrock himself was a member of the Illuminati in Bonn ? No - of course that too is not well known. And when, on Mozart's death (even before his funeral) the Italian tenor of Bonn Chapel Luigi Simonetti rushes to Vienna to have a meeting with Mozart's widow (a fact confirmed by the still surviving Constanze Mozart's letter to him of a few days later) we arrive at an inescapable fact - that Bonn and musical talents associated with Bonn were part of creating the illusion that Mozart and he alone was the true composer of the 'Magic Flute'. In fact, as usual, Bonn was the place from which Mozart's career was being largely fabricated and co-ordinated.

A network of composers creating the 'Mozart' myth, this including the Kapellmeister of Bonn (Luchesi) and also, admnistratively, the roving Abbe Georg Vogler, formerly of Mannheim. Beyond reasonable doubt these different threads lead us to believe that in the 'Magic Flute' as in 'Mozart's' later works, we are seeing only part of the story in our usual biographies. Part of a career which was, in fact, the product of a network of musicians and NOT, in fact, of W.A. Mozart.

I will write a third part to this subject as soon as I can.


----------



## Evan Roberts

Mango, you state in your last post: "I have never accused you of suggesting that these "fake" works resulted from any deliberate fraudulent activity by Beethoven."

Well let's quote the said post once more, emphasis my own:



> You said you were unphased by Mr Newman's allegations about _Beethoven's fakery of works by Luchesi_. I simply drew a distinction between what Mr Newman was saying about _Beethoven's alleged fakery_ and that by Mozart. They are two completely separate matters, one extremely minor and the other extremely major. Would you not agree?


The above alludes quite clearly to fradulant activity Beethoven, as you attribute the fakery of Luchesi's work as being by him. Now I understand what you really meant, but you have to admit that the language used here is a mistake. Given then that the mistake is yours, you can't then justify having a go at Rod and Robert for calling you up on it, even if they did go over the top in doing so.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Evan Roberts said:


> ... Given then that the mistake is yours, you can't then justify having a go at Rod and Robert for calling you up on it, even if they did go over the top in doing so.


I must take issue with this Mr Roberts, my reaction to Mango concerning the issue of fakery was the following and nothing more..

"Although I totally disagreed with Robert's notions regarding the origins of these early Beethoven works, the notion of fakery in this case was never really flogged by Robert, only the issue ownership."

In no way can this be described as 'over the top'. I look forward to reading your retraction.


----------



## robert newman

And I fully agree with Rod. He confirmed that disussions on early Beethoven at no time used the word 'fakery'. 

How Mr Roberts justifies using the term 'over the top' in so clearly correcting Mango remains to be seen.


----------



## Leporello87

Is there any chance we could return to discussing music, rather than who-said-what-to-whom?

Towards that end, I'd like to provide a link to a short piece, which highlights an explicit link between Mozart and Paisiello, with regard to a rather unremarkable early work of Mozart, the Divertimento (sometimes labeled "No. 3" I think), KV 166/159d. This divertimento, which dates from early 1773, is for wind band and is cast in five movements. The article is about the Andante grazioso (3rd movement).

Essentially, the 3rd movement is a transcription in B-flat major for winds of a movement in A major from a Paisiello symphony. Based on the article, it sounds to not just be the main theme lifted, but essentially the whole movement. I'm not familiar with the Paisiello, so I couldn't say more here than that the article claims the Mozart piece to be a slight improvement over the Paisiello, implying that the plagiarism is done by Mozart, rather than the other way around.

I would like to see more evidence than just this, but quite frankly, it doesn't surprise me. This of course wouldn't be the first time a work has entered the Koechel catalogue which is merely an arrangement of works originally written by other composers. I've long wondered about this divertimento, which is below mediocre, and not particularly Mozartean either. Note that this piece is roughly contemporaneous with the motet "Exsultate, jubilate", KV 165/158a, a work of immeasurably higher quality.

I wonder if someone has looked at the other movements of this divertimento to see if those are arrangements as well. Is this old news that I'm just seeing now? Has KV 166 already been removed from Koechel? I haven't kept up with the most recent set of changes in the Koechel catalogue.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.jstor.org/view/00274666/ap030961/03a00020/0


----------



## Evan Roberts

Sorry Rod, I lazily amalgamated in my memory both yours and Mr Newmans reply regarding his supposed claims of Beethoven's 'fakery'. Given Robert's counter extended to several lengthy paragraphs (underlined or in block capitals, in case the point wasn't stressed enough!), when to me, the issue was a mere misunderstanding or question of semantics, he seemed to inflame the issue rather than get on with the more productive task of evaluating evidence and the healthy exchange of ideas.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Evan Roberts, 

The whole thing was highly regrettable. Since Mango still shows no sign of remorse let me apologise for having been upset with his posts. I am sorry it happened. But to accuse a person of saying things about Beethoven which I plainly did NOT say, and which Rod Corkin agrees were never said, and to repeat such a thing, well, that was why I eventually wrote as I did. I unreservedly apologise for going in to bold, underlined capitals on such an issue. 

Thank you for being part of the resolution to that particular war. May peace break out !!!

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Thanks Leporello,

No, I was not aware of 'Mozart's' theft of music by Paisiello in his Divertimento. Thanks for bringing our attention to this. It's another remarkable and little known fact that adds to the already huge scale of fakery and plagiarism.

You will laugh but your post brings to mind the amazing and still very little known similarities between the music of Anfossi's opera _'La finta giardiniera' _and the opera of the same name that is still being attributed to a certain Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - KV196.

Mozart in Naples around 1770 wrote a letter claiming that his 'enemies' were accusing him of wanting to correct Anfossi's work. Later on, WAM is said to have written some arias for Anfossi's operas "Il curioso indiscreto" e "Le gelose fortunate", that were performed in Vienna in 1783 and 1788.

At the beginning of the 19th century pioneering researchers G. Du Parc Pulain Saint-Foix and Theodor Wyzewa wrote a five volume-biography of Mozart -_ "W. A. Mozart. Sa vie musicale et son ouevre. Essai de biographie critique") _and were first to simultaneously analyse in detail both Anfossi's score of "La finta giardiniera" and that of 'Mozart'. Greatly suppresed of course in terms of their discoveries on this piece.

Consider this - we have "_La finta giardiniera"_ by Anfossi in 1773 - and a year later (1774), _"La finta giardiniera_" KV 196 by Mozart.

Those who have heard BOTH operas fall down laughing at the extent of the plagiarism involved here. Small wonder that, to date, 'Mozart's' version has often been recorded but that of Anfossi never once. A recent concert performance in France of the Anfonssi version leaves Mozart scholars with little to say. Glancing at their watches they say -

_Oh, is that the time ? I really must be going'_ - LOL !

Many similar examples can be given. An article on this subject appeared some time ago on Mozart Forum '(entitled 'Mozart and Anfossi' - by Emmanuelle Pesque - but it raised only a few eyebrows).

_'And the band played on_.....'

Regards


----------



## Leporello87

I've heard about the similarities between KV 196 and the Anfossi opera, although I've never listened to the Anfossi to assess the extent to which KV 196 borrows from Anfossi. Perhaps it would be good to do.

Here's a website which discusses this issue, but places a pro-Mozart spin on it: "...to improve their knowledge of Mozart's style and dramatic writing through further knowledge of the musical and theatrical environment in which Mozart's genius blossomed." (Very diplomatic, no? )

Although, the website also fairly notes: "...and should also give due recognition to the forgotten work of an Italian composer of great repute in his time."

The website URL:

http://www.mozartways.com/content.php?m=0&lang=en&id=1266&m_id=1181


----------



## robert newman

Thank you Leporello -

Well, here is the report of a person called 'Symslov' who managed to record the life performance of Anfossi's _'La finta giardineiera' held _in Paris in 2006 -

'' I've got the live performance broadcast that was done last year. It's a really fantastic, tuneful work, with a huge number of... well... numbers. Anfossi pulled out all the creative stops for this one and poured 2 operas worth of melodies into one. - And... well, Mozart is my favourite composer ever, but _if Anfossi's La finta giardiniera must be compared to Mozart's, I do prefer Anfossi's. By quite a lot, actually. This is a fantastic tune-fest, I think it ought to be commercially recorded_

But what about this ??? - (from the same report) -

_'Anyway, I'm responding because all through this thing, there are riddled patches here and there that are exactly employed by W.A. Mozart years later. Like the very first singing part after the overture contains something (I have no libretto or score to point out where) that is exactly quoted in Donna Elvira's introductory aria/trio in Mozart's 'Don Giovanni'. ! There are others too, way too much to be coincidence._

And in reply a conservative Mozartean wrote -

_' I would suggest that there is a strong liklihood that Mozart did not copy anyone here. There was a 'shared vocabulary' among composers and it is just possible that the harmonies you mention meant similar things to both Anfossi and Mozart' _

Mmmm ! Yes, of course - LOL !!!


----------



## Leporello87

Most interesting. A connection to Don Giovanni? I will have to find this work of Anfossi somehow. It sounds like it might be a very nice piece to be acquainted with just on its own, even outside of the context of this conversation.


----------



## robert newman

Yes, and Anfossi in the year of 1774 had premieres to the following 4 operas, one of them in Vienna - 

Lucio Silla - Venice, Teatro Grimani di S. Samuele (1774) 
La finta giardiniera - Rome, Teatro delle Dame (1774) 
Olimpiade - Venice, Teatro San Benedetto (1774) 
Il geloso in cimento o la vedova bizzarra - Vienna, Burgtheater (1774)

p.s. Joseph Haydn had association with this same Anfossi, Just one example from many - the 'Haydn' opera 'La vera costanza' has had a chequered history. Traditionally composed by Haydn during the latter part of 1778, it was first performed in Haydn's name at Esterháza on 25 April 1779. Haydn had actually used a shortened libretto by Francesco Puttini which had already been set to music by Pasquale Anfossi in Rome in 1776. Again, Andrea Totti, (who in one of those remarkable coincidences just happens to have sung the lead role of Count Errico in the original Anfossi version in Venice) later that year also created the equivalent in the Haydn rewrite at Esterháza. Surprisingly little is known however of this 'Haydn' 1779 version: the score and parts were 'most unfortunately' destroyed in a mysterious fire which burnt down the Esterháza opera house later the same year. A decision was nevertheless made to revive the work 6 years later (!) in April 1785 (with now two of the original singers employed to do so from memory) led to the amazing task of reconstruction using 'whatever other materials and sketches had supposedly survived'. The later version (presumably not the original) used an aria from the Anfossi version (the aria for Errico in Act 2 -Ah non m’iganno: "Ah, if I'm not mistaken").

Small world, yes ? Seems that by any fair standard this little known Italian composer deserves to be heard.


----------



## Leporello87

robert newman said:


> Seems that by any fair standard this little known Italian composer deserves to be heard.


Well, I'd like to hear him, but that's proving to be quite difficult! A search of two city library systems near to me (with a total of about 4 dozen branches) seem to yield only two scores by Anfossi, both to this same "Favorite duo for cello and violin" or some such. Have you heard this work? In any case, no CD's seem to pop up. For several online sites to purchase CD's, once again, almost nothing. Certainly no La finta giardiniera.

It seems like the Mozart 250 performance (that performed both the Mozart and Anfossi versions of La finta giardiniera) might be coming out with a DVD of the performance. Following up with this might be a great way to get this opera. In the meantime, I'll have to do a more thorough search.


----------



## robert newman

I am working on getting a recording so if I get hands on one I will let you know. 

Wow, the Mozart version sure does get some exposure !


----------



## Guest

Mr Roberts

*First*, I refer to your recent post (No 318) addressed to me in which you state:


Evan Roberts said:


> The above alludes quite clearly to fradulant activity Beethoven, as you attribute the fakery of Luchesi's work as being by him. Now I understand what you really meant, but you have to admit that the language used here is a mistake. Given then that the mistake is yours, you can't then justify having a go at Rod and Robert for calling you up on it, even if they did go over the top in doing so.


I will ignore the grammatical infelicities in the first line of the above.

I make no apology for what I wrote. I consider that, in the context of the discussion I was at that particular point having with Rod Corkin, it was perfectly clear exactly what I meant. My whole point was to show how insiginificant the problem was in relation to allegations concerning Beethoven compared with the allegations concerning Mozart. Why therefore should I wish to escalate the scale of any alleged fakery concerning Beethoven, as to do so would have weakened my own argument?

*Second*, in your reply (at No 322) to Rod Corkin, who questioned you about the last sentence in the quote above, you wrote:



Evan Roberts said:


> Sorry Rod, I lazily amalgamated in my memory both yours and Mr Newmans reply regarding his supposed claims of Beethoven's 'fakery'. Given Robert's counter extended to several lengthy paragraphs (underlined or in block capitals, in case the point wasn't stressed enough!), when to me, the issue was a mere misunderstanding or question of semantics, he seemed to inflame the issue rather than get on with the more productive task of evaluating evidence and the healthy exchange of ideas


Again, I will ignore the fact you needed to issue an instant apology for misrepresenting someone else's position.

I do not wish to stultify your contributions, but I am prompted to ask whether you have anything interesting to offer the rest of us in this discussion? At least a few others have tried to probe Mr Newman's thinking, instead of just letting him ride roughshod over this Forum with his loony views. I can't see that you have made any useful input whatsoever. On the contrary, thus far, it seems to me you have come across as a nit-picking bystander with no real views on anything of relevance. Why don't you come up with some views of your own on this subject, or ask some proper questions?


----------



## robert newman

Personally, I believe the contribution made by Mr Evan Roberts here on this thread was completely correct. And that of Rod Corkin - both of whom pointed out that you continually spoke here of works being forged that involved Beethoven - this being (wrongly) your understanding (but nobody else's) of what I was saying. I three times disagreed and challenged you to show anything at all that would support what you wrote. You have failed to produce any evidence. So I wrote one last time, in capital letters. I even apologised to this forum for having given you such a hard time on this point. 

And now, instead of admitting your error you write to complain about Mr Roberts ! 

Did it ever occur to you Mango that your standing would improve on this forum if you just admitted to your error ? 

Of course it's entirely up to you. But if you carry on like this you will give people a very bad impression. 

I freely admit that I often make mistakes. It's part of learning. I think the same is true for you. Swallow your pride and you will certainly be more highly respected by me.


----------



## Mark Harwood

In post 103 I wrote:
_"Mr. Newman is running his ship of ideas past us and looking for leaks."_ I now believe that listing those leaks would be an onerous undertaking.
Post 138:
_"Right. We're on page ten here. Let's see facsimile evidence for and against Mozart's authorship of:
1. one Piano Concerto;
2. one Symphony;
3. one String Quartet; and
4. the Requiem.
I'll suggest an example of 1, 2 or 3 if necessary."_
As yet, we have seen no evidence at all.
Then 146:
_"What I'd like to see is copies of the documents under debate...I have seen no evidence for or against authorship claims on behalf of anyone, be they Mozart, Luchesi, Barney Rubble or Vlad the Impaler, so my interest has fizzled out and I do not intend to follow this thread any longer."_
Well I did follow it, not least to see Mango's consistently sound reasoning. Several people of good sense and judgement gave up posting a while ago, and this is where I join them. 
Thank you Mr. Newman, but I feel that we've learned more about your good self here than about Mr. Mozart.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Personally, I believe the contribution made by Mr Evan Roberts here on this thread was completely correct. And that of Rod Corkin - both of whom pointed out that you continually spoke here of works being forged that involved Beethoven - this being (wrongly) your understanding (but nobody else's) of what I was saying. I three times disagreed and challenged you to show anything at all that would support what you wrote. You have failed to produce any evidence. So I wrote one last time, in capital letters. I even apologised to this forum for having given you such a hard time on this point.
> 
> And now, instead of admitting your error you write to complain about Mr Roberts !
> 
> Did it ever occur to you Mango that your standing would improve on this forum if you just admitted to your error ?
> 
> Of course it's entirely up to you. But if you carry on like this you will give people a very bad impression.
> 
> I freely admit that I often make mistakes. It's part of learning. I think the same is true for you. Swallow your pride and you will certainly be more highly respected by me.


Oh shut up. You are making a big issue out of nothing. This is simply your latest ploy to try to win the sympathy vote, hoping that if you can score a minor point over some trivial issue it will make you look less stupid.

It's also quite sickening how you grovel around anyone who shows the slightest interest in your loony views. I'm very surprised that Rod Corkin has lent his name to support (highly limited though it seems to be) your position.

I don't give a hoot what people think of me. I have said so. I'm only trying to show how completely hollow and devious you are when put under proper pressure, instead of all the mostly pussy-footing that had taken place previously on this thread.

To repeat, it looks like you have started out with a highly contentious position regarding Mozart purely in order to carve yourself a name, then looked around for a few facts to support that view, found virtually nothing except pure tittle-tattle, and then made up the rest with a variety of manifestly absurd re-constructions of history.

You have wriggled and squirmed so much over the past couple of weeks that I reckon you are now dead in the water. I have kept up the pressure on you because I could see that others have given up, and I didn't want it to appear that you had in any way succeeded. Surely you must realise that you are finished.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> I'm very surprised that Rod Corkin has lent his name to support your position.


I beg no more disinformation! I have offered no support for Robert's position. I am against him regarding Beethoven. Concerning Hayden & Mozart I have some sympathy for the idea that there have been misattributions, maybe on occasion even something possibly underhand, but I have not supported any specific allegation he has made. What I support is his and anyone's right to question the status quo on these or any other music matter.


----------



## robert newman

Mango, 

You've 'kept up the pressure' ? Wow !! 

We really must bear in mind that the new wonder fuel for high performance engines is........... Mango Juice ! 

Patdon me for telling you that the average 5 year old has more manners than you and that their knowledge of Mozart is only slightly less than your own. 

At the end of the day you are simply a jackass - a person who chooses to be ignorant and who is a true victim of mythology. 

Rod Corkin has never claimed to know much of Mozart other than the fact that 'his' works are to music what marzipan is to chefs. Before you go on your next pilgrimage to Salzburg or to the tomb of Ignatius Loyola spare a thought for us who have no wish to be like you - a man who reads but learns nothing.


----------



## Guest

*Mr Corkin*



Rod Corkin said:


> Mango said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very surprised that Rod Corkin has lent his name to support your position.
> 
> 
> 
> I beg no more disinformation! I have offered no support for Robert's position. I am against him regarding Beethoven. Concerning Hayden & Mozart I have some sympathy for the idea that there have been misattributions, maybe on occasion even something possibly underhand, but I have not supported any specific allegation he has made. What I support is his and anyone's right to question the status quo on these or any other music matter.
Click to expand...

I haven't tried to spread any dis-information about you. This is what I actaully what I wrote:



> I'm very surprised that Rod Corkin has lent his name to support (*highly limited though it seems to be)* to your position.


It's odd that you conveniently missed out the important qualifying text in brackets.

Does you complete lack of support mean that you disbelieve all of his claims regarding:

•	authorship of the Requiem
•	authorship of the main PCs (19-27)
•	authorship of the main operas post 1781​Or do you believe he is talking complete bunk in regard to these works?

Further, are there any other important works of W A Mozart which you consider may be misattributed? If so, what are they and on what evidence do you consider they may be misattributed?

I find your position pretty slippery too.

...............

So far it's been WORDS WORDS EVERYWHERE and not a drop of EVIDENCE.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Mango,
> 
> You've 'kept up the pressure' ? Wow !!
> 
> We really must bear in mind that the new wonder fuel for high performance engines is........... Mango Juice !
> 
> Patdon me for telling you that the average 5 year old has more manners than you and that their knowledge of Mozart is only slightly less than your own.
> 
> At the end of the day you are simply a jackass - a person who chooses to be ignorant and who is a true victim of mythology.
> 
> Rod Corkin has never claimed to know much of Mozart other than the fact that 'his' works are to music what marzipan is to chefs. Before you go on your next pilgrimage to Salzburg or to the tomb of Ignatius Loyola spare a thought for us who have no wish to be like you - a man who reads but learns nothing.


You are falling further into the abyss. Thank you for this. It's one more nail in your coffin.

We'll have to think of a suitable Requiem for you. What do you fancy? I know just the one that will see you on your merry way in suitable style. It's by W A Mozart. I'm sure you'll like it.

I can't wait for the day. It'll then be good riddance to you and all the complete bunk you have peddled on this Forum.


----------



## robert newman

Thank you for asking which Requiem would be suitable for me. I choose the marvellous motet _'Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied' _BWV190 of a certain Johann Sebastian Bach. Followed by that great statement in Beethoven -

_O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!_

And since the difference between us is (by your own admission) that of night and day let us end with the very first cantata of Herr Bach - _Wie schön leuctet der Morgenstern_ - (How brightly shines the morning star)

As for your offer of W.A. Mozart I must of course decline. As Christ said - 'Let the dead bury the dead'. Yes ?


----------



## ChamberNut

Once this thread reaches 626 posts (which will be probably in a week or two at this pace)  , it should then be closed.


----------



## robert newman

Great idea ChamberNut ! Mango wants the 'Last Post' right now ! My point is that we still have around 497 'Mozart' works to discuss. LOL.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> *Mr Corkin*
> 
> It's odd that you conveniently missed out the important qualifying text in brackets.
> 
> 
> 
> I am staggered by your sheer audacity Mango, I ommited nothing, you actually altered the text I quoted from you to allow you to make this accusation!!!
> 
> We have a forger here too Robert!!
Click to expand...


----------



## robert newman

Yes Rod - and the worrying thing is there is no Sussmayr on the horizon !


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Thank you for asking which Requiem would be suitable for me. I choose the marvellous motet _'Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied' _BWV190 of a certain Johann Sebastian Bach. Followed by that great statement in Beethoven -
> 
> _O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!_
> 
> And since the difference between us is (by your own admission) that of night and day let us end with the very first cantata of Herr Bach - _Wie schön leuctet der Morgenstern_ - (How brightly shines the morning star)
> 
> As for your offer of W.A. Mozart I must of course decline. As Christ said - 'Let the dead bury the dead'. Yes ?


I thought you might say that. However, I was only trying my best for you as I wouldn't want you to feel in any way un-appreciated on your final journey into oblivion.

I was going to suggest, as a further frill to the proceedings, a huge Jesuit-led Requiem Mass with vast ranks of candles and swathes of incense, etc, as I know how highly you regard this particular denomination. If you wish I will volunteer to do one of the Readings. Wouldn't that be nice? Do you have any preferences? What about something from Revelation?

Alas, I fear the END is near upon you. Prepare to meet thy DOOM.

BTW, have you spotted any dark-cloaked, hooded strangers lately, lurking around your place in Florida?


----------



## ChamberNut

This thread is getting ridiculous, seriously.  

Unfortunately, I'm not a moderator or administrator to this site, because if I were, this thread would be closed as of right now.

Mango - you're getting personal and offensive.  

Robert - you've been beating a dead horse for such a long time. Why can't you bring some conductors, present composers, musicologists, musicians, etc. to back up and give support to some (if not all) of your claims?


----------



## Leporello87

It really is ridiculous. On an earlier page, in post #321, I made the following plea:



> Is there any chance we could return to discussing music, rather than who-said-what-to-whom?


We are now on post 346, and almost everything that occurred between posts 321 and 346 is essentially more of the same nonsense. And yes, it IS nonsense. If this thread was going in circles before, this is even more true now. Last I checked, all or most of us are adults, so let's behave that way.


----------



## robert newman

ChamberNut,

This thread did not begin as a personalised attack. But anyone can see that it's become one. 

I say (and have been showing for years already) that virtually everything written about Mozart is a fairy tale. The sheer scale of fakery, false attribution and downright lies is greater on Mozart than exists on any other musician in the entire history of western music. That's not an opinion but a plain fact. How much longer will it be before we appreciate that the whole body of 'Mozart' attribution stinks and that it's been in terminal decline for decades ?

The 'dead horse' to which you refer is that which stinks with the Requiem - an issue we have seen right here involved fakery, and lies that are so commonly known and so often demonstrated that nothing more needs to be said of it.

I invite you, ChamberNut, to listen, if you will, to the opera of Anfossi refered to here and then to tell us how this music is inferior to anything 'Mozart' wrote years later. 

As far as arguments and sources are concerned, you have already many things here that you can surely check for yourself.


----------



## The Purple Wasp

Leporello87 said:


> We are now on post 346, and almost everything that occurred between posts 321 and 346 is essentially more of the same nonsense. And yes, it IS nonsense. If this thread was going in circles before, this is even more true now. Last I checked, all or most of us are adults, so let's behave that way.


Perhaps, it is time to synthesize the thread. (i think it is impossible to reread it). Why not doing it in a new one?


----------



## Evan Roberts

Mango said:


> I make no apology for what I wrote. I consider that, in the context of the discussion I was at that particular point having with Rod Corkin, it was perfectly clear exactly what I meant. My whole point was to show how insiginificant the problem was in relation to allegations concerning Beethoven compared with the allegations concerning Mozart. Why therefore should I wish to escalate the scale of any alleged fakery concerning Beethoven, as to do so would have weakened my own argument?


Straw man? Sophistry? Both quite common in any argument. But no matter what your intentions were, Mr Newman and Rod can only go on what you write, and in this case your words referred to allegations that Beethoven faked (i.e, claimed as his own) works by Luchesi. I do not expect an apology, only admittance of your mistake. I only posted about the issue ('nit-picking' you call it) in an attempt to clarify an issue that was causing both yourself and Mr Newman some bother.



Mango said:


> I do not wish to stultify your contributions, but I am prompted to ask whether you have anything interesting to offer the rest of us in this discussion? At least a few others have tried to probe Mr Newman's thinking, instead of just letting him ride roughshod over this Forum with his loony views. I can't see that you have made any useful input whatsoever. On the contrary, thus far, it seems to me you have come across as a nit-picking bystander with no real views on anything of relevance. Why don't you come up with some views of your own on this subject, or ask some proper questions?


In truth, due to my limited knowledge of the orthodox view on Mozart and Haydn, plus lack of any academic knowledge regarding the possible evidence, I have hesitated to get involved. But then these two flaws certainly haven't stopped you! I had hoped to post regarding Maria Paradis, but was beaten to it. I do though have an interest in keeping this discussion alive and healthy, without descending into a silly flame war, I feel this justifies the few short posts I have made in this thread.



Mango said:


> I will ignore the grammatical infelicities in the first line of the above.....
> 
> Again, I will ignore the fact you needed to issue an instant apology for misrepresenting someone else's position.


Yet by your reference to these issues, you clearly do not wish to ignore them at all! For this reason a reply is required. Indeed "alludes clearly" is something of an oxymoron, but given the often rushed nature of internet discussions I hardly feel it is worth bringing attention to, especially as it does not change the point I was making.

Similarly, my misrepresentation of Rods position was minor, and said with no venom or attempt to 'destroy' any opponent. The same can't be said for your numerous misrepresentations. Also, I consider the fact I apologised instantly for my mistake a good thing, you on the other hand are to stubborn to ever admit to any of your mistakes, but rather seem to subscribe to the theory: "the best defense is attack".


----------



## robert newman

Yes, Purple Wasp, we can call it, 'Mozart and Mythology'


----------



## The Purple Wasp

robert newman said:


> Yes, Purple Wasp, we can call it, 'Mozart and Mythology'


Can you do it ? I think you are the right man for the job…


----------



## robert newman

I will follow your good suggestion.


----------



## Morigan

This thread (or any new thread you are planning to create) seems like a dead end. How about putting an end to all this?


----------



## robert newman

Morigan, that's easy. Since you have nothing to say don't read it. Your wisdom will then become legendary. 

Easy, yes ?


----------



## Guest

Mark Harwood said:


> In post 103 I wrote:
> "Mr. Newman is running his ship of ideas past us and looking for leaks." I now believe that listing those leaks would be an onerous undertaking.
> Post 138:
> "Right. We're on page ten here. Let's see facsimile evidence for and against Mozart's authorship of:
> 1. one Piano Concerto;
> 2. one Symphony;
> 3. one String Quartet; and
> 4. the Requiem.
> I'll suggest an example of 1, 2 or 3 if necessary."
> As yet, we have seen no evidence at all.
> Then 146:
> "What I'd like to see is copies of the documents under debate...I have seen no evidence for or against authorship claims on behalf of anyone, be they Mozart, Luchesi, Barney Rubble or Vlad the Impaler, so my interest has fizzled out and I do not intend to follow this thread any longer."
> Well I did follow it, not least to see Mango's consistently sound reasoning. Several people of good sense and judgement gave up posting a while ago, and this is where I join them.
> Thank you Mr. Newman, but I feel that we've learned more about your good self here than about Mr. Mozart.


Thank you *Mark*. This is the first sensible comment I have seen on here for weeks.

To reiterate, I will tell you all sincerely what's been going on here, and I'm very surprised that none of you recent contributors has seen it except for Mark. This is that all the sane, sensible posters who realised what a load of rubbish is being perpetrated here by Mr Newman (and his new side-kick, Rod Corkin) have either fled the Forum altogether or have packed up posting because they realised it's a waste of time trying to reason with him, or to extract any decent evidence to support his views. Looking back on the thread, many people were clearly astonished at the big pile of nonsense being talked by Mr Newman. Moreover, you all now know that he was kicked off at least three very big respectable Music Boards before coming here. These were not all Mozart centres where a hostile reaction might be expected.

It has been suggested by some recent commentators that his thread is now "ridiculous". The truth is that it has been ridiculous from the outset. Things never got any better; they have got worse, and are now absurd. He has no proofs and merely waffles on the basis of pure assertion and tittle-tattle snippets of irrelevant material.

It has been suggested by one member that the thread be closed. However, what is the point closing this thread when all Mr Newman will do is continue his campaign in some other thread or threads? At least this way his nonsense is contained in one main place. Don't you all realise that Admin is aware of this? The only real alternative is to gag him, or ban him if he breaches a ban. But he wouldn't observe any gagging, if evidence on another Board is anything to go by. However, this expectation has now been damaged as he has very suddenly broken out on a separate thread on Mozart, and a right load of nonsense it is too. Of course, "cancer" does eventually spread. What's worrying is that before long, the whole Forum will become tainted by the lunatic interventions of this man; and anoyone who mentions a piece by Mozart or Haydn risks becoming the target of a possible attack. He has already done this elsewhere on occasion on a selective basis.

The same member incidentally has suggested that the way forward is to request that Mr Newman should bring proper evidence to bear on the subject. I regret to say that this is the very height of naivety. Obviously, this request has been made numerous times. The poster who proposed this must have been asleep, at least for the past 3 weeks. Just have a look at the very last post from Newman. What does it contain but exactly the same old set of accusations, and absolutely nothing more?

Further, it has been suggested that I have made unfair, personal comments against Mr Newman. This is a laugh. Have a look at some of the accusations made against me. Just recently, I was called a "jackass" (see a few posts up). There have been all sorts of other insults, name-calling, against me or haven't you noticed?

Someone else suggested I don't know much about Mozart. You can believe what you like on this score, and I couldn't care less. I have made no claims. But don't you think that I've reckoned that I'm not going to get involved in any highly detailed discussion with this man. That would be an even bigger waste of time, as he would then drag it down to the most absurd trivial level. Rather, I have deliberately kept things general, placed the burden of proof on Mr Newman, kept up the pressure when he began his typical evasiveness, and have merely given back in personal innuendo what he has given me. Especially, I have deliberately not made any concessions of any description. I know that this is the best way to deal with such people. As you can see, they don't like it, as it upsets their usual style of patronising gullible dimwits who appear to buy bits of the big fairy tale. Mr Newman has taken exception to me because he knows I'm on to his game.

Having said this, I agree that it's probably about time Admin made some comment on the future of this whole discussion area. If nothing is said, I'll carry on questioning Mr Newman in my usual fashion. I think it best if he is told to pack up or else face the chop. Then it should be fun because there is his ex-Mod side-kick to contend with, ready and waiting to lay down the "law" on fair behaviour.


----------



## The Purple Wasp

robert newman said:


> Morigan, that's easy. Since you have nothing to say don't read it. Your wisdom will then become legendary.
> 
> Easy, yes ?


I am shocked by your attitude.
We are all very courteous towards you, Mr. Newman, as we let you speaking. Please, be courteous towards us, too.
Thank you.


----------



## robert newman

Morigan made a rare contribution to this thread saying that it would be pointless to continue it. In fact Morigan can be compared to those who watch television and then say 'What a lot of rubbish'. Why not turn it off Morigan ? Please DO tell us. 

I'm not trying to be rude to anyone. This thread is on Mozart and his fake reputation. It's not about anything else. Or shouldn't be. Easy, right ?


----------



## robert newman

Dear Purple Wasp, 

I have never been discourteous to anyone. But if people's only contribution is to make personal attacks THEY are discourteous. Right ? 

Either stick around and contribute or read and learn. But let's not be childish. You have dozens of other threads, right ?


----------



## Frasier

The Purple Wasp said:


> I am shocked by your attitude.
> We are all very courteous towards you, Mr. Newman, as we let you speaking.


I don't think that is 100% true.

I've followed this thread because I believe that questioning the "orthodoxy" is sometimes useful and revealing. At least it's got me interested in Mozart. But recent posts have reduced the discussion to flaming and litigious cross-fire. Not my scene.


----------



## robert newman

Mango,

I don't really care how many insults you make. You really don't have anything to offer that can be taught or studied. But your insults just continue.

Having begun the day with talk of my funeral I feel justified to think of you as a jackass. 
Most people would agree that the silly insults betray the fact that you are just a misguided youngster. 

I know it's hard but please try to learn.


----------



## Morigan

Frasier said:


> I don't think that is 100% true.
> 
> I've followed this thread because I believe that questioning the "orthodoxy" is sometimes useful and revealing. At least it's got me interested in Mozart. But recent posts have reduced the discussion to flaming and litigious cross-fire. Not my scene.


That's why I proposed to end it. After 24 pages, one can see that this thread is not going anywhere. I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks so.

I'd like to add as a note that English isn't my first language. Forgive my inability to formulate detailed arguments, and also my style or grammar mistakes. Just don't believe I'm a dimwitted idiot who can't think.


----------



## robert newman

Morigan,

I am sure you can think. Your English is fine - better than many native Englishmen. Now, if you don't like this thread why not leave it to those who want to contribute ? You see my point ?


----------



## Guest

The Purple Wasp said:


> I am shocked by your attitude.
> We are all very courteous towards you, Mr. Newman, as we let you speaking. Please, be courteous towards us, too.
> Thank you.


Thankyou *Purple Wasp *for reminding Mr Newman of his obligations to be courteous. We are certainly very courteous to him, and he should be more careful in his dealings with us. There are some very young kiddies here too and their mummies would be horrified if they were to see him when he really gets going. Do you know, he called me a "Jackass" earlier today? I was going to call him a name too, but I was strong and didn't escalate the situation. So, Mr Newman, please watch your tone. Naughty. Naughty.


----------



## Frasier

robert newman said:


> Morigan,
> 
> I am sure you can think. Your English is fine - better than many native Englishmen. Now, if you don't like this thread why not leave it to those who want to contribute ? You see my point ?


That seems somewhat abrupt. Whether you like it or not this forum is open to all members - a public forum in effect, and disliking the evolution of the discussion is as much a part of it as the debacle it has become. However, I will do as you suggest and keep away. Shame. I hoped I might learn something about a Mozart not propounded in the professorial chairs.

What I'm learning from the tail end of this thread - call them contributions if you like - is how much space empty verbiage can take up.


----------



## Leporello87

Of course a member of the Forum can feel free to ignore any threads not of interest. However, all threads are open to all members, and a member should never be made to feel uncomfortable posting and joining the discussion. Very likely (and Morigan, please correct me if I'm wrong here) it's not the subject matter of this thread that is bothersome, but the manner in which the discussion has descended into chaos. That certainly seems to be the case for Frasier. This is not an environment conducive to discussion, and perhaps Morigan's suggestion to close the thread was more a response to that, rather than a genuine disinterest in the material.

In any case, it's difficult to tell because we are all behind computer screens and not meeting in person (which is probably a good thing, given how this has turned out!), so it can sometimes be difficult to discern exactly what people mean. An extra dose of care and sensitivity would be useful here, I believe.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Morigan made a rare contribution to this thread saying that it would be pointless to continue it. In fact Morigan can be compared to those who watch television and then say 'What a lot of rubbish'. Why not turn it off Morigan ? Please DO tell us.
> 
> I'm not trying to be rude to anyone. This thread is on Mozart and his fake reputation. It's not about anything else. Or shouldn't be. Easy, right ?


No Mr Newman. You have had your chance to prove your case and have failed miserably. Your views are baseless twaddle. This is now painfully obvious and you have clearly overstayed your welcome. The thread should be closed and you should be warned off repeating this topic under any guise.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Mango,
> 
> I don't really care how many insults you make. You really don't have anything to offer that can be taught or studied. But your insults just continue.
> 
> *Having begun the day with talk of my funeral I feel justified to think of you as a jackass*.
> Most people would agree that the silly insults betray the fact that you are just a misguided youngster.
> 
> I know it's hard but please try to learn.


I'm sorry, Mr Newman, but you are telling lies again. You referred to me as a "Jackass" in post 336. I then talked about your funeral arrangements in post 338.

Get it? Or can't you count, either.


----------



## Guest

Leporello87 said:


> Of course a member of the Forum can feel free to ignore any threads not of interest. However, all threads are open to all members, and a member should never be made to feel uncomfortable posting and joining the discussion. Very likely (and Morigan, please correct me if I'm wrong here) it's not the subject matter of this thread that is bothersome, but the manner in which the discussion has descended into chaos. That certainly seems to be the case for Frasier. This is not an environment conducive to discussion, and perhaps Morigan's suggestion to close the thread was more a response to that, rather than a genuine disinterest in the material.
> 
> In any case, it's difficult to tell because we are all behind computer screens and not meeting in person (which is probably a good thing, given how this has turned out!), so it can sometimes be difficult to discern exactly what people mean. An extra dose of care and sensitivity would be useful here, I believe.


*Leporello*: You must be a Super-Optimist if you think you can extract any more useful information out of this highly devious individual. Have a look at my post 355 and concentrate on the second paragraph. The reason why this thread has descended into chaos is because Mr Newman has completely failed to offer sufficient evidence to support his claims, and has annoyed people with the stupidity and evasiveness of his replies. That is the truth of it. Most of these people have cleared off, and just a few tail-enders and newbies are showing any interest. I have a bit more staying power but I don't intend to hang around much longer.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Morigan said:


> This thread (or any new thread you are planning to create) seems like a dead end. How about putting an end to all this?


And yet I bet Rob's topic has created more traffic than this forum has ever experienced. it's a pity a small number of people have become psychotic over it. But I bet membership has gone up no end - the reason I joined was because I saw my name mentioned in this very chain. Let's not see fascism reign here, if it does I'll move on. But from my own experience sensible forum administrators should not bite the hands that feed their membership figures, and rightly so...

This is just one chain in this large forum, let it be. I have made many more comments in other chains here that have received much less interest. Don't blame Rob if this chain becomes an obsession for you.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> And yet I bet Rob's topic has created more traffic than this forum has ever experienced. it's a pity a small number of people have become psychotic over it. But I bet membership has gone up no end - the reason I joined was because I saw my name mentioned in this very chain. Let's not see fascism reign here, if it does I'll move on. But from my own experience sensible forum administrators should not bite the hands that feed their membership figures, and rightly so...
> 
> This is just one chain in this large forum, let it be. I have made many more comments in other chains here that have received much less interest. Don't blame Rob if this chain becomes an obsession for you.


Yes, *Rod*, but I thought you said you weren't going to make any more contributions on this thread unless it was to defend Beethoven's name in any further exchanges. So who is getting psychotic?

This thread has indeed attracted a very large number of views, but please note that well over half of them have occurred in the past 2-3 weeks, compared with first 40% over the previous 8 months. I wonder why? It's obvious that the main reason for this large increase in traffic is purely because Mr Newman is being seriously challenged, not because he has anything of interest to say. And yes, while there have been a few squeals about the conduct of this recent debate, let's face it that it's this what's generated all the traffic.

I am amazed that a few of the recent contributors don't appear to know what the allegations are all about, and one has asked for a "Noddy" version, which Mr Newman - obliging as ever - has very willingly provided. I find this version - the one about the Judge and all - excruciatingly awful. Rumour has it that he is also currently working on a kindergarten version (for 3-5 year olds), and also a geriatric version in large type for 80-90 year olds. Ask him nicely and he might just produce an "adult" one with a few saucy jokes and pin-ups. In fact he is probably up for anything that avoids having to reveal the weakness of his evidence.

I am also amazed that some wide-eyed innocents here still appear to think that if Mr Newman is left alone politely to allow him to clarify his arguments, unharried by the likes of me, he will eventually come good. And pigs will fly. He revels in all this intrigue, so don't take too much notice of his protests. He's having a big laugh.

Clearly, management must be very pleased with the viewing numbers, which is perhaps why they have not uttered a word by way of dampener on the whole thing.

There was a similar phenomenal increase in viewings on a very heated recent Wagner thread on another forum. It was clear from that "discussion" that people like watching a good challenge, even though it simply goes round in circles and gets personal. Management there - which is normally highly interventionist - largely kept out, and let things rip. The traffic generated to that site was obviously too good to forego the "business". It all came to a very sudden end when one of the combatants left! I guess the same could well happen here.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> Yes, *Rod*, but I thought you said you weren't going to make any more contributions on this thread unless it was to defend Beethoven's name in any further exchanges. So who is getting psychotic?
> 
> This thread has indeed attracted a very large number of views, but please note that well over half of them have occurred in the past 2-3 weeks, compared with first 40% over the previous 8 months. I wonder why? It's obvious that the main reason for this large increase in traffic is purely because Mr Newman is being seriously challenged, not because he has anything of interest to say. And yes, while there have been a few squeals about the conduct of this recent debate, let's face it that it's this what's generated all the traffic.


I've only been a member a couple of weeks, so perhaps it is actually me that is creating all the traffic!



Mango said:


> ...The traffic generated to that site was obviously too good to forego the "business". It all came to a very sudden end when one of the combatants left! I guess the same could well happen here.


I think this may very well be the case, but I'm not surprised people don't know what the topic is about when you constantly interrupt matters with your attempts to assassinate my good character. (PS I'm still in this chain because Mozart has long ceased to be the main focus of this discussion, when this once again resumes I will leave).


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> I've only been a member a couple of weeks, so perhaps it is actually me that is creating all the traffic!


*Rod*, I'm sure you are right. Once word got round that you are now gracing this Forum with your wisdom on Beethoven, all the punters probably turned up in droves to get the low-down on the great man. While these punters await your wisdom on Beethoven to be unfolded, I bet they're all just dropping in here to hang up their coats as it were. Oh, it must be wonderful to have a reputation like yours. I bet the other Forums will very soon be totally denuded of any audiences.

Certainly, some of the best Forums discussions I've seen - I won't admit to being directly involved in any of them - have been, shall we say, somewhat frisky. This type generate far more traffic than the perennial "what's the best Ninth symphony" type of debate. I find the latter kind of thing so tedious.

Some people do get very attached to their musical "heroes". I once saw a very good debate on Brahms vs Beethoven, and I learned a lot from that. It made me see Brahms in an even better light, and it was a useful part of my education in getting "de-toxed" off Beethoven. The discussion did get quite heated though. It's interesting that Haydn doesn't attract the same following. Nor does the Bach/Handel debate really take off in people's imaginations to the same extent. As you will know, the most sensitive area of all is probably Wagner. The debate we've had here on Mozart pales into insigificance compared with the emotions that can be raised by mention of Wagner and anti-semitism. I was astonished at what I saw once.

I trust you will continue to throw a few crumbs this way. Maybe you can take over if and when Mr Newman gets his come-uppance at his forthcoming funeral.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> *Rod*, I'm sure you are right. Once word got round that you are now gracing this Forum with your wisdom on Beethoven, all the punters probably turned up in droves to get the low-down on the great man. While these punters await your wisdom on Beethoven to be unfolded, I bet they're all just dropping in here to hang up their coats as it were. Oh, it must be wonderful to have a reputation like yours. I bet the other Forums will very soon be totally denuded of any audiences.


This has an air of truth about it..



Mango said:


> Certainly, some of the best Forums discussions I've seen - I won't admit to being directly involved in any of them - have been, shall we say, somewhat frisky. This type generate far more traffic than the perennial "what's the best Ninth symphony" type of debate. I find the latter kind of thing so tedious.
> 
> Some people do get very attached to their musical "heroes". I once saw a very good debate on Brahms vs Beethoven, and I learned a lot from that. It made me see Brahms in an even better light, and it was a useful part of my education in getting "de-toxed" off Beethoven. The discussion did get quite heated though. It's interesting that Haydn doesn't attract the same following. Nor does the Bach/Handel debate really take off in people's imaginations to the same extent. As you will know, the most sensitive area of all is probably Wagner. The debate we've had here on Mozart pales into insigificance compared with the emotions that can be raised by mention of Wagner and anti-semitism. I was astonished at what I saw once.
> 
> I trust you will continue to throw a few crumbs this way. Maybe you can take over if and when Mr Newman gets his come-uppance at his forthcoming funeral.


I had a good Handel vs Bach at the BRS, and both parties offered mp3s in the competition which was great. This is the way I really like to argue, ie letting the music do the talking. I hope you try my Handel track here in another chain:
http://www.talkclassical.com/1665-how-see-light-handel.html

I agree with you about Wagner debates, those guys don't mess about. But I raised all the hoards of hell about 8 years ago promoting period instrument Beethoven, something that is not such an issue anymore.


----------



## The Purple Wasp

Morigan said:


> After 24 pages, one can see that this thread is not going anywhere. I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks so.


When i suggested to synthesize the thread, it was a manner to end it. The new one is not a synthesis at all: it is worst than the former.
I regret bitterly that suggestion.:angry: :angry: :angry:


----------



## Daniel

*MODERATION-NOTE: *Back to the topic! Any reply which is not related to the topic will be deleted and the thread might be closed immediately!


----------



## Rod Corkin

Daniel said:


> *MODERATION-NOTE: *Back to the topic! Any reply which is not related to the topic will be deleted and the thread might be closed immediately!


I believe the Wasp's problem was with the new thread, not the current one. Obviously however Wasp is obviously a man of influence in these parts...


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> I believe the Wasp's problem was with the new thread, not the current one. Obviously however Wasp is obviously a man of influence in these parts...


I'm not sure your post is "on topic". This thread is all about alleged fakery by Mozart and Haydn. Please try to be disciplined about this, *Mr Corkin*.

I'd like to make a request in all seriousness of *Mr Newman*. Would he kindly tell us who he thinks composed the rest of The Magic Flute? In fact, could he please tell us who he thinks composed the overture itself?

I'm dying to know.


----------



## Leporello87

Mango said:


> I'm not sure your post is "on topic". This thread is all about alleged fakery by Mozart and Haydn. Please try to be disciplined about this, *Mr Corkin*.
> 
> I'd like to make a request in all seriousness of *Mr Newman*. Would he kindly tell us who he thinks composed the rest of The Magic Flute? In fact, could he please tell us who he thinks composed the overture itself?
> 
> I'm dying to know.


Most likely the composer of the Ouverture to Die Zauberfloete is Muzio Clementi himself. He pretended he was outraged at Mozart's plagiarism of the theme from his sonata, as a cover-up, when in fact, he only plagiarized himself.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> Please try to be disciplined about this, *Mr Corkin*.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> I look forward to you practising what you preach Mango.


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> Mango said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please try to be disciplined about this, *Mr Corkin*.
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to you practising what you preach Mango.
Click to expand...

Everything I have posted has been on topic. I think the warning was to Mr Newman for deviating into such irrelevancies as the Jesuits, Beethoven's grandfather's drink problem, Maria von Paradis's nocturnal activities, etc. I have merely tried to point out that this is none of this is on topic.

So I do hope that Mr Newman will now desist from such further misdemeanors and give us the evidence we require to assess his claims.

As you will see, I have already posted a question to Mr Newman in good faith, being very much on topic, asking him who he thinks composed the rest of The Magic Flute.

I note that you haven't yet posted anything on topic, so you are twice out of order. I reckon your posts qualify for deletion.


----------



## Rod Corkin

Mango said:


> Everything I have posted has been on topic. I think the warning was to Mr Newman for deviating into such irrelevancies as the Jesuits, Beethoven's grandfather's drink problem, Maria von Paradis's nocturnal activities, etc. I have merely tried to point out that this is none of this is on topic.
> 
> So I do hope that Mr Newman will now desist from such further misdemeanors and give us the evidence we require to assess his claims.
> 
> As you will see, I have already posted a question to Mr Newman in good faith, being very much on topic, asking him who he thinks composed the rest of The Magic Flute.
> 
> I note that you haven't yet posted anything on topic, so you are twice out of order. I reckon your posts qualify for deletion.


Back on topic, I have a Mozart recording on period instruments of the Horn Quintet K407. It sound like it could have been written by any composer of the period in Central Europe, even Luchesi sounds more Mozartian than this. The third movement is not bad but he first two are rubbish. But presuming this is authentic Mozart what does this all mean? Mozart had good days and bad days? Probably so, but good composers should know better than to compose on bad days..


----------



## robert newman

Yes Mango. and I have already submitted two parts of a three part submission on 'The Magic Flute'. I have stayed focused on this issue (though you have little to say on it) and now, hopefully, you will post no more on such irrelevancies as my prefered funeral music. 

Thank You


----------



## Guest

Rod Corkin said:


> Back on topic, I have a Mozart recording on period instruments of the Horn Quintet K407. It sound like it could have been written by any composer of the period in Central Europe, even Luchesi sounds more Mozartian than this. The third movement is not bad but he first two are rubbish. But presuming this is authentic Mozart what does this all mean? Mozart had good days and bad days? Probably so, but good composers should know better than to compose on bad days..


Why pick on a work you consider to be inferior? What do think of each of the following:

1. Don Giovanni
2. Le Nozze di Figaro
3. Symphony No. 41 in C major "Jupiter"
4. Piano Concerto No. 20 5. Symphony No. 40 in G minor
6. Clarinet Quintet in A major
7. String Quintet No. 4 in G minor, K516
8. Die Zauberflote
9. Piano Concerto No. 21 in C major
10. Piano Concerto No. 24 in C minor
11. Requiem Mass in D minor
12. Symphony No. 39 in E flat major
13. Serenade No. 13 in G major "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik"
14. String Quartet No. 19 in C major "Dissonance"
15. Clarinet Concerto in A major
16. Piano Concerto No. 23 in A major
17. Sinfonia Concertante for Violin & Viola in E flat major
18. Symphony No. 38 in D major "Prague"
19. Serenade No. 10 in B flat major "Gran Partita"
20. Mass No. 18 in C minor "Great"​
Do please tell us. Are they all mediocre or rubbish?


----------



## robert newman

Surely the issue is not whether they are mediochre or rubbish (since it's widely agreed that these are better works than the awful Horn Quintet KV407). The issue is whether Mozart was the composer of the above 20 works - works you've suddenly asked us to comment on.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Yes Mango. and I have already submitted two parts of a three part submission on 'The Magic Flute'. I have stayed focused on this issue (though you have little to say on it) and now, hopefully, you will post no more on such irrelevancies as my prefered funeral music.
> 
> Thank You


I trust also you will desist from referring to me as a "Jackass". Remember you called me that *before* I thoughtfully asked you what music you would like at your "funeral". And besides, whereas your reference to me as a "Jackass" was strictly off topic, my reference to the Mozart Requiem was very much on topic as this is exactly what we have been discussing recently, together with your suspected imminent demise as proposed by the brilliant Purple Wasp you so greatly admire, and rightly so given his highly perceptive powers.

Now, to return to the present topic of The Magic Flute I do hope you will have evidence on which composer(s) you believe were actually involved in the production of this work. I trust you will have evidence based on actual paperwork commissions, which type of evidence I know you attach such importance to. Can you produce them please.

I look forward with much interest in hearing from you. Thank you so much.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Surely the issue is not whether they are mediochre or rubbish (since it's widely agreed that these are better works than the awful Horn Quintet KV407). The issue is whether Mozart was the composer of the above 20 works - works you've suddenly asked us to comment on.


My question is to Mr Corkin, not to you, unless you are his alter ego.

I want to know:

i. Why did he deliberately pick what he considers to be a bad work as evidence of Mozart's purported inability to write good music?

ii. Does he accept that any of the works I listed are very good works, and if so do these these works alone constitute sufficient evidence that Mozart was a very good composer?​I'm sure Mr Corkin will do his best to answer these questions, and not wriggle and squirm like some people have shown a major tendency to do when faced with questions.

I didn't really intend to get into such specifics, but I see no real harm on this occasion.

Incidentaly, I am wondering why I am the only one left asking you two characters these questions. I don't mean the pussy-foot, pathetic variety that several others here can muster at best. I don't mind in the slightest taking you both on as it's dead simple to show you both up, but if others want to join in I have no objections.


----------



## robert newman

Well, I'm so relieved you have no objection to me replying to your post on what is, after all, the thread that I started - LOL !

As for answering before Rod, that's simply because Rod has several times already reminded us his area of interest and expertise is Beethoven and not Mozart. This despite his very useful reference to KV407. But I hope he answers you also on your list, since you are willing to hear from more than one source.

KV407 is a poor quality work. I wholly agree with Rod on this. Perhaps you do also ? It's just bad. And other bad works attributed to Mozart can easily be listed. The man, Mozart, definitely wrote lots more rubbish than the slow introductuon to KV444, yes ? i could certainly compile a list of 20 'stinkers' or more from his Vienna period alone - but I trust you see my point ? In a fair and reasonable conversation we may even agree that outside the musical gems of the above 20 is quite a lot of dross.

Rod will have his own view, of course, but the 20 works you list above are rightly regarded as music of very high quality, for sure. The question of whether the composer of KV407, the introductory bars of KV444, the composer of 'The Impressario' and dozens of other works in the Koechel list during Mozart's last decade in Vienna is the same composer who wrote the above 20 works IS surely the issue. I believe there is no way all the pieces just mentioned (which include your 20) are by one and the same person. I believe, logically, we are dealing here with two and even more composers. That either Mozart is a poor composer of KV407 and the rubbish already refered to, or he is the composer of the 20 above works of a far higher standard. But that he is certainly NOT the composer of both. This, to me, is simple, logical, reasonable and straightforward.

My verdict on your 20 works is therefore as follows -

1. NOT BY MOZART
2. NOT BY MOZART
3. NOT BY MOZART
4. NOT BY MOZART
5. NOT BY MOZART
6. NOT BY MOZART
7. NOT BY MOZART
8. NOT BY MOZART
9. NOT BY MOZART
10. NOT BY MOZART
11. NOT BY MOZART
12. NOT BY MOZART
13. NOT BY MOZART
14. NOT BY MOZART
15. NOT BY MOZART
16. NOT BY MOZART
17. NOT BY MOZART
18. NOT BY MOZART
19. NOT BY MOZART
and finally -
20. NOT BY MOZART

Since there are several obvious and basic problems with your 20 (for example that 11 is a fake and that 15 does not even have a manuscript, that the C Minor Mass is not a complete work, that the question exists whether the child Mozart wrote most of KV361, etc etc etc) is already well known.

And I agree that each of the above 20 would require a separate argument before it would be reasonable to remove them from the Mozart canon. Such a thing _would_ be fair and reasonable.

Anyway, that is my basic position on your post.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Well, I'm so relieved you have no objection to me replying to your post on what is, after all, the thread that I started - LOL !
> 
> As for answering before Rod, that's simply because Rod has several times already reminded us his area of interest and expertise is Beethoven and not Mozart. This despite his very useful reference to KV407. But I hope he answers you also on your list, since you are willing to hear from more than one source.


Several on-topic comments on the above:

*1.* I detect a very nervous "LOL" in your first sentence above. This is no doubt because twice now, in very quick succession, you have had to come in to protect your sidekick. The truth is that, when left off the lead, Mr Corkin appears to have made two big mistakes:

(i)	First he made two completely *off- topic *posts: Nos 376 and 379 immediately after the MOD's warning.

(ii)	When I generously pointed this out, he appeared to panic and made a very silly third post at No 381, alleging Mozart's poor composing ability based on a single work, K 407.​
*2.* I was staggered at the naivety of Mr Corkin's response at post No 381. In reply, and keeping on-topic, I asked him what he thinks about 20 other Mozart works which I generously provided for his consideration. My post evidently completely stumped him. He doesn't know how to answer this one at all. If he says they are good - which they most certainly are - he loses because this completely disproves his point. If he says they are no good - which is what I know he really believes because of his obsession with Beethoven - it makes him look just as silly. Thus, he can't win either way, and I'm afraid that he has shot himself in the foot. He knows this and so do you, hence all the nervous twitching so obviously detectable in your latest post. Oh it's so easy scoring points off you two.

*3.* So what do you do to try to rescue the latest embarrassment? You come in again with a typical piece of rubbish saying that none of these 20 works is by Mozart. Your position is a complete joke. It's this circularity in your whole position that makes you such an object of derision and annoyance.

*4.* Returning to my on-topic questions, it was perfectly clear that they were addressed to *Mr Corkin*, who still hasn't answered. I repeat the questions here for convenience:

(i.) Why did he deliberately pick what he considers to be a bad work as evidence of Mozart's purported inability to write good music?

(ii.) Does he accept that any of the works I listed [in my post No 383]are very good works, and if so do these works alone constitute sufficient evidence that Mozart was a very good composer.​
*5.* *Mr Corkin*, I would appreciate your answers please. You can, if you wish, simply say you subscribe to the same view as your mentor as set out at Post No 387. That would at least save us the ugly site of watching the spectacle of you squirming and wriggling too. Thank you so much.

*6.* I'm still wondering what Admin really thinks of all this twaddle which you, *Mr Newman*, have been peddling here. Your weird views are now completey shot to pieces, and you are a laughing stock. It's surely time to draw a final line under all this nonsense. If not, I will otherwise continue to make on-topic posts questioning everything you say.


----------



## robert newman

Mango, I really don't mind being a laughing stock. Humour is vital if we are to deal with such a huge and often controversial subject. You can be wrong. So can I. 

But let me focus on the issues you raise. 

Firstly, congratulations for choosing some truly superb music - 20 works that I personally agree are of very high musical quality. It's by far the most constructive post I've yet seen on this issue from you Mango. So good that I withdraw my description of you as a 'jackass'. In fact, provided that you are prepared to stay with the main issue (whether Mozart composed these works or not) I am happy to discuss these with you. Or with anyone else. I hope you agree that we owe this forum our best efforts in such a discussion. 

Well, I've already agreed that each of these 20 works would need an article on them before anyone could drop them from the traditional list of 'Mozart's' works. I don't promise one in the near future since I am now quite busy. But yes, in principle, each of them deserves discussion from my perspective and by you, if you wish to defend the traditional attribution. 

By all means, feel free to question what I say. That's only fair. I will feel free to do the same of what you say. Items 3,11,12,13,14,15,17,18,19, and 20 are easier for me to deal with at the present time, although even here I would need some time to write an article on each. Starting in several months from now. I've written on Items 2,4,11 and 15 elsewhere and at some length so you might care to search for them (?). Item 7 is the only one that I've not looked at in detail but I do not think it will be a major problem to show that Mozart did not compose it. 

No, I'm not asking you to invite me to write for the next 20 years on this issue. To overturn tradition on Mozart is a huge challenge and I personally think I know only a small part of what can be known on this subject. Still, I think the case can be put and that in future years it WILL be put in some detail on all 20 pieces. 

Those who wrote FOR Mozart is a far more difficult matter. But I agree that this too should be at least suggested in each case. 

You may in time agree that your Item 11 (Requiem in D Minor) is by far the most notorious 'Mozart' work of these 20. 

Anyway, you have your views and I have mine. Great.


----------



## Guest

This my 100th Post is addressed to *Admin.*

I would be interested to learn why you have allowed a complete unknown amateur on Mozart to cram this Forum with such a load of misinformation on this subject, over such a long period of time. It should have been perfectly clear to you long before now that that this person has nothing to offer of any value. He is clearly a member of the tiniest special interest group imaginable on this subject, and is nothing more than malign individual with an axe to grind.

His writings have amounted to nothing more than deeply flawed, error-crammed nonsense. Forum after Forum has banned him for his offensive and insulting attitude towards the intelligence of normal posters.

All you have done so far, following several requests, is issue a highly cryptic and very delayed warning for everyone to post "on-topic". How are we supposed to do this when this man will not answer questions except in the most devious terms? All of his so-called answers deserve nothing more than a contemptuous reply.

Please can we have your considered views this time. What exactly do you consider to be "on-topic" comment, and what possible purpose can be served by the further continuation of this most hopelessly crass stupid thread?

Thank you.


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> Mango, I really don't mind being a laughing stock. Humour is vital if we are to deal with such a huge and often controversial subject. You can be wrong. So can I.
> 
> But let me focus on the issues you raise.
> 
> Firstly, congratulations for choosing some truly superb music - 20 works that I personally agree are of very high musical quality. It's by far the most constructive post I've yet seen on this issue from you Mango. So good that I withdraw my description of you as a 'jackass'. In fact, provided that you are prepared to stay with the main issue (whether Mozart composed these works or not) I am happy to discuss these with you. Or with anyone else. I hope you agree that we owe this forum our best efforts in such a discussion.


Thanks for the grovelling comment, but I didn't request it.


----------



## Daniel

This thread is closed, but I will open a new thread and answer your questions as soon as possible, Mango.

Kind regards,
Daniel


----------

