# Mozart - How many works did he write?



## Pierro

Hello,

I want to know how many compositions were written by W. A. Mozart. I know there were in the first Koechel catalog 626, but there are still more for instance K 1b. I would be glad if you can give me the right answer.

Thank you and I wish you a nice time.

Pierre Riedhammer


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

According to some people at this forum and elsewhere, Mozart didn't really write anything.

You see, the institution we call "Mozart" is actually the focal point of the greatest conspiracy and cover-up in European history. As noblemen had nothing better to do at the time, they used the "Mozart Label" as a front for works of unknown composers who sat in dark attics and laboriously and piously produced beautiful works for which they knew they would never receive due credit. They did this because the mere thought of knowing that their music would be played somewhere and sometime was enough, and the fact that it would be played under the exalted name of "Mozart", that little monkey-boy who never actually wrote a single note, was icing on the cake.

So I ask: what is more farfetched?

1. All the political-powers-that-be in Europe at the time conspired for years and years to keep this machine rolling, even though the life of one composer/servant was of no political or economical consequence whatsoever.

2. There was a genius composer named Mozart who wrote all of this music.

You decide.


----------



## robert newman

Well, the above answer by Kurkikothaus is of course very simplistic. People are conditioned to believe virtually any sort of nonsense these days, and we can even say critics are the ones making the nonsense. Such things are 'par for the course'. But make the effort. See for yourself. 

The fact is (and I think the evidence entirely supports it) that Mozart, at each and every stage of his 35 year life was being supplied music he never actually wrote but which he (sometimes) re-arranged and claimed as his own. In his case (and in that of Joseph Haydn - the other character in the mythical creation of the '1st Viennese School') these things were done for political and other reasons. By rich and powerful patrons. Vienna needed propaganda. It invented the myth of Mozart and Haydn's musical genius. It took time. But they achieved it. And that real contributions of countless Italian, Bohemian and other composers was, well, politely airbrushed out of history. That is exactly the case with Luchesi. For example. 

According to various sources the first 20 symphonies by Mozart (with one exception) have no more evidence in support of him being their true composer than they do of you or I being their true composer. We have, in his childhood, so many examples of exaggeration and fakery that it would be a brave man who would deny it. We could take the entire Koechel catalogue if you like. But if we do so, let it be agreed that we apply the same fair standards of criticism to these works as we would to that of any other composer. There ! Is that fair or not ? I accept such a challenge. But that is exactly what is refused by the 'Mozart establishment'. You therefore have little choice but to consume great meals of mythology, rarely questioning whether it is founded on fact or only on science-fiction. Symphonies. concertos and other works are recorded and commercially sold as 'Mozart' which he never wrote - even, many cases, known by the very professionals who record them. 

The youth and early adulthood of Mozart (a time when he father was still faking lots of music for his son and arranging others to provide it for him) was hardly different. In his Vienna career we start to move in to some completely preposterous assumptions. We assume (because it's tradition) that Mozart wrote the 'Marriage of Figaro' in 6 weeks. This. according to his librettist (supposed) Lorenzo da Ponte. (And Mozart did NOT compose the opera 'Die Entfhurung aus dem Serail). In fact, this 6 weeks for the composotion of 'Figaro' is blatantly untrue. And there is not a shred of evidence Mozart was commissioned by anyone to write this work, let alone that Da Ponte had the skill, experience or permission from the Vienna censors to write its libretto. Yet we accept it. The same is true of many, many, many works of the 'mature Mozart'. Take for example the piano concertos. Or the string quartets dedicated to Haydn. Or the later operas. Or take the Clarinet Concerto. Or take the Requiem. Or take the motet 'Ave Verum Corpus'. Or take the Violin Concertos. Or take the masses. Or take the sonatas. Or take the serenades. Or take whatever you please. In each and every case (and for many reasons) we are talking here about fakery, deception and downright falsehood on a huge, a massive scale. One of the abiding myths of our western civilization - the 'precocious genius of Mozart'. 

This body of music today labelled as 'Mozart' IS beautiful - indisputably so - for the most part. But only a lazy person would tolerate attributing it to Mozart - since he, in fact, can be shown to have benefitted all his life from lies and deception. 

The truth is (and there is really no doubt about it) most works by 'Mozart' were NOT, in fact, by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. But it helps the Vienna tourist industry to disagree and it helped the Holy Roman Empire to claim him and his 'genius' as 'one of ours'. It also helps sale of a local chocolate company. And if anyone questions the myth, well, let it be insisted that he has presented 'no evidence'. Honestly, I suppose some people simply cannot get their heads around the truth. 

No, must seek for the origins of Haydn and Mozart's works and of the '1st Viennese School' in a whole series of composers including such lesser known names as Sammartini, Luchesi, Myslivececk, Michael Hadyn, and others including Gossec etc. Ask any musicologist - the 18th century was notorious for works being falsely traded and falsely attributed. Mozart is simply the best, most blatant example. Shocking but true ! 

But if you want a list of a few dozen 'Mozart' works that would help to illustrate the point, please ask. I will be happy to provide details, one by one. 

The biographical details we have of Mozart were, to a great extent, fabricated by his widow and by others party to this ongoing scam. 

So, in answer to the question of how many works Mozart actually wrote, my answer is that it is (as everyone now appreciates) far, far, far fewer than dogmatists claim. So few, in fact, that it is perhaps at most 50 works, none of them of much value. 

But let me leave you with something you can check yourself. In the surviving musical score copy from Vienna of the Symphony KV444 (previously attributed to Mozart by 'Mozart experts at the Mozarteum') and known till 1908 as Symphony No. 37 (till it was finally attributed to Michael Haydn) we have a page or so of a slow introduction to the 1st movement of that same piece, composed in the hand (indisputably) of Mozart himself. 

Listen to this indisputably Mozartean slow introduction, written by Mozart beyond reasonable doubt. It is filled with errors, ugly chord progressions and crudities. There is your REAL Mozart. And if you can tell me that Mozart did not write this slow introduction. fine, you will save him from one of a million criticisms. I give this as one simple example. If you have an email address I can even send you an electronic version of these same introductory bars of music. 

Can't do better than that can I ? 

Regards


----------



## Lalla

Is that a joke ?
Apparently these messages are bluntly insulting, not only for Mozart and Haydn !

It is quite incredible, how can rational people proclaim such superstitions to be true ??! That's the height of absurdity. You are denouncing a so-called nonsense and you misunderstood and misinterpreted every historical fact. The proof of your mistake is much more evident than the invention you related.
Please, do not fabricate your subjective interpretation of historical documents, be sure that you really have consulted any yourself, and, for lack of anything better, consult your own understanding, your own sense of the probable, your own observation ; what/who have you been judging from ?
And what about Da Vinci as well ? Would you announce anything new thanks to film-revelations ? "Make truth yourself" : here is the nonesense.

I'm used to tolerate people holding forth and announcing this composer is to be despised, that one is wrongly brought back into favour etc. etc.. why do they show so narrow-minded ? Where is their judgment of worth, beauty etc. ? Proclamation is not a proof, attracting invention neither.



Please tell me I misunderstood these messages and that I have to apology in your opinion for misunderstanding this joke.


----------



## opus67

Lalla said:


> Please tell me I misunderstood these messages and that I have to apology in your opinion for misunderstanding this joke.


I wanted to link you to the thread by robert newman when you said you were a Mozart fan in your first post, but that would've been a rough welcome, wouldn't it? 

But I really, really hope that it's Mr.Newman and others who share this view who have misunderstood history?


----------



## robert newman

Dear Lalla, 

Thanks for your reply, which I might describe as an extended exclamation mark. If the comments made in that short post are insulting to the reputations of Joseph Haydn and W.A. Mozart, so be it. But there is a point where one, after making extensive research, and after giving the 'benefit of the doubt' to tradition, may come to realise, to believe, and even to assert that much of what we have been taught of Mozart, his life and his musical achievements is, in fact, moonshine. 

If you would be so kind as to forward me your email address I will send you an electronic copy of the slow introduction your hero wrote to KV444 (formerly known as Symphony No. 37), so that you can judge yourself, from documentary evidence, whether this man, this 'prodigy of nature' was the musical genius that tradition (to say nothing of dogmatism) claims. We are dealing here with fakery. It seems to me quite reasonable that in such a case what are needed are fair, open, and honest discussions on this issue and not insults or evasion. If you agree that such standards must be used to judge any issue, then, fine. 

The life, career and musical achievements of W.A. Mozart are one of the great myths of western civilization. It may be (though I don't say it is so) that civilizations cannot exist without a body of myths. Of things believed which we would not normally allow ourselves to believe, but which we do so, because it has always been believed. I think that in Mozart we have just such a case. 

Regards


----------



## robert newman

Dear Navneeth,

Thanks for the above comment. Yes, I agree that I and other researchers (of which there are now more than a few) may be wrong. But I do not think we are wrong. In fact, during the past several years it has been a rare thing to discuss any specific issue with 'experts' in this area, who have as core assumptions things which are little more than traditions.

Since we do best to discuss evidence (rather than fall in to the error of trading insults) I wonder if any reader of this thread would care to ask the following 7 questions of any MozartForum online in respect of, say, the work today known as KV444.

_Dear Mozart Forum Members,

Please can you comment on the following -

1. That up until the early 20th century the leading centre of Mozart study (and those who used it as a resource) described KV444 as a symphony composed by W.A. Mozart.

2. That KV444 (known during this time as 'Mozart Symphony No. 37') is not, in fact, a symphony by W.A. Mozart

3. That KV444 is actually, today, (according to the same experts) a symphony composed by Michael Haydn.

4. That W.A. Mozart had in his possession at the time of his death a copy of KV444 which was attributed by Koechel and other writers (mistakenly) to Mozart.

5. That W.A. Mozart definitely worked on this symphony since, amongst other things, he wrote a slow introduction to the first movement in his own hand.

6. That, in fact, the slow introduction that Mozart wrote for this same work is of very poor musical content, riddled with musical errors, and begging an explanation.

and finally -

7. That the leading publication for study of Mozart's manuscripts (the 'Koechel' catalogue - published privately) has, until this day, been highly selective in repeatedly omitting to tell us of surviving early copies of 'Mozart' symphonies held at places such as Regensburg, and, again at Modena, whose very existence and whose content would otherwise call in to question the automatic attribution of those works to Mozart. (Namely, Symphonies 31, 38, and 41 respectively). _In the interests of truth I would grateful if somebody would post the above 7 points to a major Mozart Forum online, so that we can judge the quality of the responses to them. That would do as much for fairness and honesty as we might hope.

Regards

Robert


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Just for the record HERE is the link to the big thread about this topic.


----------



## Manuel

robert newman said:


> Well, the above answer by Kurkikothaus is of course very simplistic. People are conditioned to believe virtually any sort of nonsense these days, and we can even say critics are the ones making the nonsense. Such things are 'par for the course'. But make the effort. See for yourself.
> 
> The fact is (and I think the evidence entirely supports it) that Mozart, at each and every stage of his 35 year life was being supplied music he never actually wrote but which he (sometimes) re-arranged and claimed as his own. In his case (and in that of Joseph Haydn - the other character in the mythical creation of the '1st Viennese School') these things were done for political and other reasons. By rich and powerful patrons. Vienna needed propaganda. It invented the myth of Mozart and Haydn's musical genius. It took time. But they achieved it. And that real contributions of countless Italian, Bohemian and other composers was, well, politely airbrushed out of history. That is exactly the case with Luchesi. For example.
> 
> According to various sources the first 20 symphonies by Mozart (with one exception) have no more evidence in support of him being their true composer than they do of you or I being their true composer. We have, in his childhood, so many examples of exaggeration and fakery that it would be a brave man who would deny it. We could take the entire Koechel catalogue if you like. But if we do so, let it be agreed that we apply the same fair standards of criticism to these works as we would to that of any other composer. There ! Is that fair or not ? I accept such a challenge. But that is exactly what is refused by the 'Mozart establishment'. You therefore have little choice but to consume great meals of mythology, rarely questioning whether it is founded on fact or only on science-fiction. Symphonies. concertos and other works are recorded and commercially sold as 'Mozart' which he never wrote - even, many cases, known by the very professionals who record them.
> 
> The youth and early adulthood of Mozart (a time when he father was still faking lots of music for his son and arranging others to provide it for him) was hardly different. In his Vienna career we start to move in to some completely preposterous assumptions. We assume (because it's tradition) that Mozart wrote the 'Marriage of Figaro' in 6 weeks. This. according to his librettist (supposed) Lorenzo da Ponte. (And Mozart did NOT compose the opera 'Die Entfhurung aus dem Serail). In fact, this 6 weeks for the composotion of 'Figaro' is blatantly untrue. And there is not a shred of evidence Mozart was commissioned by anyone to write this work, let alone that Da Ponte had the skill, experience or permission from the Vienna censors to write its libretto. Yet we accept it. The same is true of many, many, many works of the 'mature Mozart'. Take for example the piano concertos. Or the string quartets dedicated to Haydn. Or the later operas. Or take the Clarinet Concerto. Or take the Requiem. Or take the motet 'Ave Verum Corpus'. Or take the Violin Concertos. Or take the masses. Or take the sonatas. Or take the serenades. Or take whatever you please. In each and every case (and for many reasons) we are talking here about fakery, deception and downright falsehood on a huge, a massive scale. One of the abiding myths of our western civilization - the 'precocious genius of Mozart'.
> 
> This body of music today labelled as 'Mozart' IS beautiful - indisputably so - for the most part. But only a lazy person would tolerate attributing it to Mozart - since he, in fact, can be shown to have benefitted all his life from lies and deception.
> 
> The truth is (and there is really no doubt about it) most works by 'Mozart' were NOT, in fact, by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. But it helps the Vienna tourist industry to disagree and it helped the Holy Roman Empire to claim him and his 'genius' as 'one of ours'. It also helps sale of a local chocolate company. And if anyone questions the myth, well, let it be insisted that he has presented 'no evidence'. Honestly, I suppose some people simply cannot get their heads around the truth.
> 
> No, must seek for the origins of Haydn and Mozart's works and of the '1st Viennese School' in a whole series of composers including such lesser known names as Sammartini, Luchesi, Myslivececk, Michael Hadyn, and others including Gossec etc. Ask any musicologist - the 18th century was notorious for works being falsely traded and falsely attributed. Mozart is simply the best, most blatant example. Shocking but true !
> 
> But if you want a list of a few dozen 'Mozart' works that would help to illustrate the point, please ask. I will be happy to provide details, one by one.
> 
> The biographical details we have of Mozart were, to a great extent, fabricated by his widow and by others party to this ongoing scam.
> 
> So, in answer to the question of how many works Mozart actually wrote, my answer is that it is (as everyone now appreciates) far, far, far fewer than dogmatists claim. So few, in fact, that it is perhaps at most 50 works, none of them of much value.
> 
> But let me leave you with something you can check yourself. In the surviving musical score copy from Vienna of the Symphony KV444 (previously attributed to Mozart by 'Mozart experts at the Mozarteum') and known till 1908 as Symphony No. 37 (till it was finally attributed to Michael Haydn) we have a page or so of a slow introduction to the 1st movement of that same piece, composed in the hand (indisputably) of Mozart himself.
> 
> Listen to this indisputably Mozartean slow introduction, written by Mozart beyond reasonable doubt. It is filled with errors, ugly chord progressions and crudities. There is your REAL Mozart. And if you can tell me that Mozart did not write this slow introduction. fine, you will save him from one of a million criticisms. I give this as one simple example. If you have an email address I can even send you an electronic version of these same introductory bars of music.
> 
> Can't do better than that can I ?
> 
> Regards


*LOL*

No... I really mean it. *LOL*

I guess you are right. And that's why all the works in his catalog doesn't sound in the same style... and there's more... your long post explains why whenever you listen to a work by this fake idol it's almost impossible to recognize it's from him.

(cough) (cough) - sarcasm - (cough)

I suppose it was a boring sunday... you mixed Takemitsu with crack... and a pink cat in heavy make up with the voice of Barbara Streissand came and revealed the conspiracy...

Suggestions for the next _journeys_:
- The moonwalk in 1969 was staged, they were just actors.
- Chinese explorers were who really discovered and populated South America.
- The recipe for Coke came in a UFO.
- There's a mind control gadget in every 50 dollar note.
(...)


----------



## robert newman

Well Manuel, with arguments such as yours who needs evidence one way or the other ? 

To suggest that Mozart's career was faked is simply to suggest the truth. A truth repeatedly documented in piece after piece - as has several times been indicated on this thread alone. So far, we see only schoolboy replies that the recipe for Coca Cola came from a UFO etc ! 

Perhaps you would care to tell us whether Mozart is really the composer of the following two works and why you believe so - 

1) Opera 'La Finta Semplice'
2) Oratorio 'La Betulia Liberata' 

Or perhaps I can give you a dozen more ? 

Either way, a discussion is a great idea.

Regards


----------



## Manuel

> To suggest that Mozart's career was faked is simply to suggest the truth


True to you...



> Perhaps you would care to tell us whether Mozart is really the composer of the following two works and why you believe so


Not really, I don't want to embark in a pointless web discussion. That's the spirit of the internet: a bunch of unknown*twits *can say whatever they want, researching a lot and twisting the info they get in a malicious may to pervert a certain content they just don't like or are unable to understand.

I can also see there have already been discussions on this:
http://www.mozartforum.com/VB_forum/archive/index.php/t-172.html

(Gurn Blanston is now a mod in other classical music board... but that one is non-amateur)

And the article you worship is here:
http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000533.htm

*LOL*


----------



## robert newman

Well, it would be great if this issue was covered by just one article online (as you seem to suggest). It isn't. It covers the entire life and career of Mozart - a subject so large that we can only hope to discuss aspects of it here (if you so choose). But I notice that you have no appetite for any meaningful discussion on KV444, the Oratorio, or the Opera. Nor of the symphonies such as 31, 35, 38, 39, 40 or 41. 

You say that things can be twisted in an online discussion. Sure. They can be even more twisted if we hear only one side of an issue. The side you happen to know a little of. But you clearly have nothing to offer in all of the above cases. You are, in fact, a consumer of the Mozart myth. And that is no bad thing - till you begin to say that any discussion is pointless. In such a case you show that you have no real interest in fair and open discussion. Fine. But that's confirmed by your last post. 

Regards


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

robert newman said:


> So far, we see only *schoolboy replies *that the recipe for Coca Cola came from a UFO etc !


Personally, I do not believe the Mozart controversy, I believe Mozart was Mozart. But *robert newman* makes a good point. For those of us who do not believe this, it would be better to argue back with facts rather than *schoolboy replies*. The odd bit of sarcasm and humour doesn't hurt, but if we cannot actually present _logical arguments_ than we make our "Traditional Mozart Camp" look like a bunch of morons.


----------



## robert newman

Of course the argument is not against ordinary Mozart lovers, who accept what is given to them in countless books, articles and films etc. They have no reason to suppose otherwise. But the general public have a right to know there are now two flatly different views about Mozart and his true career. They can judge for themselves on the evidence presented and on the attitudes of both parties. That is the best we can do here. 

Year after year the 'experts' simply refuse to get in to serious dicussion on the actual evidence. That's lesson number 1. 


Regards


----------



## Manuel

> Year after year the 'experts' simply refuse to get in to serious dicussion on the actual evidence. That's lesson number 1.


Experts refuse to make a discussion with *you*. You have strong point there.


----------



## robert newman

I used the word 'experts' in inverted commas - since every expert must be accountable and these 'experts' are not. 

They not only refuse to discuss these issues with me, but they rubbish anyone who brings their attention to the gaping holes in the supposed evidence. There are at least half a dozen researchers worldwide who would give them a run for their money on documentary, historical and many other grounds. This is a disgrace and can be compared to those who question whether the gods of the state are real or mere inventions. 

Why such an attitude ? Yes, you've guessed it. It's mythology.


----------



## robert newman

Well Manuel, it's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas ! At the end of the day it's only fair that the public are made aware that much of what is believed in this area is mythology. If experts discuss these matters perhaps you can tell us when and where they do so - the fact is they refuse to do so. The bricks of the Mozart mansion are being so constantly removed, upgraded, replaced, and fudged there is nothing like it in the entire history of music. But I have said enough, for sure.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Robert, as you know, I am a sceptic about the Mozart Conspiracy, the "Mozart-Fan" in me wants Mozart to be the true author of all the works attributed to him.

For argument's sake let us assume that the body of evidence amassed against Mozart is true and new proof will continue to be uncovered. As of now, this proof is being supressed and/or rejected by the "Establishment"... Publishing houses like Barenreiter, Breitkopf, even Kalmus... Record companies, music journals... everyone who stands to make money off of Mozart.

So my question to you is, what do you think it would take for this information and the "Truth" to become mainstream and widely accepted? Because not only is it NOT accepted by most people, but it is not even KNOWN to be an issue by most people. So do you have an idea about how the truth would eventually unfold and become accepted?


----------



## robert newman

Dear Kurkikohtaus, 

I think the solution is to apply the same critical standards of research towards Mozart and his supposed career as we would to the life and career of any other composer. But this so rarely happens. 2 centuries of myth have been concreted in to the equation. In fact it's amazing how we accept virtually without thinking works by 'Mozart' for which there has never really been solid evidence he was their true composer. But it gets worse - we can accept that Nannerl and Leopold Mozart may indeed have had a huge hand in 'early Mozart' - but this indisputable fact still doesn't really register - we still give Mozart and his traditional reputation our credulity. We can acknowledge there is a forged signature on the Requiem (KV626) but we somehow seem unable to draw logical conclusions from it (the last in a huge pile of discrepancies), even when the whole chapter of lies and distortions on the Requiem is placed before us. We attribute 'by tradition' despite the fact that documentary and other evidence may be piled high against that tradition. 

Until the academic world frees itself of its blatantly Jesuitical approach to such studies (i.e. in its circular arguments) we will continue to have one side claiming the other has no evidence. Inconvenient facts are simply buried. 

That the careers of Haydn and Mozart were greatly manufactured by vested interests and that mythical careers are given as 'history' seems, to me, to be indisputable. 

Far easier to believe the myth. Truth, fairness and appeals to facts will always be a minority activity. 

Regards


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

robert newman said:


> Until the academic world frees itself of its blatantly Jesuitical approach to such studies (i.e. in its circular arguments) we will continue to have one side claiming the other has no evidence
> ...
> Truth, fairness and appeals to facts will always be a minority activity.


Those are great quotes, I will definitely use them in other areas when arguing other topics, and will of course give their author due credit!


----------



## maestrocollection.com

Dear Mr. Newman,

I would be curious to read what you have to say about Johann Sebastian Bach. 

Regards,


----------



## robert newman

Dear Maestrocollection,

I think JS Bach is quite simply the most talented composer that was ever born. His music transcends the period in which he lived and is surely the greatest legacy we have in all of music. Not only did he write a huge number of sublime works in virtually every form but his works are of immense importance to students. Bach was keen to absorb the best influences he could find and these he reflected in his music. Yet he was perhaps the least applauded of all the great composers. 

There are more entertaining composers. But not greater ones. 

I agree with Alphonse Daudet who wrote that 'Bach is another planet'. Whatever we say about music and musical achivement Bach is for me the legitimate point of reference, even the context. I cannot talk of music or what music is capable of without acknowledging his greatness and his wonderful legacy.


----------



## Saturnus

I do not care if Mozart didn't write everything he is suspected to have written. I am pretty sure that his sister helped him a lot at least sometimes (for women weren't allowed to publish anything at this time and his sister was also a genius) or composed one and one movement at times. 
The name Mozart represents the best of music from Vienna in the classical era, maybe it is because of a huge Free-mason conspiracy or because Mozart was a genius and could pick up musical ideas extreemly easily.
I think a huge crowd of unmemorable european names would frighten music-lovers even more far away from the classical period than they are now so I am fine with Mozart as he is thought of today.


----------



## Mr Salek

I agree. Surely the greatness of the music makes it irrelevant to who wrote it. After all, we can't pay anyone royalties! I just like to accept the fact that it was this boy, even though there is so much evidence to prove otherwise. Call me ignorant, but it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to the music.


----------



## robert newman

Well, yes, it seems only an academic point whether Mozart wrote all he is credited with. But I think it's far more important than that issue - interesting as it is. 

The origins of the Vienna classical period (i.e. especially in the careers of its two most famous composers - Haydn and Mozart) are often presented to us in a false way. It is as if their own 'home grown' genius erupted in Austria naturally and with only minimal external help. In actual fact, the huge debt of this music to composers whose names are hardly known is very real. Most (though not all) Italian. But this fact, this truth, is largely obscured or downplayed. The scale of the debt to largely unknown or little known composers is enormous. When we add to this case after case of works falsely being attributed to both men which had their origins in Italy or outside of Vienna, then, I think, we begin to peel away many popular myths surrounding the supposed achievements of these two legendary composers. 

If indeed Mozart was being helped by others during his childhood and youth to a great extent we must ask ourselves at what point he stopped being 'helped' to such a degree. 

I am of course glad that this body of music is known in Mozart's name or Haydn's name - which certainly made it's preservation that much more easy. But the challenge of critical biography and even of overturning so much flawed myth remains largely undone. 

Regards


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Mr Salek said:


> Surely the greatness of the music makes it irrelevant to who wrote it.





robert newman said:


> Well, yes, it seems only an academic point whether Mozart wrote all he is credited with.


I have to disagree here, *Mr. Salek*, to me it is not irrelevant. In fact, if the body of collected evidence against Mozart went mainstream and was accepted by publishers, record companies and the general public as undeniable proof, I personally would have a huge philosophical problem programming Mozart for my orchestra, and a huge personal psychological problem performing the music. This is also the reason that I personally want to hold on to the idea that Mozart did indeed write this body of work.


----------



## robert newman

Dear Kurkikothaus, 

I can only suggest these issues are publicly examined/discussed/debated on a piece by piece basis. If Mozart really wrote these works it should be quite easy for traditionalists to demonstrate to music lovers the superior quality of their arguments. But guess which side refuses to do this ? 

Mozart wrote the pieces from 1784 to 1791 because, well, because he claimed them as his in his thematic catalogue, or because versions of them exist in his own hand etc. Or because he refers to them being his in his correspondence etc. Or because the early biographers said they were his. Or because publishers published them in his name etc. Great. But if this sort of evidence is strong let's see it presented side by side by evidence which suggests Mozart was, in fact, NOT the true composer of these works. 

Every attempt was made (both during Mozart's lifetime and afterwards) to conceal, to exaggerate, and to distort the truth. Mozart was a willing 'stooge' for this activity and so too was Joseph Haydn. It brought them, Vienna, the Austrian state and the Holy Roman Empire great fame. Propaganda, of course. The fact that much of the myth is patently false is more clear to us today. But where is 'expertise' at such moments - when we need it most ? It disappears, or bans posters to websites, and is nowhere to be found. 

At what point did the fabrications and exaggerations of Mozart's early career end ? 

They never did. 

Regards


----------



## Guest

robert newman said:


> ...Propaganda, of course!
> 
> The fact that much of the myth is patently false is more clear to us today...


I've just realized that this thread is not closed .









Who's nostalgic ?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Hi, Big Al! Yeah, I knew this thread remained open.
Bumping this thread reminds me of the "Ren & Stimpy" cartoon episode which featured _"our favoritest game in the whole world. 'Don't (relieve yourself) on the electric fence!'"_
At any point in time, our initial poster would have been content with the repsonse to "how many works are commonly attributed to Mozart? (roughly, even, to borrow a turn of phrase from another favored cartoon character, Snagglepuss.) Wonder if anyone _seriously_ wants to answer this one.


----------



## Guest

Hi, Big Chi!

Have you also noticed that Mr Newman is not banned any more ?


----------



## netmanrules

hi people. i neeeed someone to tell me any website with morphological analisys for Wolgfang's quartets


----------



## robert newman

Hi there Netmanrules,

I am not sure what you really mean by a 'morphological analysis' of Mozart's (string) quartets. But I assume you want some sort of information on the style and content of works in that form which are attributed to Mozart. Here's at least some information on their origin. Hope it helps. 

Perhaps we can begin with the musically very poor quartet set KV168-173 dating from August 1773 which were clearly written by Mozart with the aim of emulating the already existing 'Sonnen' quartets of Haydn (since this Mozart set certainly plays an important part in any study of 'Mozart's quartets' as I'm sure you agree). 

The years 1773/4 were not really very successful for Mozart if the documentary evidence is to be believed. For example, we are informed by Alan Tyson ('Mozart Studies' p.170 following) that handwritten dates on such works as the symphonies KV182 and KV183 have been tampered with. And that the same has happened with the manuscripts of others such as symphony KV201 (dated 'April 6th 1774'), also KV202 ('May 5th 1774'), and in fact almost 100 other works attributed to Mozart listed between pages 170-174 of Tyson's own detailed study. So the series of Mozart string quartets from around 1773/4 need to be seen in such a context. Of these Massin and others write - 

'The first four quartets of this set (KV168-173) are dated by Mozart himself 'August 1773', the last one is dated only 'Vienna 1773' and they are numbered in a still more whimsical order of succession than even the Milanese quartets....The set has certainly been composed very rapidly - perhaps TOO rapidly since few works of sets of works composed by Mozart can boast having provoked so UNANIMOUS AND IN CONCLUSION SO NEGATIVE JUDGEMENTS on the part of those who comment on them.' 

St Foix wrote (of these very same pieces) - ' The young man (Mozart) was so affected by the quartets Op. 13 and most of all Op.20 by Joseph Haydn (only by the technical value of these works) that he clearly strove to do the very same - BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS'. 

And the general opinion of these same Mozart quartets is perhaps best summed up by Einstein who wrote - 

'These works, these string quartets, represent a DEVIATION IN THE MOZARTIAN TRAJECTORY'. 

(In short, they are musically very poor works). A respectful way to say in August 1773 Mozart was simply not able to imitate, even in an acceptable way, Haydn's works of the same kind, despite being credited (wrongly) with having composed the symphony KV183 at around the same time. 

As to the much more famous 'Haydn' quartets of a decade later in Vienna, may I suggest you look more closely at their actual musical content ? The chief source of 'Mozart's' material in THAT series of quartets is, actually, music already wrongly attributed to Joseph Haydn in his own operas and other stage works. 

Regards


----------



## rich23434565

Oh for god's sake. I've just joined up here and there's no escaping him is there...


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Mozart had a distinctive style and we know that no 2 "ORIGINAL" composers have the exact same style except for the FIVE of course. You play a peice for me from Mozart that I have never heard in my life without telling me who it is I would know it was mozart so no attic full of people could produce the works he did


----------



## Yagan Kiely

This has to be one of the funniest threads I have seen in quite a while. Why on earth is anyone arguing with someone like this? There really isn't any point.

It is more ludicrous than suggesting that the CIA destroyed the twin towers.


----------



## robert newman

rich23434565 is allowed to post popular mythology about Mozart. Yagan Kiely believes critical posts on the supposed life, career, and musical achievements of Mozart is 'one of the funniest threads' he has seen in quite a while.

Hopefully this comment is acceptable to everyone -

_'The history of music is usually studied from its creative aspect - i.e. how masterpieces of western culture came in to being, how composers advanced the state of the art, how major works were received. The underside is however rarely discussed and plays little role in popular understanding. Who paid for the music, who profited from it, who actually organised it, and why. The history of music and of the music business is a half-glimpsed enigma, unknown to modern managers and undiscussed in polite society. The term itself is deemed to be unpolite. In fact, some of the more successful propagandists of music practiced an almost saintly devotion to artists and their art. Others were outright villains, in it for what they could get. The music business imposes a stringent vow of silence that is designed to protect the myth of the immaculate artist.' _

Norman Lebrecht - _'Managers, Maestros and the Corporate Murder of Classical Music'_.

Since Mozart is indisputably one of the great cultural icons of western civilization I am simply saying his myth is now, rightly, under seige from the information society - from a generation who, having at their disposal the tools to make a well founded case, are able to say with increasing proofs that the life and career of Mozart, as given to us by propagandists for virtually 200 years and by his coterie of image makers during his lifetime is a fabulous invention and is very different from the reality.

That Mozart did not compose most of the works today attributed to him is a fact entirely consistent with fair and reasonable standards of proof even within mainstream conservative Mozartean research (as we see in edition after edition of Koechel), the fuller details of which nevertheless remain off limits for wider discussion.

That much of 'his' music is beautiful is not disputed. But that he composed it is disputed.

Laugh at that as much as you please. It still remains the truth.



Salieri=Innocent said:


> Mozart had a distinctive style and we know that no 2 "ORIGINAL" composers have the exact same style except for the FIVE of course. You play a peice for me from Mozart that I have never heard in my life without telling me who it is I would know it was mozart so no attic full of people could produce the works he did


The 'distinctive' style of Mozart. Does that include the Symphony KV444 which, until 1908 was regarded by textbooks and by the Mozarteum itself to be one of 'his' symphonies - but which, in fact, turns out to be by Michael Haydn or another ?

Have you ever heard music by, say, Myslivececk ? Or Paul Wranitsky ? (To name only 2 composers) ? Again, up until the early 20th century there were various 'early Mozart concertos' which, it turns out, were not by him at all.


----------



## Daniel

This discussion will not be taken up again, please!

Thank you!


----------



## rich23434565

*applaudes Daniel*


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> rich23434565 is allowed to post popular mythology about Mozart. Yagan Kiely believes critical posts on the supposed life, career, and musical achievements of Mozart is 'one of the funniest threads' he has seen in quite a while.


I love fairy-tales so much, thats all.


----------



## DeadlyKomplexx

Um wow,I can hardly beleive what I'm reading here..


----------



## Guest

After reading through some of these threads about Mozart initiated by Robert Newman I've come to the opinion that Newman is a classic Narcissist. These people frequent the internet and have familiar traits. Above all, they want notoriety - they don't care to be liked, but they want attention and to be feared, talked about and infamous. He fits the criteria on every count as do some others I've noticed on this forum! I've done intensive reading and research on the subject because of my experiences on a similar music forum with a Narcissist. A close friend who is a Psychologist has also helped me with excellent references and advice so I know what to look for now. Narcissists are very unpleasant individuals and are mostly male!!


----------



## Guest

Ah Mr Newman come back and answer your detractors


----------



## wiganwarrior

It really doesn't matter to me at all whoever is right or wrong in all of this! It is, undoubtedly, a wonderful academic argument for many people and, if I was interested enough I would research it myself. Personally, I'm not bothered if someone proved that a three toed sloth wrote the last movement of the Jupiter symphony, or that Beethoven (like the arguments put forward about Shakespeare) was, in fact, someone else -or even an alien. Be thankful that such glorious music exists - take it for what it is - and enjoy!


----------



## John Kiunke

If Mozart is truly a fake, why are there sketches, strange pieces, and fragments of music in his hand? Surely nobody would supply him the Minuet in D major KV 355. And we also see sketches for the c minor mass on parts of pages he used for teaching students such as Thomas Attwood and Barbara Ployer. There would be no reason for him to want a piece that would be absolutely useless to the public. If he were supplied with fragments like the Allegro in g minor, KV 312, why wouldn't he just copy out the rest of it?


----------



## PlaySalieri

John Kiunke said:


> If Mozart is truly a fake, why are there sketches, strange pieces, and fragments of music in his hand? Surely nobody would supply him the Minuet in D major KV 355. And we also see sketches for the c minor mass on parts of pages he used for teaching students such as Thomas Attwood and Barbara Ployer. There would be no reason for him to want a piece that would be absolutely useless to the public. If he were supplied with fragments like the Allegro in g minor, KV 312, why wouldn't he just copy out the rest of it?


Plus who wrote the letters where he refers to much of the music he wrote? Such as the wind/piano quintet k452 and many others.

And the letters/reports of contemporaries, those who knew him etc - Michael Kelly the tenor describes the first perf of figaro and decsribes Mozart on the night etc - so M didnt compose figaro then? who was Michael Kelly referring to? And Mozart's letters referring to Nancy Storace who played in Don Giovanni - that was all a hoax was it? And the money the king of prussia paid to constanze (800ducts) for 8 Mozart manuscripts - she made that all up did she or he paid for worthless dots on the page? And who composed the masonic magic flute?

Seems to be quite an elaborate conspiracy and much sillier than the shakespeare didnt write shakespeare but newman is a bach lover and is no doubt fuelled by his love of bach to debunk a greater composer.

I have a good friend who became a conspiracy theorist in his mid 50s and I now try to avoid him. what a pain these people can be.


----------



## PlaySalieri

*According to various sources the first 20 symphonies by Mozart (with one exception) have no more evidence in support of him being their true composer than they do of you or I being their true composer. *

which sources?
the m/s are dated in the 18thC and accepted as such by scholarship - so how could it be just as likely that you or I are their true composer as much so as an actual 18th C composer.


----------



## PlaySalieri

robert newman said:


> Well, yes, it seems only an academic point whether Mozart wrote all he is credited with. But I think it's far more important than that issue - interesting as it is.
> 
> The origins of the Vienna classical period (i.e. especially in the careers of its two most famous composers - Haydn and Mozart) are often presented to us in a false way. It is as if their own 'home grown' genius erupted in Austria naturally and with only minimal external help. In actual fact, the huge debt of this music to composers whose names are hardly known is very real. Most (though not all) Italian. But this fact, this truth, is largely obscured or downplayed. The scale of the debt to largely unknown or little known composers is enormous. When we add to this case after case of works falsely being attributed to both men which had their origins in Italy or outside of Vienna, then, I think, we begin to peel away many popular myths surrounding the supposed achievements of these two legendary composers.
> 
> If indeed Mozart was being helped by others during his childhood and youth to a great extent we must ask ourselves at what point he stopped being 'helped' to such a degree.
> 
> I am of course glad that this body of music is known in Mozart's name or Haydn's name - which certainly made it's preservation that much more easy. But the challenge of critical biography and even of overturning so much flawed myth remains largely undone.
> 
> Regards


It seems odd that so many great works by Haydn and Mozart were composed by anonymous composers and yet those composers who are left - cimarosa, salieri, cpe bach etc etc etc - did not compose anything that stands comparison to the finest works of the 2 great masters.

And how is that Mozart's operas are far superior to Haydn's operas? Was there one Mozart hack and one Haydn hack - or several hands?

Why do I think Mozart is a much better composer than Haydn if neither Mozart nor Haydn composed the works attributed to them.


----------



## Pugg

Would this be of any help?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Köchel_catalogue


----------



## Woodduck

stomanek said:


> It seems odd that so many great works by Haydn and Mozart were composed by anonymous composers and yet those composers who are left - cimarosa, salieri, cpe bach etc etc etc - did not compose anything that stands comparison to the finest works of the 2 great masters.
> 
> And how is that Mozart's operas are far superior to Haydn's operas? Was there one Mozart hack and one Haydn hack - or several hands?
> 
> Why do I think Mozart is a much better composer than Haydn if neither Mozart nor Haydn composed the works attributed to them.


My goodness, are you taking this discussion seriously? Newman was obviously trolling and was banned from the forum long ago.

It's been established beyond any doubt that the works of Mozart were actually written by William Shakespeare but were ignored for over a century and a half because people wanted to have a Baroque period first.


----------



## Genoveva

Woodduck said:


> My goodness, are you taking this discussion seriously? Newman was obviously trolling and was banned from the forum long ago.


Newman was banned not only from this forum but also from all the others he joined, both before and after his time at T-C. I am surprised that this and a few other Newman threads at T-C haven't all been closed (some were closed because they became very unruly), as it's usually only a matter of time before a newcomer to classical music picks up on the nonsense they contain and treats it as worthy of serious comment.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> My goodness, are you taking this discussion seriously? Newman was obviously trolling and was banned from the forum long ago.
> 
> It's been established beyond any doubt that the works of Mozart were actually written by William Shakespeare but were ignored for over a century and a half because people wanted to have a Baroque period first.


Well then I'm a mug for taking the bait.
But seriously - I checked around on "mozart myth" on google - which is mostly salieri poisoned mozart, or mozart effect or myths about what Mozart could do as a child but I did find this

http://www.rense.com/general45/mozrt.htm

an attempt to demonstrate that Mozart perhaps did not write the great music that is attricuted to him. I stopped reading when the writer claims Mozart could not have written the great opera Idomeneo as his previous opera La Finta Giardiniera is relatively poor and the gulf in quality is inexplicable. That the latter was composed by Mozart at 19 and Idomeneo at 25 could not, it seems, explain the improvement - or that Mozart had recently composed the unfinished opera Zaide - a work that clearly shows a masterful touch and leap of quality since his immature operas.

As for newman - ok he was trolling - and yes this thread ought to deleted - or his posts at least - he comes across as being in earnest at times - but claiming that scholarly critical standards are applied to bach but not mozart and haydn is just ridiculous - there are hundreds of mozart scholars painstakingly working on authentication all the time and that is why we have a list of spurious Mozart works.


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> As for newman - ok he was trolling - and yes this thread ought to deleted - or his posts at least - he comes across as being in earnest at times - but claiming that scholarly critical standards are applied to bach but not mozart and haydn is just ridiculous - there are hundreds of mozart scholars painstakingly working on authentication all the time and that is why we have a list of spurious Mozart works.


He used to be very well known among all the regular participants of the main classical music forums, having been banned from all of them over the period from 2005 onwards. He mainly operated under his own name but occasionally used an alias. Sometime he worked with a stooge to set up a relevant question for him to answer.

He has been relatively quiet on the internet scene for some time now, no doubt because he has run out of classical music forums in which to try to promote his highly peculiar views.

However, such was the very large scale of his former activity, usually if anyone now starts questioning the authenticity of any of the Mozart's or Haydn main works on any of the forums I still frequent then my instincts tell me that it's probably Newman having another go. I suspect that there are many other people who get the same reaction.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> He used to be very well known among all the regular participants of the main classical music forums, having been banned from all of them over the period from 2005 onwards. He mainly operated under his own name but occasionally used an alias. Sometime he worked with a stooge to set up a relevant question for him to answer.
> 
> He has been relatively quiet on the internet scene for some time now, no doubt because he has run out of classical music forums in which to try to promote his highly peculiar views.
> 
> However, such was the very large scale of his former activity, usually if anyone now starts questioning the authenticity of any of the Mozart's or Haydn main works on any of the forums I still frequent then my instincts tell me that it's probably Newman having another go. I suspect that there are many other people who get the same reaction.


So he is not just a troll trying to get a war going. He actually believes what he says. I wonder what he has against Mozart and Haydn of all composers.


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> So he is not just a troll trying to get a war going. He actually believes what he says. I wonder what he has against Mozart and Haydn of all composers.


He certainly gave the impression that he firmly believed both Mozart and Haydn were complete and utter frauds. In this sense, he probably wasn't a normal kind of "troll" in the sense of being someone whose main aim is to create mischief based on some stupid comment designed chiefly to stimulate an adverse response from others, then sit back and watch a fight break out.

He did not just believe that Mozart and Haydn are wrongly credited with a few major works that resulted somehow from a muddle over the historical records. It is far worse than that. He believed that, for Mozart especially, most of their mature works are the work of other composers, and that both of them were fully aware at the time of what was going on in their name, and that they were fully complicit in the cover-ups.

He started on his internet campaign back in around 2004-2005. One after another, he worked his way around most of the main classical music forums. At each of the forums he was given a generous opportunity to set out his allegations against Mozart and Haydn, and time to defend them against much criticism and scepticism that was typically made, but so weird and unconvincing were his views that he found hardly any support for them.

Typically, he provided no convincing answers to questions put to him, and rather than attempt to justify his assertions his standard tactic was to ask his questioners to justify their faith that Mozart was not a fraud. And so he continued the spin. When his position became untenable on one topic of his choosing he would raise a new thread on some other aspect. He would also set about wrecking other members' innocent threads on Mozart, by posting some negative comment alleging that the work in question was not written by Mozart. He was highly disruptive, and of course in these circumstances it was sometimes very difficult for other members of these forums to keep their cool when challenging him.

When at T-C for about a year from October 2006 he created about 10 threads casting big doubt on different aspects of Mozart's achievements. His main thread was this one: http://www.talkclassical.com/865-controversy-over-true-musical.html.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Thanks for that information.
I looked at the first 3 pages of the thread - good to see some capable intellects taking him to task. Ha ha ha - the title of his thread. as if there is a controversy.

I think I would have wanted to ask him why the true composers of the great works did not come forward to take credit. I would also have wanted to know why none of the composers he cites left behind nothing remotely as good as what they are supposed to have supplied Mozart and why only Mozart and Haydn have masterworks attriubted to them from that era. If quite lowly musical figures (cited by him) were capable of such wonders - why is the mid to late 18thC so devoid of top quality we associate only with mozart and haydn (which does rather indicate they are the sole authors of those masterworks as nobody else could touch them)

The guy is totally without reason.


----------



## Mahlerian

stomanek said:


> Thanks for that information.
> I looked at the first 3 pages of the thread - good to see some capable intellects taking him to task. Ha ha ha - the title of his thread. as if there is a controversy.


It is a frequent tactic of people wanting to lend credibility to a spurious argument to claim that there is a reasonable debate going on.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> He certainly gave the impression that he firmly believed both Mozart and Haydn were complete and utter frauds. In this sense, he probably wasn't a normal kind of "troll" in the sense of being someone whose main aim is to create mischief based on some stupid comment designed chiefly to stimulate an adverse response from others, then sit back and watch a fight break out.
> 
> He did not just believe that Mozart and Haydn are wrongly credited with a few major works that resulted somehow from a muddle over the historical records. It is far worse than that. He believed that, for Mozart especially, most of their mature works are the work of other composers, and that both of them were fully aware at the time of what was going on in their name, and that they were fully complicit in the cover-ups.
> 
> He started on his internet campaign back in around 2004-2005. One after another, he worked his way around most of the main classical music forums. At each of the forums he was given a generous opportunity to set out his allegations against Mozart and Haydn, and time to defend them against much criticism and scepticism that was typically made, but so weird and unconvincing were his views that he found hardly any support for them.
> 
> Typically, he provided no convincing answers to questions put to him, and rather than attempt to justify his assertions his standard tactic was to ask his questioners to justify their faith that Mozart was not a fraud. And so he continued the spin. When his position became untenable on one topic of his choosing he would raise a new thread on some other aspect. He would also set about wrecking other members' innocent threads on Mozart, by posting some negative comment alleging that the work in question was not written by Mozart. He was highly disruptive, and of course in these circumstances it was sometimes very difficult for other members of these forums to keep their cool when challenging him.
> 
> When at T-C for about a year from October 2006 he created about 10 threads casting big doubt on different aspects of Mozart's achievements. His main thread was this one: http://www.talkclassical.com/865-controversy-over-true-musical.html.


I'm on page 11 of this amazingly entertaining thread. Would recommend it to anyone.


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> I'm on page 11 of this amazingly entertaining thread. Would recommend it to anyone.


I thought you might find that thread of interest. Only 7 more pages to go.

By now you will of course appreciate that Newman was claiming that little known composer, Andrea Luchesi, was the real composer of a number of works attributed to W A Mozart, including Symphony No 41 "Jupiter", and that the Papacy, Jesuit Order etc were all involved in the huge plot.

Against the somewhat heavy-going nature of the discussion in that thread, you might appreciate a spot of light relief provided by this thread raised at the time by one of Newman's chief opponents: http://www.talkclassical.com/1697-controversy-over-true-musical.html.

Here the tables were turned on Newman by claiming that Andrea Luchesi was himself _"… a secret alcoholic, wife beater, forger, and generally one of the biggest dick-head composers of the late 18th Century._ The same kind of "evidence" as favoured by Newman was used to "prove" these claims about Luchesi, including some important archived information obtained from a library in North Korea.

Happy reading!


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> I thought you might find that thread of interest. Only 7 more pages to go.
> 
> By now you will of course appreciate that Newman was claiming that little known composer, Andrea Luchesi, was the real composer of a number of works attributed to W A Mozart, including Symphony No 41 "Jupiter", and that the Papacy, Jesuit Order etc were all involved in the huge plot.
> 
> Against the somewhat heavy-going nature of the discussion in that thread, you might appreciate a spot of light relief provided by this thread raised at the time by one of Newman's chief opponents: http://www.talkclassical.com/1697-controversy-over-true-musical.html.
> 
> Here the tables were turned on Newman by claiming that Andrea Luchesi was himself _"… a secret alcoholic, wife beater, forger, and generally one of the biggest dick-head composers of the late 18th Century._ The same kind of "evidence" as favoured by Newman was used to "prove" these claims about Luchesi, including some important archived information obtained from a library in North Korea.
> 
> Happy reading!


I wish I had been around at the time (I only came onto TC in 2010) - I would have certainly wanted to know why, if M did not compose his most of his requiem - it is so inconistent in quality and indeed sounds like a work left incomplete by a master and finished off by his pupils. Unless the man who supplied it also died at the same time as M.
Nobody took him to task on the Mozart letters (and indeed the letters of many others) - which are littered with references to the works - process of composition etc - these would have had to be falsfied in some grand plot to back up the view that M was the true composer of his works.
It seems that Andrea Luchesi left very little music of his own behind - considering he was in his post for 30 odd years - I suppose it would be claimed he had no time to write anything of his own as he was busy writing Haydn's 104 symphonies and Mozart' several hundred works. But a comparison of Luchesi's own autograph scores with those attriubted to Mozart by a panel of experts would settle this silly question though I guess no one is going to go to that trouble for one absurd obsessed crank.
Any idea what became of Newman?


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> I wish I had been around at the time (I only came onto TC in 2010) - I would have certainly wanted to know why, if M did not compose his most of his requiem - it is so inconistent in quality and indeed sounds like a work left incomplete by a master and finished off by his pupils. Unless the man who supplied it also died at the same time as M.
> Nobody took him to task on the Mozart letters (and indeed the letters of many others) - which are littered with references to the works - process of composition etc - these would have had to be falsfied in some grand plot to back up the view that M was the true composer of his works.
> It seems that Andrea Luchesi left very little music of his own behind - considering he was in his post for 30 odd years - I suppose it would be claimed he had no time to write anything of his own as he was busy writing Haydn's 104 symphonies and Mozart' several hundred works. But a comparison of Luchesi's own autograph scores with those attriubted to Mozart by a panel of experts would settle this silly question though I guess no one is going to go to that trouble for one absurd obsessed crank.
> Any idea what became of Newman?


Regards your comment about tackling Newman on Mozart's correspondence, what you have read on T-C is the mere tip of the iceberg. There was a great deal of activity on several other boards both before and after his time here, where, as far as I recall, these matters concerning correspondence were raised in some detail.

In any event, as you may have gathered from what you have read in the threads on T-C, he had an answer for almost anything people threw at him, albeit most often a highly dubious one. If he was ever caught out by one question he would deftly move on to something else, by which time people had forgotten about the previous issue that he was struggling with. He often seemed to get away with this tactic because you know what it's like on message boards where there is often no logic to the flow of comment, which normally comes in at all angles.

Before arriving at T-C, he was active on several Mozart and Beethoven specific forums. Two of the former are now defunct and all their records are no longer in the public domain. I vaguely recall however that it was on the Mozart Forum itself where he tried to rubbish the Requiem. On the Beethoven forum (that's not its name btw) he concentrated on naming various composers from a long list of minor ones whom he alleged were the real composers of Mozart's and Haydn's music. Those forums attracted a number of music scholars who were sickened and appalled at what they were hearing.

He first appeared at T-C in October 2006 and "left" around early 1988. Here he concentrated on promoting the very little-known Andrea Luchesi, but a few others were mentioned, including Theresa Paradis as the composer of some of Mozart's PCs. As you will have seen, he was questioned very hard about his evidence by some members. It was so hard in some instances that I'm pretty sure that nothing like it would be tolerated like it these days under present rules of engagement. But clearly if Newman hadn't been tackled he would have got away with it, and the board would have become highly tainted.

After leaving T-C, he moved to various other classical music forums. I'm not sure that I know them all, but I followed up a few. At each, he was given reasonable time to expound his views and evidence. He was eventually banned from all of them after it became obvious that he was merely creating trouble for the general running of the forums by putting forward a virtual non-stop list of allegations that were all ill-supported at best, and often mere conjecture and speculation. When tackled about his music credentials, he always gave a devious reply, and would never answer directly, instead insisting that he was sufficiently qualified to make judgements, and turning the tables on his questioner by asking for details of their music qualifications.

At these subsequent forums, he was responsible for some really mega threads, some much longer and more argumentative ones than anything on T-C. Those here are mild by comparison. For a while virtually all other activity ceased whilst most attention focused on responses to Newman's claims. He was revelling in it. One thread extended to over 100 pages, and on another forum one reached 88. It was the latter forum which was his last major "outing", but like all the previous ones he was finally banned. He was denounced by the lead "mod" as a "troll". As far as I know, that thread still exists in tact, as does the previous one of 100+ pages. In other cases, when Newman was banned all of the threads disappeared too, so there is no public record. Those on T-C and the Beethoven site previously mentioned also remain.

After that he had exhausted all the main classical music forums. The last time I spotted him was about 2012 when he turned up at a literature board. He was also active on a couple of "conspiracy" forums pursuing the same arguments, along with other members who were promoting their own pet theories, e.g. that the first Moon landing was all filmed in Hollywood, or that 9/11 was the work of the CIA, etc. I recall too that he had some "conspiracy" views in other areas (e.g. the Hudson river plane crash), but I can't remember the details.

Finally, he kept on saying that he was on the verge of publishing a book which he intended to call "The Manufacture of Mozart". So far as I am aware it never happened.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> Regards your comment about tackling Newman on Mozart's correspondence, what you have read on T-C is the mere tip of the iceberg. There was a great deal of activity on several other boards both before and after his time here, where, as far as I recall, these matters concerning correspondence were raised in some detail.
> 
> In any event, as you may have gathered from what you have read in the threads on T-C, he had an answer for almost anything people threw at him, albeit most often a highly dubious one. If he was ever caught out by one question he would deftly move on to something else, by which time people had forgotten about the previous issue that he was struggling with. He often seemed to get away with this tactic because you know what it's like on message boards where there is often no logic to the flow of comment, which normally comes in at all angles.
> 
> Before arriving at T-C, he was active on several Mozart and Beethoven specific forums. Two of the former are now defunct and all their records are no longer in the public domain. I vaguely recall however that it was on the Mozart Forum itself where he tried to rubbish the Requiem. On the Beethoven forum (that's not its name btw) he concentrated on naming various composers from a long list of minor ones whom he alleged were the real composers of Mozart's and Haydn's music. Those forums attracted a number of music scholars who were sickened and appalled at what they were hearing.
> 
> He first appeared at T-C in October 2006 and "left" around early 1988. Here he concentrated on promoting the very little-known Andrea Luchesi, but a few others were mentioned, including Theresa Paradis as the composer of some of Mozart's PCs. As you will have seen, he was questioned very hard about his evidence by some members. It was so hard in some instances that I'm pretty sure that nothing like it would be tolerated like it these days under present rules of engagement. But clearly if Newman hadn't been tackled he would have got away with it, and the board would have become highly tainted.
> 
> After leaving T-C, he moved to various other classical music forums. I'm not sure that I know them all, but I followed up a few. At each, he was given reasonable time to expound his views and evidence. He was eventually banned from all of them after it became obvious that he was merely creating trouble for the general running of the forums by putting forward a virtual non-stop list of allegations that were all ill-supported at best, and often mere conjecture and speculation. When tackled about his music credentials, he always gave a devious reply, and would never answer directly, instead insisting that he was sufficiently qualified to make judgements, and turning the tables on his questioner by asking for details of their music qualifications.
> 
> At these subsequent forums, he was responsible for some really mega threads, some much longer and more argumentative ones than anything on T-C. Those here are mild by comparison. For a while virtually all other activity ceased whilst most attention focused on responses to Newman's claims. He was revelling in it. One thread extended to over 100 pages, and on another forum one reached 88. It was the latter forum which was his last major "outing", but like all the previous ones he was finally banned. He was denounced by the lead "mod" as a "troll". As far as I know, that thread still exists in tact, as does the previous one of 100+ pages. In other cases, when Newman was banned all of the threads disappeared too, so there is no public record. Those on T-C and the Beethoven site previously mentioned also remain.
> 
> After that he had exhausted all the main classical music forums. The last time I spotted him was about 2012 when he turned up at a literature board. He was also active on a couple of "conspiracy" forums pursuing the same arguments, along with other members who were promoting their own pet theories, e.g. that the first Moon landing was all filmed in Hollywood, or that 9/11 was the work of the CIA, etc. I recall too that he had some "conspiracy" views in other areas (e.g. the Hudson river plane crash), but I can't remember the details.
> 
> Finally, he kept on saying that he was on the verge of publishing a book which he intended to call "The Manufacture of Mozart". So far as I am aware it never happened.


Interesting. What a case study.
I wonder why so many sane board members spent so much time tackling him if his theories are so obviously flawed (which I believe they are).
I expect if his claims were about - shall we say - Albinoni - there would have been very little interest.
I did find one site where he had posted a pic of a m/s showing mozart's name and under infra red light the name Luchesi. Doesnt prove a thing of course - in light of mozarts fame I expect many works by lesser composers have the name mozart interpolated as a way of addding to their value. I have a violin with the name stradivarius written inside - shame it's not a real strad.


----------



## PlaySalieri

He posted this on youtube in 2015






he also has a website

http://www.musicalrevisionism.info/


----------



## StevenOBrien

stomanek said:


> He posted this on youtube in 2015
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he also has a website
> 
> http://www.musicalrevisionism.info/


If he put this much effort into learning to compose or play an instrument...


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> Interesting. What a case study.
> I wonder why so many sane board members spent so much time tackling him if his theories are so obviously flawed (which I believe they are).
> I expect if his claims were about - shall we say - Albinoni - there would have been very little interest.
> I did find one site where he had posted a pic of a m/s showing mozart's name and under infra red light the name Luchesi. Doesnt prove a thing of course - in light of mozarts fame I expect many works by lesser composers have the name mozart interpolated as a way of addding to their value. I have a violin with the name stradivarius written inside - shame it's not a real strad.


It is a fact that wherever he went he attracted the attention of a large number of "sane board members" as you put it. Having followed several threads across this and other music forums, I think it was probably due to a combination of several reasons:

1. Mozart is obviously a very big name and people did not react kindly to seeing one of their musical heroes being tarnished in the way Newman did. They felt duty bound to say something, and the more they did so the more that Newman came back at them with further material, and so the debates mushroomed, attracting more participation from other interested members.

2. It was not possible to ignore him in the hope that he might go away. This is because it probably seemed to be almost guaranteed that some members may have fallen for his preaching, and if so he might well have capitalised on that like a highly invasive weed by creating more and more toxic threads. Rather it needed those people with the knowledge, inclination and presentational skills to take him on to try to contain him to a few threads only. The only alternative to this would have been the hope that a wise forum management would have got rid of him as soon as he set foot on their turf. None of the managements did so, and Newman probably knew that as long as he kept to the rules he would be safe from expulsion. Those members who took him on probably realised that this would be the likely reaction of board managements.

3. Newman wrote as if he knew what he was talking about. He was very literate. When he wasn't rubbishing Mozart and Haydn, he had some sensible things to say about other composers and music generally. Of course, that was all a front to enable him to pursue his main purpose of claiming that Mozart and Haydn were frauds. His arguments on the latter were all based on very weak, circumstantial or flawed analysis. If his posts had been written badly, or if he had been downright insulting to other members, then his campaign probably would not have lasted very long at each board. However, that wasn't his style. On the contrary, he largely kept within the house rules of the various forums in which he participated. It was only when he stepped outside those rules, brought about solely by the relentless attack on his assertions by some members, that finally brought about his being banned.

4.	It is somewhat more speculative but I suspect that engaging in debate with Newman enabled the more knowledgeable members of the various forums to get their teeth into something that was rather more substantial than the more usual kind of material that one normally finds on music forums. It seems most likely that these members probably learned little or nothing from their experience in these debates.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> It is a fact that wherever he went he attracted the attention of a large number of "sane board members" as you put it. Having followed several threads across this and other music forums, I think it was probably due to a combination of several reasons:
> 
> 1. Mozart is obviously a very big name and people did not react kindly to seeing one of their musical heroes being tarnished in the way Newman did. They felt duty bound to say something, and the more they did so the more that Newman came back at them with further material, and so the debates mushroomed, attracting more participation from other interested members.
> 
> 2. It was not possible to ignore him in the hope that he might go away. This is because it probably seemed to be almost guaranteed that some members may have fallen for his preaching, and if so he might well have capitalised on that like a highly invasive weed by creating more and more toxic threads. Rather it needed those people with the knowledge, inclination and presentational skills to take him on to try to contain him to a few threads only. The only alternative to this would have been the hope that a wise forum management would have got rid of him as soon as he set foot on their turf. None of the managements did so, and Newman probably knew that as long as he kept to the rules he would be safe from expulsion. Those members who took him on probably realised that this would be the likely reaction of board managements.
> 
> 3. Newman wrote as if he knew what he was talking about. He was very literate. When he wasn't rubbishing Mozart and Haydn, he had some sensible things to say about other composers and music generally. Of course, that was all a front to enable him to pursue his main purpose of claiming that Mozart and Haydn were frauds. His arguments on the latter were all based on very weak, circumstantial or flawed analysis. If his posts had been written badly, or if he had been downright insulting to other members, then his campaign probably would not have lasted very long at each board. However, that wasn't his style. On the contrary, he largely kept within the house rules of the various forums in which he participated. It was only when he stepped outside those rules, brought about solely by the relentless attack on his assertions by some members, that finally brought about his being banned.
> 
> 4.	It is somewhat more speculative but I suspect that engaging in debate with Newman enabled the more knowledgeable members of the various forums to get their teeth into something that was rather more substantial than the more usual kind of material that one normally finds on music forums. It seems most likely that these members probably learned little or nothing from their experience in these debates.


Thanks for that analysis. 
I've never really got into grand conspiracy theories which go against conventional scholarly thinking - probably because having reached masters level myself and worked with academics - I have faith in the methods of reputable scholars - so if there are claims against x or y made on a forum I would first check with the latest peer reviewed research and be satisfied with that. I never thought that any of these amateur theorists would touch a subject which is virtually sacred to me - and yes I would have been deeply involved in these debates for the reasons you have outlined.

I have since listened to some of the music on youtube credited to Luchesi (a symphony from 1984 and a piano concerto) - it has some merit but on the whole seems to me like pretty standard quality classical period fare from a minor composer of those times. Some stylistic similarities with mozart and haydn which one would expect - but without the quality of invention - certainly nothing to suggest a creative power capable of PC9 or the great sinfonia concertante K364, the haffner symphony etc.


----------



## Mahlerian

stomanek said:


> I have since listened to some of the music on youtube credited to Luchesi (a symphony from 1984 and a piano concerto) - it has some merit but on the whole seems to me like pretty standard quality classical period fare from a minor composer of those times. Some stylistic similarities with mozart and haydn which one would expect - but without the quality of invention - certainly nothing to suggest a creative power capable of PC9 or the great sinfonia concertante K364, the haffner symphony etc.


Well that's because his best music was credited to Mozart and Haydn.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Mahlerian said:


> Well that's because his best music was credited to Mozart and Haydn.


Well considering how much Haydn and Mozart wrote how could he have the time to write stuff in his name also?


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> Thanks for that analysis.
> I've never really got into grand conspiracy theories which go against conventional scholarly thinking - probably because having reached masters level myself and worked with academics - I have faith in the methods of reputable scholars - so if there are claims against x or y made on a forum I would first check with the latest peer reviewed research and be satisfied with that. I never thought that any of these amateur theorists would touch a subject which is virtually sacred to me - and yes I would have been deeply involved in these debates for the reasons you have outlined.
> 
> I have since listened to some of the music on youtube credited to Luchesi (a symphony from 1984 and a piano concerto) - it has some merit but on the whole seems to me like pretty standard quality classical period fare from a minor composer of those times. Some stylistic similarities with mozart and haydn which one would expect - but without the quality of invention - certainly nothing to suggest a creative power capable of PC9 or the great sinfonia concertante K364, the haffner symphony etc.


Luchesi was only one among several other composers who, according to Newman, were the true composers of works by Mozart and Haydn. He concentrated on Luchesi here at T-C, but elsewhere he referred to several others.

I cannot recall the names of all the other composers he referred to as there were so many. However I do remember two names that figured prominently in his Newman's claims: Joseph Kraus (1756-1792), and Josef Mysliveček (1737-1781). Newman claimed that Kraus wrote lots of Mozart's chamber music, and that Mysliveček wrote all of the violin concertos attributed to Mozart.

Others included Paisiello, Salieri, Wranitsky, Vanhal, and von Paradis. I'm not sure but I vaguely recall that J C Bach was sometimes mentioned as well.

Suffice to say that Newman could be guaranteed to come up with a name of some other composer that he reckoned was the true source of some work or other that he happened to choose for discussion.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Genoveva said:


> Luchesi was only one among several other composers who, according to Newman, were the true composers of works by Mozart and Haydn. He concentrated on Luchesi here at T-C, but elsewhere he referred to several others.
> 
> I cannot recall the names of all the other composers he referred to as there were so many. However I do remember two names that figured prominently in his Newman's claims: Joseph Kraus (1756-1792), and Josef Mysliveček (1737-1781). Newman claimed that Kraus wrote lots of Mozart's chamber music, and that Mysliveček wrote all of the violin concertos attributed to Mozart.
> 
> Others included Paisiello, Salieri, Wranitsky, Vanhal, and von Paradis. I'm not sure but I vaguely recall that J C Bach was sometimes mentioned as well.
> 
> Suffice to say that Newman could be guaranteed to come up with a name of some other composer that he reckoned was the true source of some work or other that he happened to choose for discussion.


So if you could show one could be the one he just pulled names out to people got tired.


----------



## Mahlerian

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Well considering how much Haydn and Mozart wrote how could he have the time to write stuff in his name also?


Oh, I don't think it adds up either. I was joking.


----------



## Genoveva

Johnnie Burgess said:


> So if you could show one could be the one he just pulled names out to people got tired.


I doubt that the names of the other composers that he offered were totally arbitrary. He was too clever for that. For example, Kraus was a reputed composer of chamber music and Mysliveček wrote some well-received violin concertos under his own name. You would have to dig out all the threads that survive and do your own research to judge how ludicrous his various alternative composers were.

I have been wondering how Newman might have got on if (and it's a big *if*) he had delayed his arrival on the music forum scene until now and chose T-C, as the biggest forum, to present his various arguments. I have a strong suspicion that he would have created mayhem here over a period of many months, despite all the "mod" activity we have here. That's not a criticism of the mod system, only a comment on the way Newman might be expected to behave, the responses he would prompt, his counter-responses, and his probable keeping within the "rules" whilst others lost their cool, and suffering "infractions" accordingly. It's a funny old world.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Did many get banned because of their row with Newman?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> I doubt that the names of the other composers that he offered were totally arbitrary. He was too clever for that. For example, Kraus was a reputed composer of chamber music and Mysliveček wrote some well-received violin concertos under his own name. You would have to dig out all the threads that survive and do your own research to judge how ludicrous his various alternative composers were.
> 
> I have been wondering how Newman might have got on if (and it's a big *if*) he had delayed his arrival on the music forum scene until now and chose T-C, as the biggest forum, to present his various arguments. I have a strong suspicion that he would have created mayhem here over a period of many months, despite all the "mod" activity we have here. That's not a criticism of the mod system, only a comment on the way Newman might be expected to behave, the responses he would prompt, his counter-responses, and his probable keeping within the "rules" whilst others lost their cool, and suffering "infractions" accordingly. It's a funny old world.


what happened to Manuel - he was doing some really good work on Newman - but it seems he is banned


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> what happened to Manuel - he was doing some really good work on Newman - but it seems he is banned


One infraction too many I suspect. How he got them I haven't a clue, and you'll never find out. As you say he played a helpful role in challenging Newman.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> One infraction too many I suspect. How he got them I haven't a clue, and you'll never find out. As you say he played a helpful role in challenging Newman.


I found one comment where he said RN is sick and twisted

I guess that would be enough.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

stomanek said:


> I found one comment where he said RN is sick and twisted
> 
> I guess that would be enough.


Looks like Newman was good at pestering somebody till they insulted him.


----------



## poconoron

robert newman said:


> Well, the above answer by Kurkikothaus is of course very simplistic. People are conditioned to believe virtually any sort of nonsense these days, and we can even say critics are the ones making the nonsense. Such things are 'par for the course'. But make the effort. See for yourself.
> 
> The fact is (and I think the evidence entirely supports it) that Mozart, at each and every stage of his 35 year life was being supplied music he never actually wrote but which he (sometimes) re-arranged and claimed as his own. In his case (and in that of Joseph Haydn - the other character in the mythical creation of the '1st Viennese School') these things were done for political and other reasons. By rich and powerful patrons. Vienna needed propaganda. It invented the myth of Mozart and Haydn's musical genius. It took time. But they achieved it. And that real contributions of countless Italian, Bohemian and other composers was, well, politely airbrushed out of history. That is exactly the case with Luchesi. For example.
> 
> According to various sources the first 20 symphonies by Mozart (with one exception) have no more evidence in support of him being their true composer than they do of you or I being their true composer. We have, in his childhood, so many examples of exaggeration and fakery that it would be a brave man who would deny it. We could take the entire Koechel catalogue if you like. But if we do so, let it be agreed that we apply the same fair standards of criticism to these works as we would to that of any other composer. There ! Is that fair or not ? I accept such a challenge. But that is exactly what is refused by the 'Mozart establishment'. You therefore have little choice but to consume great meals of mythology, rarely questioning whether it is founded on fact or only on science-fiction. Symphonies. concertos and other works are recorded and commercially sold as 'Mozart' which he never wrote - even, many cases, known by the very professionals who record them.
> 
> The youth and early adulthood of Mozart (a time when he father was still faking lots of music for his son and arranging others to provide it for him) was hardly different. In his Vienna career we start to move in to some completely preposterous assumptions. We assume (because it's tradition) that Mozart wrote the 'Marriage of Figaro' in 6 weeks. This. according to his librettist (supposed) Lorenzo da Ponte. (And Mozart did NOT compose the opera 'Die Entfhurung aus dem Serail). In fact, this 6 weeks for the composotion of 'Figaro' is blatantly untrue. And there is not a shred of evidence Mozart was commissioned by anyone to write this work, let alone that Da Ponte had the skill, experience or permission from the Vienna censors to write its libretto. Yet we accept it. The same is true of many, many, many works of the 'mature Mozart'. Take for example the piano concertos. Or the string quartets dedicated to Haydn. Or the later operas. Or take the Clarinet Concerto. Or take the Requiem. Or take the motet 'Ave Verum Corpus'. Or take the Violin Concertos. Or take the masses. Or take the sonatas. Or take the serenades. Or take whatever you please. In each and every case (and for many reasons) we are talking here about fakery, deception and downright falsehood on a huge, a massive scale. One of the abiding myths of our western civilization - the 'precocious genius of Mozart'.
> 
> This body of music today labelled as 'Mozart' IS beautiful - indisputably so - for the most part. But only a lazy person would tolerate attributing it to Mozart - since he, in fact, can be shown to have benefitted all his life from lies and deception.
> 
> The truth is (and there is really no doubt about it) most works by 'Mozart' were NOT, in fact, by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. But it helps the Vienna tourist industry to disagree and it helped the Holy Roman Empire to claim him and his 'genius' as 'one of ours'. It also helps sale of a local chocolate company. And if anyone questions the myth, well, let it be insisted that he has presented 'no evidence'. Honestly, I suppose some people simply cannot get their heads around the truth.
> 
> No, must seek for the origins of Haydn and Mozart's works and of the '1st Viennese School' in a whole series of composers including such lesser known names as Sammartini, Luchesi, Myslivececk, Michael Hadyn, and others including Gossec etc. Ask any musicologist - the 18th century was notorious for works being falsely traded and falsely attributed. Mozart is simply the best, most blatant example. Shocking but true !
> 
> But if you want a list of a few dozen 'Mozart' works that would help to illustrate the point, please ask. I will be happy to provide details, one by one.
> 
> The biographical details we have of Mozart were, to a great extent, fabricated by his widow and by others party to this ongoing scam.
> 
> So, in answer to the question of how many works Mozart actually wrote, my answer is that it is (as everyone now appreciates) far, far, far fewer than dogmatists claim. So few, in fact, that it is perhaps at most 50 works, none of them of much value.
> 
> But let me leave you with something you can check yourself. In the surviving musical score copy from Vienna of the Symphony KV444 (previously attributed to Mozart by 'Mozart experts at the Mozarteum') and known till 1908 as Symphony No. 37 (till it was finally attributed to Michael Haydn) we have a page or so of a slow introduction to the 1st movement of that same piece, composed in the hand (indisputably) of Mozart himself.
> 
> Listen to this indisputably Mozartean slow introduction, written by Mozart beyond reasonable doubt. It is filled with errors, ugly chord progressions and crudities. There is your REAL Mozart. And if you can tell me that Mozart did not write this slow introduction. fine, you will save him from one of a million criticisms. I give this as one simple example. If you have an email address I can even send you an electronic version of these same introductory bars of music.
> 
> Can't do better than that can I ?
> 
> Regards


Good God..........this guy has resurrected himself and his patently false and ridiculous suppositions again?

Please don't humor him with responses and questions................in fact - I've spent too much time already.............I'm gone......


----------



## KenOC

Amazing how much Leopold's music improved when he started ascribing it to his son. :lol:


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

poconoron said:


> Good God..........this guy has resurrected himself and his patently false and ridiculous suppositions again?
> 
> Please don't humor him with responses and questions................in fact - I've spent too much time already.............I'm gone......


I do not think it is him. Just somebody brought up an old thread.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> It is a fact that wherever he went he attracted the attention of a large number of "sane board members" as you put it. Having followed several threads across this and other music forums, I think it was probably due to a combination of several reasons:
> 
> 1. Mozart is obviously a very big name and people did not react kindly to seeing one of their musical heroes being tarnished in the way Newman did. They felt duty bound to say something, and the more they did so the more that Newman came back at them with further material, and so the debates mushroomed, attracting more participation from other interested members.
> 
> 2. It was not possible to ignore him in the hope that he might go away. This is because it probably seemed to be almost guaranteed that some members may have fallen for his preaching, and if so he might well have capitalised on that like a highly invasive weed by creating more and more toxic threads. Rather it needed those people with the knowledge, inclination and presentational skills to take him on to try to contain him to a few threads only. The only alternative to this would have been the hope that a wise forum management would have got rid of him as soon as he set foot on their turf. None of the managements did so, and Newman probably knew that as long as he kept to the rules he would be safe from expulsion. Those members who took him on probably realised that this would be the likely reaction of board managements.
> 
> 3. Newman wrote as if he knew what he was talking about. He was very literate. When he wasn't rubbishing Mozart and Haydn, he had some sensible things to say about other composers and music generally. Of course, that was all a front to enable him to pursue his main purpose of claiming that Mozart and Haydn were frauds. His arguments on the latter were all based on very weak, circumstantial or flawed analysis. If his posts had been written badly, or if he had been downright insulting to other members, then his campaign probably would not have lasted very long at each board. However, that wasn't his style. On the contrary, he largely kept within the house rules of the various forums in which he participated. It was only when he stepped outside those rules, brought about solely by the relentless attack on his assertions by some members, that finally brought about his being banned.
> 
> 4.	It is somewhat more speculative but I suspect that engaging in debate with Newman enabled the more knowledgeable members of the various forums to get their teeth into something that was rather more substantial than the more usual kind of material that one normally finds on music forums. It seems most likely that these members probably learned little or nothing from their experience in these debates.


I seem to have reached the end of that thread which was closed by a mod.

did mango ever re-surface?
and what about Rod Corkin - whose one joy in life on this thread seemed to establish that Beethoven's weakest notes surpass Mozart's best. There is one comment where he describes the horn quintet as rubbish. Was he a stooge of Newman's or what? I see he has been banned too.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I love a good conspiracy theory, next was Wagner real


----------



## Mal

Ask a silly question...


----------



## Kieran

Just for the record, there's no exact number on how many works Mozart composed, but the final tally could be expected to be somewhere in the 800s...


----------



## BachIsBest

Kieran said:


> Just for the record, there's no exact number on how many works Mozart composed, but the final tally could be expected to be somewhere in the 800s...


I clicked on this thread expecting an answer like this and I got a whole lot more than I bargained for.

Anyways, it's nice that after 6 pages this thread had an on-topic post.


----------



## Kieran

BachIsBest said:


> I clicked on this thread expecting an answer like this and I got a whole lot more than I bargained for.
> 
> Anyways, it's nice that after 6 pages this thread had an on-topic post.


Sometimes it can take longer than six pages. :lol:


----------



## bharbeke

I put the count at 763, give or take a few. This is keeping things like 6 Minuets K 599 as a single work instead of six. That's basically everything from Wikipedia's K catalogues that is not lost or spurious/doubtful.


----------



## 13hm13

WARNING!!

UMG (Decca, etc.) are trying to sell you a deluxe 200-CD box set. And you may be tempted with this "commercial" video. That said, this collection claims to contain some new stuff (as of Aug. 2016)...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

"contain some new stuff"  so Mozart walks among us............


----------



## Larkenfield

13hm13 said:


> WARNING!!
> 
> UMG (Decca, etc.) are trying to sell you a deluxe 200-CD box set. And you may be tempted with this "commercial" video. That said, this collection claims to contain some new stuff (as of Aug. 2016)...


This 220-CD box set looks exceptionally good. It sure doesn't look cheesy, especially _Luchesi_, who will just have to wait for his own box set of forgotten masterpieces to be produced and recorded. Good luck with that. From my own personal listening experience, I believe Mozart's outstanding reputation is well-deserved, and this may be the best collection of his works ever produced. Well done, sir!


----------



## 13hm13

The set has its own dedicated web site. 
http://www.mozart225.com/
Amazon price, here in the US, is $500.00 USD for the physical set; much less for just mp3 or streaming.

No, I don't work for UMG  They should be payin' me for this posting  Or they can send me a free Mozart 225!


----------



## Rogerx

13hm13 said:


> The set has its own dedicated web site.
> http://www.mozart225.com/
> Amazon price, here in the US, is $500.00 USD for the physical set; much less for just mp3 or streaming.
> 
> No, I don't work for UMG  They should be payin' me for this posting  Or they can send me a free Mozart 225!


In Europe it's cheaper ;

https://www.jpc.de/jpcng/classic/de...art-225-the-complete-new-edition/hnum/3448342


----------



## BachIsBest

13hm13 said:


> WARNING!!
> 
> UMG (Decca, etc.) are trying to sell you a deluxe 200-CD box set. And you may be tempted with this "commercial" video. That said, this collection claims to contain some new stuff (as of Aug. 2016)...


New stuff - lies. That's just what Big Mozart wants you to believe.


----------

