# Why Are They 'Attacking' Our Mozart ?



## colleengail726 (Aug 1, 2007)

In a letter dated May 1818 the Chorus Director of the Strahav Monastery in Prague, Norbert Lehmann, provided his correspondent FX Niemetscheck (famed as being the writer in 1798 of the _'first Mozart biography'_) details of the remarkable musical feats that Mozart performed on the organ of their church during his visit to Prague in 1787 -

_'I herewith and at special request hand over (to you) the Mozzart [sic] theme together with its history. The virtuoso honoured the city of Prague with a visit in June 1787, in order to make the acquaintance of the musicians of this capital and to see the sights. He came to the Strahov Church one afternoon at 3 o'clock with Frau von Duschek, and expressed his desire to hear the organ"…… "He mounted the console and played splendid chords, pleno choro, for approximately four minutes...". And next we read that, 'Mozart played "a four-part fugue theme, which was the harder to perform in that it and its counter-subject consisted largely of mordents, which are exceptionally hard to perform on an organ with such a heavy action. But the 4th and 5th fingers of the right hand as well as of the left hand were as strong as the first, second and third fingers, at which every one was much amazed"._

After this performance Mozart is said to have developed the theme of a fugue from Franz Xaver Brixi's Requiem in c-minor _"in a quite different manner, it is true, but yet so artistically, that we stood there as if of stone". _

Great. Here's an eyewitness/earwitness of Mozart's phenomenal musical talent, yes ? 
Who could reasonably doubt it ?

Before attempting to answer such questions I would like to bring your attention to some uncomfortable truths.

1. FX Niemetscheck has, in recent years, been proved to have falsified many details of Mozart's supposed career. This with the full approval of Constanze Mozart. A relevant example is Niemetscheck's claim that he attended a concert of Mozart in Prague during his last visit to the city. At that concert, (according to Niemetscheck) the whole audience were treated to a virtuoso display of Mozart's performance and improvisational skills. In fact, Niemetscheck goes as far to say this amazing display was hugely applauded. Convincing stuff, yes ? Except for the fact (recently discovered) that FX Niemtscheck went to Prague for the first time several years AFTER the death of Mozart ! So there, once again, is an example of the countless falsehoods that pepper the supposed life and career of Mozart at virtually every stage of his life/career. So damaging have recent documentary discoveries been on this matter alone that journal articles have been written to admit the fraud. We must therefore appreciate that this Lehmann letter, also from Prague (a city where Mozart is repeatedly described by his supporters of the late 18th and early 19th centuries in wonderous ways) is, at the very least, of questionable value.

2. _'Well'_, you might say, '_how can person after person invent such things - surely this is not the case with Lehmann'_. Well, we know for sure that Lehmann was a huge fan of Mozart's music. That he (and many associated with the Prague music scene) said all sorts of things about the 'genius' of Mozart. But this particular letter tells us he, Lehmann, was frequently disturbed during this supposed Mozart performance in Prague by a priest who was sitting next to him who insisted on speaking throughout the performance. Not exactly ideal circumstances for a report - one made (as we see) 31 years after the event.

3. The document Lehmann sent to Niemetscheck with his letter was music of 57 bars duration. In G Minor. With a heading 'Thema Mozart'.

4. The strange thing is this page of music didn't come to light until details of it were published in 1911. But it was regarded as authentic enough to be added to the Koechel catalogue's 3rd edition, appearing there with a reference 'K528a' and described as a '_Fantasie fur Orgel'_ with the date of its composition given on the page as 'June 1787'.

5. Sorry to be so critical but…..Mozart didn't actually arrive in Prague that year until 4th October.

6. By 1982 reality started to prevail. Wolfgang Plath (famed Mozartean) gave his opinion on the actual musical value of these same 57 bars of music. He found them to be _'dreadfully feeble and anything but compelling'_. He said he could not find in this document even one part of it that was 'brilliant', or 'surprising' or 'the least bit interesting'. Which begs the question of whether Mozart performed anything of musical value. He concluded by saying the whole piece is 'dreadful'.

7. By the 6th edition of Koechel criticisms of this kind were serious enough for K528a to be dropped from the catalogue and the piece was niow officially labelled as 'Doubtful, Spurious'.

A longer article of value on this same issue can be found by Dennis Pajot on the website Mozart Forum.

Is it any wonder that Mozart's huge reputation grew to such dimensions when reports of this kind were manufactured and widely spread about during the childhood, youth and maturity of Mozart ?

'_What is the value' _(you might ask) '_of you and others chipping away at Mozart's iconic status as a musician and as a world famous genius composer'_ ? I think the answer is that a modern criticism of Mozart, man and musician, allows us to see musical reality more and not less clearly. In many respects a 'reality check' brings us more in contact with the facts of Mozart's time and it tends to introduce us to people and events which we might otherwise never have learned about. If much of Mozart's life and work is the product of exaggeration, even falsehood, the first thing that needs to be done is to show it, and, in the course of showing it, almost as a consequence of it, give credit wherever possible to those who, till now, may have been marginalised by blind adoration to the 'Mozart cult', or recognise talents which have, till now, been virtually suppressed or overlooked. We therefore see things more clearly, even if it is sometimes highly controversial and hard to accept. We return to music being a hard subject and not an easy one. A subject not so much of divine dictation but of hard work and inspiration - these two things combined. But we do not lose, and never will lose, our love for the body of music that is, today, 'Mozart'. In these vital senses criticism of the real Mozart is no threat to our love of music. It's a normal (even overdue) obligation on those who, having examined these issues out of a true love of music, feel these findings on these matters are worthy of being investigated and of being more widely known.

The sum total of great music is not going to be affected by one iota if the demythologisation of Mozart continues worldwide. On the contrary, Music deserves nothing less.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

are you robert newman's friend?  

dj


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

(Here we go again...)

How about citing some sources for these "truths"?



> Except for the _fact (recently discovered)_ that FX Niemtscheck went to Prague for the first time several years AFTER the death of Mozart !


Why should I believe this rather than all my music-history books? You don't even give us a fair change to compare sources!

I admit that I do not discard those theories immediately, because I also have encountered some stories of greatness that have only one source and nothing more. But please, be fair and give us your sources.


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

New members please be advised that a thread very similar to this one recently led to much unpleasantness, and it's best not to get involved. That's just my personal opinion.


----------



## colleengail726 (Aug 1, 2007)

Dear Saturnus,

Thank you for the constructive and respectful question asking for sources to justify what I wrote here on FX Niemetscheck. Kindly visit the website www.aproposmozart.com where you will find an excellent article which summarises all these issues on Niemetscheck which was published in recent years by the well known Mozart scholar Walther Brauneis, entitled, _"Franz Xaver Niemetschek: Is his Association with Mozart only Legend_?" originally published in German as "_Franz Xaver Niemetschek: Sein Umgang mit Mozart - Eine Legende_?" but available for you to read there in PDF form, excellently translated for us into English by Bruce Cooper Clarke.

Very best wishes


----------



## colleengail726 (Aug 1, 2007)

I agree with Mark Harwood. If members have something constructive (or at least respectful) to offer or even to ask or discuss on these issues, fine. Otherwise it's best not to get involved. People can choose to read or not, yes ?


----------



## colleengail726 (Aug 1, 2007)

Dear David, 

I respect your question but personalities seem so often to cause friction. The vast majority of people, sadly, choose to stay ignorant. What's to be done in such a case ? - nothing since that's their choice. 

Robert Newman - I think others should form their own views on him and on a number of others who do their best to share their own findings on Mozart. I understand he is using a pen-name these days. Yes, I am friendly with him, of course. But you will excuse me not getting involved in personalised issues of various active researchers. I too have some things to offer. It'd be good if we could share/discuss/consider different views on their own merits whether they are old fashioned, right, wrong, or just plain controversial. The thing is, of course, that sharing things is a virtual definition of friendship anyway. If I'm eating a steak and find a bone I don't throw away the steak - I throw away the bone. So it is with Newman or anyone else. 

Regards


----------



## Daniel (Jul 11, 2004)

At first hello to colleengail726!

As you are "friendly" with Robert Newman, I give you the urgent advise not to start any kind of the well-known "Mozart controversy"-threads. They would be closed without any further warnings. Sorry to do so, but we all are lucky to have no more verbal fights in the last weeks. So please keep this respectful in mind.

Thank you.
Daniel


----------



## colleengail726 (Aug 1, 2007)

Hi Daniel, 

Hello to you. Since friendship with Robert Newman seems to be important (or, as you prefer to say, 'friendship') can you say if you are a friend/'friend' of Robert Newman ? 

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by a 'Mozart controversy' thread. The area where I've specialised IS Mozart. There's a growing realisation within this area of resesarch that much of what we've traditionally believed about Mozart and his career is inaccurate, misleading and, often, plain false. But those who say so are keen to show why they believe so. 

If you would please note who is the source of personal abuse, verbal bad behaviour, etc. that will surely be good enough, yes ? It certainly won't be me. 

Regards


----------



## Daniel (Jul 11, 2004)

If you would be so kind and answer this (from another thread), colleengail726? Thanks.


Daniel said:


> But I want to ask colleengail726 to tell us the full truth, which he should tell us for his own honour: Are you Mr Newman or are you a friend of him? I would advise you to tell us the really full truth, we do have enough possiblities to make a detailed IP-adress-analyse. So who are you?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Daniel


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Can I just say that Mozart was a very good composer but overrated?


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

colleengail726:

i was just curious because the posts are so similar.

dj


----------



## colleengail726 (Aug 1, 2007)

Like many members here and elsewhere on countless websites I am using a pen-name. If it's a precondition of Membership to this forum that pen-names are not allowed (which I never saw anywhere before) please have the courtesy to say so to me and other members at the same time. If not, and you still wish to know who I and all other pen-name members are then, please, if you will, send all of us a private message and I'm sure everyone can be satisfied. Does this seem fair/reasonable to you ? But if members just can't bear discussions on Mozart they may be old enough to read something else, perhaps ? 

(Just a suggestion, of course). 

I haven't yet had an answer to the question of whether one enquiring member is friendly or 'friendly' to the legendary Robert Newman though I've answered this myself. It certainly would be strange if things are not seen to be fair for all. 

Excuse me for saying this also but what IS the issue here ? - 

1. Posts that criticise popular beliefs on Mozart ?
2. Robert Newman ?
3. Both ? 

As for electronic checking etc. that's your choice of course but it does seem a little 'Orwellian' don't you think ?


Very best wishes


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

david johnson said:


> colleengail726:
> 
> i was just curious because the posts are so similar.
> 
> dj


It is obvious that Newman was stealing material from _colleengail726_. The latter seems much more convincing. It is well known that colleengail726 was the brilliant mastermind behind this, but he was forced to the shadows by an aristocratic conspiracy that attributed his profound and substantial investigations to Newman.
And the clue to solve this mistery is this

_Not even experts can spot the difference between their essays._

I mean... this silly idea did work for Newman in the past, when he was trying to paralell Mozart symphonies with Haydn's. It should work now...


----------



## Daniel (Jul 11, 2004)

@colleengail726:

Firstly: I won't start arguing with you.

Secondly: Just answer with yes or no. If you prefer PM in this case, please write me a PM.

No answer is also an answer.

Kind regards,
Daniel


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

The great thing about talkclassical.com is that the one thing you cannot do is talk about classical without risk of censure.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

'I haven't yet had an answer to the question of whether one enquiring member is friendly or 'friendly' to the legendary Robert Newman though I've answered this myself. It certainly would be strange if things are not seen to be fair for all. 
Excuse me for saying this also but what IS the issue here ? - 
1. Posts that criticise popular beliefs on Mozart ?
2. Robert Newman ?
3. Both ? '

no need to make much of it. i already said i was just curious because of some similarities. that's really all there was to it.

dj


----------



## colleengail726 (Aug 1, 2007)

Dear Daniel, 

No, I am not Robert Newman. I do hope this thread returns to its original subject matter 

Very best wishes


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2007)

Though you have a risk of censure, the Mozart debate has been done and done again. I don't mind the administrative hand helping us not get out of hand, well at least on this subject.


----------



## colleengail726 (Aug 1, 2007)

Dear Notserp89m,

May I censure you ? Or, at least, may I correct you ? To date the 'Mozart debate' (as you describe it) has hardly scratched the surface yet of Mozart's career (supposed) or his compositional achievements (again supposed) as a quick survey would clearly show. The scale of this issue is truly enormous. You may even appreciate that most replies received on such issues here and elsewhere are not so much a counter argument or a defence of 200 year old 'tradition/expertise/convention' but are typically little more than threats of my immediate extinction. Under such knife-edge circumstances I (like you) welcome administrative help in keeping us strictly on queue. On topic, that is. 

Speaking of which I (the same as others) look forward to reading some postitive contributions on this forum from your goodself. Ideally on matters related to music and its history, for example. They would be refreshingly welcome. 

Sincerely


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

colleengail726 said:


> Dear Notserp89m,
> 
> May I censure you ? Or, at least, may I correct you ? To date the 'Mozart debate' (as you describe it) has hardly scratched the surface yet of Mozart's career (supposed) or his compositional achievements (again supposed) as a quick survey would clearly show. The scale of this issue is truly enormous. You may even appreciate that most replies received on such issues here and elsewhere are not so much a counter argument or a defence of 200 year old 'tradition/expertise/convention' but are typically little more than threats of my immediate extinction. Under such knife-edge circumstances I (like you) welcome administrative help in keeping us strictly on queue. On topic, that is.
> 
> ...


Are you completely sure you are not what we formerly knew as Robert Newman?


----------



## colleengail726 (Aug 1, 2007)

Dear Baroness Waldstaetten, 

You will pardon me replying to your letter on the same post as that of Andy Lochazee. My lack of ettiquette in letter writing is explained by the fact that the feudal system (and the elite privileges of Barons, Baronesses, Lord, Counts, Dukes and all other hangers on/parasites of our society) were questioned, criticised and finally dismantled by the rise of democracy (the concept of soveignty being with the people rather than 1500 years of inherited/stolen privilege) shortly after your death 200 years ago. So that puts us on equal terms, humanly speaking, does it not ? 

If my posts on your hero, the 'Salzburgian genius' are deficient in grammar, spelling and style (which I doubt since special care is taken by me to educate Baronesses in all I do) that is one thing. But they lack nothing in content. The fast answer is to ignore them. The slower one (which clearly pains you) is to watch mythology being dismantled before your very eyes. No easy thing for a Baroness, for sure. 

But enough of this. You have castles to keep and estates to administrate. Thank you for your pompous reply. Next time in England please drop by at the palace for some cucumber sandwiches and I will be at your service. 

At your democratic service

Thomas Paine (alias W.A. Mozart)
/

Dear Andy Lochazee, 

The 15th Symphony of Dimitri Shostakovitch (rather like the 5th of Herr Beethoven, or the B Minor Mass of Herr Johann Sebastian Bach) is a work so universally admired by music lovers that there is no proof in noting that I and Robert Newman are both passionate fans of them all. As for 'writing style' I would ask you to note that in a time of urgency (say, for example, a ship sinking at sea or the threat of a plane getting in to difficulties) the captain or pilot of such craft will use language that conveys the state of emergency of the craft under his care. This is normal. He does not chat about Wimbledon tennis. Nor does he aim to make friends. His focus is entirely on getting across vital information. He and his craft are under threat. 

So it is with a poster under threat of extinction (as the record shows) who writes on issues as large and as important as the career and achievements (supposed) of Herr Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - an iconic hero of our culture, even of our civilization, whose legendary feats exceed even those of Baron Munchausen and of the Scarlet Pimpernel. 

As a self confessed 'third rate Kapellmeister' I must note the fact that you were, in 1784 at Bonn, far too talented to be replaced by W.A. Mozart despite his interest in the job. But if you work hard (as Bach said) who knows ? You may yet do something quite wonderful. 

Best wishes


----------



## Andrea Luchesi (Aug 2, 2007)

Dear Mr Newman*, there is a topic you’ve never talked about, yet. It is Mozart’s life after his death. And, before be banned one more time, could you please tell us when and where he really died.

I’m eager to read your explanations…


(* I spelled your name correctly, with only one "n". I hope that you won’t be irritated, this time…)


----------



## Jager (Aug 4, 2007)

colleengail726 said:


> At your democratic service
> 
> Thomas Paine (alias W.A. Mozart)


There is no doubt that this is Newman. According to Newman's bio, he is working on a screenplay about Thomas Paine:

http://www.italianopera.org/about.html

And here we have colleengail726 signing himself [sic] "Thomas Paine". Coincidence, no?

He is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, which is consistent with his laughable ideas about Mozart (certainly the same individual - both in London and both with an address at steelads)

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/304303.shtml#197662


----------



## Jager (Aug 4, 2007)

*Some facts*

The basis for Newman/colleengail726's ramblings is the "research" of an Italian economist, Giorgio Taboga

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep4/ep4tabog.htm

Taboga thinks there is a vast conspiracy to undermine Italian music (evidently the prominence of Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Boccherini, Verdi, Puccini, Respighi et al. counts for nought). Needless to say it is just crude nationalism backed up with amusingly incompetent source analysis.

Newman/colleengail726 himself is a self-appointed "researcher" who has no qualifications or publications in musicology, but rather runs an obscure metals trading website. He has been banned from multiple forums.


----------



## Manuel (Feb 1, 2007)

colleengail726 said:


> Dear Baroness Waldstaetten,
> 
> You will pardon me replying to your letter on the same post as that of Andy Lochazee. My lack of ettiquette in letter writing is (...)


Guys, please... 
As we know Newman uses one post per answer. This quoted paragraph shows colleengail726 is in fact not Robert Newman.

Or perhaps he is just using a *brilliant *strategy here to fool us.


----------



## colleengail726 (Aug 1, 2007)

Dear Jager, 

Congratulations for bringing all of us back to the subject of Music. You deserve credit for that. 

But you clearly don't understand the issues. NOBODY believes there is a 'vast conspiracy to undermine Italian' music. Such a view is disingenuous and is based on no evidence whatsoever. Here are some facts. If you disagree with them please let me know and I will be happy to provide lots of supporting evidence. 

1. The official careers of Haydn and Mozart are riddled with dubious attributions to both composers at each and every stage of their careers despite both having enjoyed iconic status within their own lifetimes and even more so since their deaths. In the case of Mozart the cult-like status of him and his supposed musical creations is a feature of the entire musical landscape. 

2. The sheer scale of false attribution to Mozart is without parallel in the entire history of classical music of all the 'great composers' 

3. Much documentary and other evidence exists that even during his lifetime Mozart's career was full of exaggeration, falsehood, false attribution and downright fraud. Such things tend to be suppressed. 

4. The Mozart 'experts' are conspicuous by their absence in defending the traditional views of his life and career whenever it is called in to question. 

5. The creation of Mozart's posthumous reputation involved similar falsehoods. exaggeration and fakery. 

6. The early biographers of Mozart (e.g. Niemetscheck, Nissen, Jahn, and many others) blatantly perpetuated lies about the abilities and real musical achievements of W.A. Mozart (of which some examples have been already posted here). 

7. Contrary to popular myth, Mozart's career was NOT one of 'musical genius' but of fabrication, exaggeration and downright fraud - this demonstrated over and over by the fact that today the list of his supposed works shrinks as the years go by, this done grudgingly at official level but never admitting to the sheer scale of the deception. For example, of the first '7 Mozart piano concertos' not one is actually by Mozart (despite this being hidden from the public during the lifetime of Mozart). Nor is there hardly a symphony between Nos.1-25 that is indisputably of his own creation. This situation is plain fact. 

8. That even today there is, in the Koechel list of 'Mozart's' works literally dozens of entries that are NOT by Mozart. Including MANY works of 'his' final decade (1781-91). 

9. That entire areas of Mozart correspondence and of early later accounts are found to be false. 

10. That Constanze Mozart, Niemetscheck, Nissen (whose name was falsely used as the supposed writer of a Mozart biography) and many others (both during his lifetime and after his death) were prepared to lie and to deceive the public on virtually every aspect of Mozart's musical career. 

11. The modern story of Mozart's life and career is a fantastic farrago of lies and falsehoods, this purposely invented by vested interests within the late Holy Roman Empire and within the Habsburg Empire to conceal the fact that, in fact, until the arrival of Beethoven, there were few indigenous musical talents worthy of bringing praise to Austria or to Germany. The creation of the Haydn and Mozart myths (supported by elite patrons) was also an attempt to obscure the fact that Austria had repeatedly failed militarily on the battlefields of Europe. The notion of 'Vienna, city of music', was developed. 

12. The Italian contribution to the history of music is so massive that little more needs to be said of it. Sufficient to say that Italians were by far the most talented and educated musicians within Austria of the late Holy Roman Empire. Literally hundreds of Italians were Kapellmeisters or were on merit musicians in prominent posts.

13. That Beethoven is greatly admired in Italy is a plain fact. So too JS Bach. Neither of these men were Italian. They were Germans. So please do not give us nonsense about this being a nationalistic issue. It's the issue of historical fact versus mythology. 

14. That the life, career and musical achievements of Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi (a leading composer of the late 18th century and recognised as such during his own lifetime as being one of the greatest teachers - Kapellmeister at Bonn for some 20 years - is a fact not disputed by anyone.

15. That nationalism (and plain bigotry) airbrushed Luchesi (and non Germans generally) out of musical textbooks on Viennese music during the 19th century and in to our own time is a plain fact. This downgrading of plain truth is partly to explain the great ignorance that exists on the life and careers of Haydn and Mozart. 

16. That other composers supplied music to Haydn and Mozart which they privately arranged to have published in their own name is a fact that is becoming ever more clear. The extent to which this is true is enormous in the case of BOTH composers. 

CONCLUSION

There ! Now, you have at least a rough outline of how wrong you are to describe such things as 'ramblings' by Taboga, me, Newman, or many others. It is our 'ramblings' which are presenting case after case in support of the above, answered to date only by silly irrelevant insults and bans. 

You are entitled to believe any sort of nonsense on Mozart and Haydn. But you are not entitled to present, as evidence, what is nothing but insults and displays of your own lack of education. 

If you see any possibility of replying to these issues constructively (even though you may disagree with them) nobody would be happier than I.


----------



## Daniel (Jul 11, 2004)

Hello colleengail726,

enough! This discussion won't be heated up again. If we see any thesis of a groundless and music-theoretical nonsense/conspiracy-theory, further administrative actions will follow (permanent ban). That is an official warning.

Kind regards,
Daniel


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

The material posted so far on this thread by *colleengail726* is very clearly a straightforward repetition of all the old stuff posted before by *Robert Newman *in the various closed threads. It is perfectly clear that these two characters are identical, or at the very least *colleengail726* is* Robert Newman's *glove puppet.

From earlier statements by the Mods, it seemed that all future Mozart/Haydn controversy threads would be closed without further ado. Why therefore are the Mods allowing this material to be regurgitated again? I can't see why they are merely issuing a warning.

If this thread is allowed to remain open, may I make some comments about the absurdities in Mr Newman's arguments?

Andy


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Wow, here we have the Baroness Waldstaetten, Andrea Luchesi, and even his lesser-known (but no less distinguished) sidekick Andy Loochazee -- all in one thread! It is such a pleasure to be in the company of such honorable folk. Surely, great things must be happening here?

I wonder if Mozart himself will come to join!


----------



## Daniel (Jul 11, 2004)

@Andy Loochazee: Actually you are right in your question, why this thread has not been closed yet. Since colleengail726 joined this forum as a new member (though her style is typical and well-known), we had to inform her as a simple matter of politeness. But to cut this discussion now, this thread is closed.

Daniel


----------

