# Mozart as a Fraud?



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Beyond my participation at this and several other on-line music sites I am also active at an on-line literature forum. Recently we were joined by a figure familiar to some here who immediately began to bombard us with supposed facts intended to prove that Mozart was a complete fraud who composed nothing for which he is justifiably admired... that he was rather a front man who simply placed his name upon compositions of dozens of other composers as part of some grandiose conspiracy involving the Jesuits, the Masons, the Illuminati, and undoubtedly the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. While I have attempted to counter his nonsense to the best of my ability, I am no musicologist or music historian. In order to counter his nonsense before others take his word seriously I would appreciate any real solid irrefutable proof of Mozart's composition of any number of his major works. Thanks!


----------



## Praine (Dec 20, 2008)

Good idea, Stlukesguild, because I am also somewhat irked by Robert Newman's views. Sometimes they seem legitimate, which kind of frightens me and doesn't really give me a feeling of gratitude for Mozart's music. I mean, it's good whoever wrote it but, hitherto, we can only apply it to Mozart. For reference, you might want to check out this thread and some of the other threads that Robert Newman posts in (some are linked in the similar threads at the bottom):

http://www.talkclassical.com/865-controversy-over-true-musical.html

So I'm actually right there with you, and would like to see some solid evidence for his musical masterworks actually coming from HIM. According to Newman, there are no records of Mozart being noted as a great pianist/composer in texts from that time. I hope this can be proven wrong...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

My evidence is circumstantial and not a testimony you are going to want to hear, but I can't believe dozens of composers could make such a large volume of music that sounds so consistently identical -- and as a result boring and predictable to my ears. Oh, there are some standout pieces, the Requiem, and for me the Symphony No. 39 and A Musical Joke. Otherwise I run screaming to Mozart's contemporaries, Haydn, Boccherini, and von Weber.

If these other classic period composers are to my liking, how can twelve or more anonymous composers be so consistently not to my liking?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

If some of the compositions attributed to Mozart were proven to have been by another composer I would have no problem: "a rose by any other name...". The problem is that I have put forward any number of questions... all of which are skirted while he bombards me with dubious documentation and demands that I verify that any of these are fraudulent. 

Major questions that I have put forward are:

1. How is it that a group of composers could compose a body of work for both Haydn and Mozart which are at once distinct and yet maintain a sense of clear continuity for each composer?

2. How is it that the composers involved were brilliant enough that they might compose the work of Mozart of Haydn in such a manner that they exhibit a clear sense of development and increasing depth or profundity?

3. How is it that none of these composers have seemingly composed a single work under their own name of the same merit as the works of Mozart and Haydn which they supposedly composed?

4. What was the goal of this fraud? To gain dominance of music for Germany (Bach, Telemann, C.P. E. Bach, Gluck, and Handel would seem to have already achieved this)? To grab the dominance of music for Vienna? Can we truly imagine that this is something that the real political powers of the time might have felt was worth such a complex covert undertaking?

5. How is it that this vast fraud has not gained the support of a single serious musicologist or music historian?

The responses are always the same. Any documentary proof to the contrary of his theory is but another element of fraud in the vast conspiracy. The refusal of any serious musicologist to support his theory is due to the continued efforts of the powers behind the vast conspiracy... or simple ignorance. And then I am bombarded with documents that he has supposedly unearthed in this or that library in Mantua or Bonn that he challenges us upon... as if we would have the time or access to such. And obviously he has little such access as an uncredentialed (in spite of fraudulent credentials he has claimed from time to time) amateur without the support of any academic music department. Personally, I find his theories completely worthless... but I'd like the support of some documentation to really counter his nonsense.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

You've hit the nail on the head with #5 above. He did not, at least while here, ever come up with any written and published documentation (except for "excerpts" from his [unpublished?] work that is nearing completion, as it has been since 2003 or so. 

If you ask for his proof, and for documented and published resources from noteworthy scholars that support his claims, his usual reply consists of posing yet another question to keep the heat off his shoulders. I think he did this same kind of thing during a podcast earlier this year, too. 

That is my two cents worth, anyway.

Kh


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The responses are always the same. Any documentary proof to the contrary of his theory is but another element of fraud in the vast conspiracy. The refusal of any serious musicologist to support his theory is due to the continued efforts of the powers behind the vast conspiracy... or simple ignorance.


This is the semi-catch-22 at the heart of it. By definition, facts that prove his theory false must be fraudulent. You might as well try to convince the moon-hoax guys, or the 9/11 conspiracy guys, or any range of nutters with warped perspectives...
cheers,
Graeme


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Beyond my participation at this and several other on-line music sites I am also active at an on-line literature forum. Recently we were joined by a figure familiar to some here who immediately began to bombard us with supposed facts intended to prove that Mozart was a complete fraud who composed nothing for which he is justifiably admired... that he was rather a front man who simply placed his name upon compositions of dozens of other composers as part of some grandiose conspiracy involving the Jesuits, the Masons, the Illuminati, and undoubtedly the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. While I have attempted to counter his nonsense to the best of my ability, I am no musicologist or music historian. In order to counter his nonsense before others take his word seriously I would appreciate any real solid irrefutable proof of Mozart's composition of any number of his major works. Thanks!


How amusing. Yet again Newman pops up and causes irritation among his audience.

Some of us (me included) are very familiar with Robert Newman's style of argument. With respect, it looks like you have just had a mere taster of it on the literature Board to which you refer. He has been pursuing these allegations for many years now, and he has exhausted all the main classical music Boards.

I suggest that you won't win against him with the kind of arguments and evidence you propose. It's all been done before. He will rubbish that kind of argument in one fell swoop. The truth is that he is completely impervious to contrary argument, and is remarkably adept at avoiding really awkward questions. All he will do is say that you can't trust anything the "Mozart industry" says, argue that the work has no clear Mozart ownership, and then ask you a question to justify your beliefs. By such means you continually go round in circles getting no where except that Newman gains more publicity.

He has performed on this and most other well-known classical music message Boards. His last major involvement was on GMG where there is a 100-page thread in which he was very vigorously questioned (far more so than would be considered acceptable here) by several members. That would be a good place to see that all the questions you personally envisage making have already been done.

In the course of his long internet career, major questions that Newman has failed to answer include:


If his allegations are correct, why didn't Mozart's students (and Haydn's close working colleagues) realise that an incompetent person was duping them?
Why should all these "other" composers - Luchesi, Vanhal, etc - have obliged to supply Mozart with their works without claiming any credit for themselves? What was in it for them? And where is the actual hard evidence to prove that they were either paid for the works allegedly supplied?
If it is true that Mozart was just a front for many behind-the-scenes composers, how was musical quality control maintained across and within all genres of music written by Mozart and Haydn? Each of their styles is different and of such high quality compared with others of the time that it would have been incredibly difficult to maintain uniform standards if it were true that many composers were involved in the supply chain.
 Newman has stated that he was a student of the "Royal School of Music, London" between 1970-1974, where he evidently studied harmony etc. There appears to be no such place as the "Royal School of Music" in London. When asked for clarification he has refused to comment further.

A few months ago, he said that his very long-awaited book on Mozart was due to be published in September 2009, but nothing has yet emerged.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> 1. How is it that a group of composers could compose a body of work for both Haydn and Mozart which are at once distinct and yet maintain a sense of clear continuity for each composer?
> 
> 2. How is it that the composers involved were brilliant enough that they might compose the work of Mozart of Haydn in such a manner that they exhibit a clear sense of development and increasing depth or profundity?


I think Mozart and Haydn do have quite a distinct style in some ways. More so when you get to their later music perhaps and the most mature works are the hardest to really pass off as by others.

It's probably easy to play on the possibility that other composers might have wrote some of Mozart of Haydn's work because we know so little of these other composers' music. Some of these composers did have talent and deserve to have their work unearthed more.

There was 'fraud' as we would call it now happening back then. Gyrowitz - an interesting composer - did have some of his works passed off as by Haydn at the time. Haydn was actually a great idol of his so he was probably flattered, lol. Publishers probably just tried to cash in on the name of someone who might be more fashionable at the time, so not really at the instigation of the either composer. Sometimes it may have been by agreement even, Mozart writing the slow introduction to a Michael Haydn symphony (the so called Symphony no 37). That symphony doesn't fit into Mozart's style overall and so most can probably see it is not by him. But this shows that it works both ways, a piece Mozart co-wrote being passed off as being written solely by someone else.

Overall I'm not really that worried. Haydn recognised Mozart's brilliance and style, how could a composer of his standard be fooled?



Artemis said:


> [*]If it is true that Mozart was just a front for many behind-the-scenes composers, how was musical quality control maintained across and within all genres of music written by Mozart and Haydn? Each of their styles is different and of such high quality compared with others of the time that it would have been incredibly difficult to maintain uniform standards if it were true that many composers were involved in the supply chain.


It reminds me of the Shakespeare hypothesis that he was used as a front by others who co-authored the plays.


----------



## bassClef (Oct 29, 2006)

Doesn't really matter to me. I'm not a big fan of Mozart, a fiew pieces excluded - and for those I can enjoy the music just as much irrespective of who composed it - Mozart is just a convenient label.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

starry said:


> Overall I'm not really that worried. Haydn recognised Mozart's brilliance and style, how could a composer of his standard be fooled?


This completely overlooks the fact that Newman tars Joseph Haydn with the same brush as he does Mozart. Newman tends to play up the Mozart angle a lot more than he does Haydn because Mozart is the more famous of the two and has the greater cult following which is likely to be more easily riled by his allegations. However, in fact, Newman reckons that Haydn was on the receiving end of works written by others (notably Andrea Luchesi) long before Mozart ever started. Hence he would argue that the fact that Haydn thought that Mozart was brilliant and a genius is completely irrelevant, as they were both incompetent frauds, and moreover each knew about the other's fraudulent antics.

If you ask Newman any questions about any of this you quickly get sucked into a very complex maze of alleged skulduggery by the Jesuits, and he will fire at you all manner of detailed questions which are seemingly relevant to the issue in hand but which are really designed to throw the scent off him and to place the onus on you to justify your belief in the status quo. This has happened time and time again in one music Board after another. The thread on this Board referenced earlier is but one example. Try and follow all that and you will see what I mean. Happy reading.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

bassClef said:


> Doesn't really matter to me. I'm not a big fan of Mozart, a fiew pieces excluded - and for those I can enjoy the music just as much irrespective of who composed it - Mozart is just a convenient label.


There isn't much music by Mozart which I do not like so I am poles apart from you in my estimation of him. As a BBC radio presenter speculated today, it seems that younger classical music fans are those who tend not to like Mozart, but as they mature their preferences tend to change in his favour. I reckon that's largely true. All the heavier stuff (romantic epics and all such-like moody "Sibelius" type material) of youth loses appeal in favour of the beauty of Mozart's compositional skills.

That aside, I doubt that many true Mozart fans people would agree with you that they would attach the same value to Mozart's music regardless of who actually composed it. If it could shown (and I stress if) beyond reasonable doubt that any of Mozart's works were not genuine then they would very likely lose appeal across a large segment of his following. In other words I accept that many of his better known works attract a premium merely because they are by Mozart. Look for example at the big interest only a few months ago at some recent new-found work which was hardly a major piece.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

i once hounded newman off of a board, not that he will admit it  enjoy yourself. he's a dunce.
as for conspiracies...remember...the govt. controls the aliens, not the other way around


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Artemis said:


> This completely overlooks the fact that Newman tars Joseph Haydn with the same brush as he does Mozart. Newman tends to play up the Mozart angle a lot more than he does Haydn because Mozart is the more famous of the two and has the greater cult following which is likely to be more easily riled by his allegations. However, in fact, Newman reckons that Haydn was on the receiving end of works written by others (notably Andrea Luchesi) long before Mozart ever started. Hence he would argue that the fact that Haydn thought that Mozart was brilliant and a genius is completely irrelevant, as they were both incompetent frauds, and moreover each knew about the other's fraudulent antics.
> 
> If you ask Newman any questions about any of this you quickly get sucked into a very complex maze of alleged skulduggery by the Jesuits, and he will fire at you all manner of detailed questions which are seemingly relevant to the issue in hand but which are really designed to throw the scent off him and to place the onus on you to justify your belief in the status quo. This has happened time and time again in one music Board after another. The thread on this Board referenced earlier is but one example. Try and follow all that and you will see what I mean. Happy reading.


I think it was the publishers who could sometimes be frauds though and not necessarily the composers (who may have no idea what the publishers were doing much of the time, particularly if it's happening in another country and far away). Ultimately though I don't think Mozart or Haydn needed to be frauds, they wrote enough music themselves and had confidence in what they produced.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

david johnson said:


> i once hounded newman off of a board, not that he will admit it  enjoy yourself. he's a dunce.
> as for conspiracies...remember...the govt. controls the aliens, not the other way around


David, you don't seem the type to "hound" anyone, and I mean that in the kindest possible way.

As for conspiracy theorists like Newman, he is into all sorts of other conspiracies (apart from Mozart) like for example he thinks the Moon landings were faked, and that 9/11 was a put-up job by the CIA, that last year's crash landing of an airplane in the Hudson River looked phoney, etc.

Here's all one needs to know about conspiracy theorists: ten charcteristics. It's worth reading.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Artemis said:


> If you ask Newman any questions about any of this you quickly get sucked into a very complex maze of alleged skulduggery by the Jesuits, and he will fire at you all manner of detailed questions which are seemingly relevant to the issue in hand but which are really designed to throw the scent off him and to place the onus on you to justify your belief in the status quo. This has happened time and time again in one music Board after another. The thread on this Board referenced earlier is but one example. Try and follow all that and you will see what I mean. Happy reading.


I've picked this bit out to quote, but really I'd just like to say how much I've enjoyed and appreciated the clarity and insight of all your posts here in this thread. Thanks. Anyone tempted to tangle with Newman (or his fellow conspiratorialists) would be very well advised to read what you say here, first!


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Somewhere I heard a saying which goes something like "Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare's plays. They were written by somebody else with the same name."


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Beyond my participation at this and several other on-line music sites I am also active at an on-line literature forum. Recently we were joined by a figure familiar to some here who immediately began to bombard us with supposed facts intended to prove that Mozart was a complete fraud who composed nothing for which he is justifiably admired...


Oh boy, not that character again.  Seems like no matter where you go, there's no way to escape Newman.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Also what about all those manuscripts for all kinds of pieces which have survived and are in Mozart's hand? I don't think someone would go through the trouble of copying someone elses work down so much. And Mozart's work was well enough known by the 1780s that if he was faking it someone would have pointed this out at the time. I see no reason for a group of composers to use Mozart as a front either, most composers wanted fame and fortune. So while publishers may have sometimes used fraud to pass off little known works of someone else as by someone who was more fashionable they couldn't do that on the kind of scale which seems suggested, within an area like Vienna as well where so many composers will have travelled to and been resident.


----------



## chillowack (Jul 16, 2009)

I'm currently reading two books about Mozart, one of which is a collection of his letters (_The Letters of Mozart & His Family_, by Emily Anderson). This book is quite large, and contains hundreds of letters between Mozart and his family members, friends, associates, etc.

Many of these letters reference works which Mozart composed, along with detailed accounts of when and why he composed them; for whom they were composed; where they were first performed; who performed; who attended the performance; how the performance was received, etc.

There are also many accounts of Mozart's meetings and interactions with nobles, crowned heads, high-ranking clergy, famous people, other composers, etc.

The likelihood that Mozart could have had the experiences described in these letters _without_ having been a genuine, prolific, genius composer is very remote. It's not like the "Shakespeare-Bacon Controversy" (mentioned by starry), for which a comparatively small amount of documentary evidence is available (the evidence in that controversy, while in some cases quite compelling, is often of a logical nature, rather than a documentary one); in the Mozart case, _reams_ of documentary evidence exist, all pointing to the clear truth that Mozart was indeed a very real, extraordinarily prolific, incredibly brilliant composer.

Is it possible that a few pieces might have been erroneously ascribed to Mozart? Certainly--in fact, I was just reading about such a piece this morning, in Piero Melograni's _Mozart: A Biography_. The piece is K. 297b/C14.01, a work that was lost due to the (possibly hostile) negligence of a French concert director named Legros, and later supplanted with a "dubious" replacement. But in an _oeuvre_ as extensive as that of Mozart, even if a dozen such "frauds" could be produced, it would still amount to but a small fraction of his repertoire.

The "massive fraud" Newman postulates does not ring true with the extensive correspondence of Mozart and his contemporaries--a documented record stretching throughout the composer's life, from his earliest days as a child prodigy. I wonder if Newman has read this correspondence, and if so, how he explains it away.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Seeing as there are several long winded remarks here, I think I'll just have myself an exercise in gumption here. Was Mozart a fraud? ummmmm..... no


----------



## fpulsipher (Oct 14, 2009)

I am a true novice to classical music and this is my first post. Although I have enjoyed listening to this wonderful music for a long time I am just beginning to learn more about the composers and their work. This discussion about Mozart is fascinating. I can see I have much, much more to research and learn.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

SLG (quote)-The responses are always the same. Any documentary proof to the contrary of his theory is but another element of fraud in the vast conspiracy. The refusal of any serious musicologist to support his theory is due to the continued efforts of the powers behind the vast conspiracy... or simple ignorance.[/COLOR]

This is the semi-catch-22 at the heart of it. By definition, facts that prove his theory false must be fraudulent. You might as well try to convince the moon-hoax guys, or the 9/11 conspiracy guys, or any range of nutters with warped perspectives...
cheers...

It was this... and his continued avoidance of any difficult questions I might have posted... that made it rapidly clear what I was dealing with.

I suggest that you won't win against him with the kind of arguments and evidence you propose. It's all been done before. He will rubbish that kind of argument in one fell swoop. The truth is that he is completely impervious to contrary argument, and is remarkably adept at avoiding really awkward questions. All he will do is say that you can't trust anything the "Mozart industry" says, argue that the work has no clear Mozart ownership, and then ask you a question to justify your beliefs. By such means you continually go round in circles getting no where except that Newman gains more publicity.

I've no illusions as to converting him... or even inspiring the least bit of doubt. The true apostles feel no doubt... and considering the manner in which he continually avoids all difficult questions I get the feeling he knows the whole theory is BS or is in a serious state of denial. My only intention was to offer some solid documentary proof that clearly contradicts his nonsense. Perhaps the best contradiction, so far, has been a bit of a satirical fiction posted by another member involving Mozart, Haydn, the Anasazi "Indians", the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Catherine the Great, Shakespeare, and Elvis.

Newman has stated that he was a student of the "Royal School of Music, London" between 1970-1974, where he evidently studied harmony etc. There appears to be no such place as the "Royal School of Music" in London. When asked for clarification he has refused to comment further.

Yes... I have questioned his credentials... but then he responds with the inane "show me yours first"... and round and round we go.

It's probably easy to play on the possibility that other composers might have wrote some of Mozart of Haydn's work because we know so little of these other composers' music. Some of these composers did have talent and deserve to have their work unearthed more.

I don't question that some works of music... as well as art and literature... have been mis-attributed over the ages. And these are acknowledged by musicologists and historians. Indeed... I have suggested that a mis-attribution of just 1/10th of Haydn or Mozart's work would be a story that would virtually make the career for the least musicologist of historian... and yet Newman's theory lacks any serious support. The notion of some vast conspiracy to do so simply to so involving powerful figures in the church and state... and for what reason?... however in inane.

It reminds me of the Shakespeare hypothesis that he was used as a front by others who co-authored the plays.

The Shakespeare attribution theory, on the other hand, actually has the support of certain serious academics. You can Google the term "Shakespeare Attribution" and get a slew of information. Not so with the Mozart fraud theory... unless you specifically include the names Luchesi or Newman. The Shakespeare attribution theory also has some solid logic behind it in that it suggests that the author merely hid behind a ghost writer because of his aristocratic position in which writing lowly plays would not have been acceptable. Of course I side with most academics and don't buy that conspiracy either. The fact that so little could be known of figures that created the art that is a central part of Western culture leads certain personalities to seek out alternative... and ultimately fictive... narratives biographies.

...he will fire at you all manner of detailed questions which are seemingly relevant to the issue in hand but which are really designed to throw the scent off him and to place the onus on you to justify your belief in the status quo. 

Exactly! Each time I have challenged him on a particular point or with a question he cannot or wishes not to answer his response is to avoid it and bombard me with a slew of challenges that I prove the illegitimacy of this of that document he sites or he challenges me to come up with documentary proof that Mozart wrote this or that piece. Of course... I am not permitted to use any existing (fraudulent) texts on Mozart as proof... only original documents (which I am certain he has no access to... not without the support of a serious academic music department of some university). Repeatedly, my response has been that I do not need to prove anything as I am not the one challenging accepted history. He must provide the proof and his proof must be accepted by at least a number of serious academics within the field.

"Doesn't really matter to me. I'm not a big fan of Mozart, a fiew pieces excluded - and for those I can enjoy the music just as much irrespective of who composed it - Mozart is just a convenient label."

There isn't much music by Mozart which I do not like so I am poles apart from you in my estimation of him. As a BBC radio presenter speculated today, it seems that younger classical music fans are those who tend not to like Mozart, but as they mature their preferences tend to change in his favour. I reckon that's largely true. All the heavier stuff (romantic epics and all such-like moody "Sibelius" type material) of youth loses appeal in favour of the beauty of Mozart's compositional skills.

That aside, I doubt that many true Mozart fans people would agree with you that they would attach the same value to Mozart's music regardless of who actually composed it. If it could shown (and I stress if) beyond reasonable doubt that any of Mozart's works were not genuine then they would very likely lose appeal across a large segment of his following. In other words I accept that many of his better known works attract a premium merely because they are by Mozart. Look for example at the big interest only a few months ago at some recent new-found work which was hardly a major piece.

The "cult of personality" attached to art is not something I am fond of. I despise the fact that museums... and thus much of the public... assumes immediately that a work by Shakespeare, Mozart, or Rembrandt is of the highest merit. Even the greatest artists had immature works and flops. There are paintings by some of Rembrandt's followers that are as good or better than some of Rembrandt's paintings. There are some marvelous compositions by the peers of Mozart and Haydn that are better than some of their works. If an early symphony by Mozart or Haydn were found to have been by another "minor" composer it would undoubtedly fade from the repertoire. To my mind that suggests it does not really belong there to begin with except for context... to lend a historical perspective of the composer's development. If _The Magic Flute_ or _Don Giovanni_ were found to have been composed by another, this would in no way lessen my appreciation of that work. Rather... it would simply raise that other composer in my estimation. _Don Giovanni, Hamlet, The Polish Rider_ are deservedly major works of art no matter who created them.

As for conspiracy theorists like Newman, he is into all sorts of other conspiracies (apart from Mozart) like for example he thinks the Moon landings were faked, and that 9/11 was a put-up job by the CIA, that last year's crash landing of an airplane in the Hudson River looked phoney, etc.

Yes... I got that from him already. He also buys into the Shakespeare attribution theory and even had some nonsense about the continued efforts of the Illuminati and even the chocolate industry in support of the continued Mozart fraud.

I'm currently reading two books about Mozart, one of which is a collection of his letters (The Letters of Mozart & His Family, by Emily Anderson). This book is quite large, and contains hundreds of letters between Mozart and his family members, friends, associates, etc...

The likelihood that Mozart could have had the experiences described in these letters without having been a genuine, prolific, genius composer is very remote. It's not like the "Shakespeare-Bacon Controversy" (mentioned by starry), for which a comparatively small amount of documentary evidence is available (the evidence in that controversy, while in some cases quite compelling, is often of a logical nature, rather than a documentary one); in the Mozart case, reams of documentary evidence exist, all pointing to the clear truth that Mozart was indeed a very real, extraordinarily prolific, incredibly brilliant composer.

Of course he argues that those behind the fraud were so sophisticated that they created an entire body of fraudulent letters and other documents to fool future generations.

...what about all those manuscripts for all kinds of pieces which have survived and are in Mozart's hand? I don't think someone would go through the trouble of copying someone elses work down so much. 

Not according to Newman. Those Jesuits, Masons, and Illuminati are one sneaky bunch.

Accckk!!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The "cult of personality" attached to art is not something I am fond of. I despise the fact that museums... and thus much of the public... assumes immediately that a work by Shakespeare, Mozart, or Rembrandt is of the highest merit. Even the greatest artists had immature works and flops. There are paintings by some of Rembrandt's followers that are as good or better than some of Rembrandt's paintings. There are some marvelous compositions by the peers of Mozart and Haydn that are better than some of their works. If an early symphony by Mozart or Haydn were found to have been by another "minor" composer it would undoubtedly fade from the repertoire. To my mind that suggests it does not really belong there to begin with except for context... to lend a historical perspective of the composer's development. If _The Magic Flute_ or _Don Giovanni_ were found to have been composed by another, this would in no way lessen my appreciation of that work. Rather... it would simply raise that other composer in my estimation. _Don Giovanni, Hamlet, The Polish Rider_ are deservedly major works of art no matter who created them.


Yeh, I'm also cautious about the cult of personality that you get in art. Of course it's understandable to be fascinated by people who are so distant in time and created some great pieces of music, but ultimately they are not Gods. They are just human beings, with faults and virtues and with good pieces of music and not so good pieces as well. The marketing hype that you can get around composers sometimes isn't helpful in getting a balanced perspective. Maybe as we (hopefully) can get to hear more and more of their contemporaries we can fit their development into not just the whole span of western classical music but also within their own time (and what their influence was and how they were influenced). Even the greatest composers don't exist in a vacuum or some kind of self contained universe.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

starry said:


> Yeh, I'm also cautious about the cult of personality that you get in art. Of course it's understandable to be fascinated by people who are so distant in time and created some great pieces of music, but ultimately they are not Gods. They are just human beings, with faults and virtues and with good pieces of music and not so good pieces as well. The marketing hype that you can get around composers sometimes isn't helpful in getting a balanced perspective. Maybe as we (hopefully) can get to hear more and more of their contemporaries we can fit their development into not just the whole span of western classical music but also within their own time (and what their influence was and how they were influenced). Even the greatest composers don't exist in a vacuum or some kind of self contained universe.


I don't just like my favorite composers, I worship them.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Still, in my opinion Mozart wrote a vast amount of masterworks during a short life. He didn't earn such fame as he has through over-hype. Obviously the people of his day and for a long time afterwards have treasured his music much as much as a lot of people do today. I don't think there is any "cult of personality", I just think Mozart was an incredible orchestrator, a master of counter point, and that he had a great sense of balance, expression, wit, humor, and humble worship in his music. That is why he is so iconic.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't think anybody is saying Mozart wasn't a very great composer. This other topic of whether composers are made into Gods on occasion or should be looked at as simply extremely talented human beings is really *another point altogether*. It relates to people saying Mozart wrote things out perfectly and never had to revise them or that he wrote things always with very little effort and very quickly. Or of Beethoven as some heroic titan looking down on humanity with some godlike vision etc etc.

I think I can connect this point with the thread on pictures of composers in the composers section. When you see a photograph of a composer you can often see the real person more.  Of course in some they might just be posing and not really showing so much of their feelings or thoughts, but the possibility of seeing more a true person is probably greater than many of the paintings which are often done with some heroic view of a composer in mind.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Actually, that sounds like a better topic to continue this thread with, rather than the rubbish Newman started. How many people think they idolize their favorite composers a bit too much?


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

Lukecash12 said:


> Actually, that sounds like a better topic to continue this thread with, rather than the rubbish Newman started. How many people think they idolize their favorite composers a bit too much?


*Raises hand* Me!!!


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Lukecash12 said:


> How many people think they idolize their favorite composers a bit too much?


I don't idolise them, but I do feel intense gratitude to them because of the enormously enriching personal consequences I've experienced as a result of listening to their music. And that depth of personal gratitude seems appropriate, not excessive.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Than sadly, you don't get to raise your hand. As for me, I'll remain under the psychotic assumption that Alkan, Bach, Janacek, Albeniz, Mozart, Roslavets, Sibelius, and Medtner were demigods.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Still, in my opinion Mozart wrote a vast amount of masterworks during a short life. He didn't earn such fame as he has through over-hype. Obviously the people of his day and for a long time afterwards have treasured his music much as much as a lot of people do today. I don't think there is any "cult of personality", I just think Mozart was an incredible orchestrator, a master of counter point, and that he had a great sense of balance, expression, wit, humor, and humble worship in his music. That is why he is so iconic.

I am not dismissing the towering achievements of some of the greatest artists when I speak of the "cult of personality". I am more than certain that Mozart's achievements in music dwarf those of any of his peers with the exception of Haydn. What I am speaking of when I speak of the "cult of personality" is the manner in which later generations... especially our own publicity-racked era... have often turned the artist into something of a name brand. The name Mozart upon any piece of music is often assumed as a guarantee of brilliance (much as the name Rembrandt upon a painting). The reality is, however, that Mozart and Rembrandt both produced works that were mediocre... less-than-brilliant at the same time that their peers occasionally (albeit less frequently) produced some works that are worthy of real recognition... sometimes even rivaling Mozart or Rembrandt's finest.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Honestly, I think Mozart's mediocre works were pretty few and far between. But I'm not saying this to argue against your point. I just don't find very many of his works to be mediocre at all. Maybe some of his clarinet suites weren't so beautiful, mostly because they didn't quite take advantage of the qualities of the instrument, but aside from those I can't think of anything that wasn't just excellent. Even simple pieces like the choral piece *Luci Care* are very well put together (the form for that piece seems perfect for the content).

Why is it that folks don't like Mozart? I'm perplexed. Him and Haydn really showed the way to go with counterpoint and orchestration after Bach and Handel made their contributions.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Lukecash12 said:


> Why is it that folks don't like Mozart? I'm perplexed. Him and Haydn really showed the way to go with counterpoint and orchestration after Bach and Handel made their contributions.


You rather make the assumption that "folks don't like Mozart". I think that this is probably wrong or at least a gross-overstatement of the real facts if one is talking about the generality of classical music fans. As I remarked on another thread recently, I suspect that those in younger age groups, or those with less mature listening experience, may be the ones who tend to be less interested in Mozart. Such might be the case among some members of T-C, where I suspect that the average age of members seems to be relatively low compared with that on several other Boards and compared with the classical music public at large.

I think possibly that some of the trouble is that many classical music radio stations tend to overplay a narrow selection of Mozart's most popular pieces (or sections hereof), and this can cause an adverse reaction as they are so familiar. If sceptics take the trouble to explore a wider selection of Mozart's works - his serenades, divertimenti, church and masonic music, chamber works, concert arias, piano sonatas etc - they will likely become much more impressed. If they took the trouble to listen to one or two major operas - Le Nozze, DG - this would probably change their minds too.

I fully accept that there are no guarantees and some people will continue not to like Mozart. I suspect however that it isn't Mozart they don't like but rather the Classical style, which naturally won't suit everyone. I happen to like most styles (except very modern) and would unhesitatingly say that Mozart stands out as being among the very best that this form of Art has thrown up in its long and varied history.


----------



## tahnak (Jan 19, 2009)

Mozart being a fraud!
The gut instinct will tell us that a particular idiom and style that attaches itself to an individual cannot be missed in any of Mozart's compositions. The people who bring out this four penny theories need to have their heads examined for sensationalism. It is like saying Spielberg did not make 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind" but it was made by Tshabalala from Zimbabwe and Spielberg just purchased the film outright and stamped his name. I will believe that the landing of Apollo XI was filmed at the Universal Studios and that man never landed on moon rather than Mozart endorsing his name on the writings of his contemporaries. Most of his life, he was hand to mouth despite being a favourite at the courts or as a prodigy.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Even though SLG did not mention by the name the literature Forum where Newman has lately surfaced, it took only a moment or two's Googling to find it. I see that Newman is now posing as "Musicologist" and that on this occasion he has dived straight in and announced his credentials and intentions to discredit Mozart. (He has been known to beat about the bush for a while, grooming his audience, before the big kill becomes apparent). I haven't read much of the latest guff on the literature Forum but it would seem that no-one is taken in by any of his claims, and true-to-form he is still dodging any pointed questions. 

SLG may wish to note that at his last major involvement in a proper classical music Board, his main line of attack was that W A Mozart had no proper musical education, never attended any schools etc, and that his father, Leopold ,was only a third-rate musician at best. On this basis he tried to work up an argument that W A Mozart would be incapable of writing high quality music as he simply lacked the requisite foundational skills.

In view of this, if I may suggest it to SLG, why not focus on asking Newman what his own musical credentials are, and in the event that he continues not to answer this question you could then posit that he obviously is not qualified to speculate on musicology issues. I know it's pointless, as nothing will deter or phase him, but at least you get to have a bit of "sport" with him. This is the only way to deal with him and hope that goes away. And don't forget to ask when his book is coming out, as it's now overdue by a month according to earlier statements.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Honestly, I think Mozart's mediocre works were pretty few and far between. But I'm not saying this to argue against your point. I just don't find very many of his works to be mediocre at all. Maybe some of his clarinet suites weren't so beautiful, mostly because they didn't quite take advantage of the qualities of the instrument, but aside from those I can't think of anything that wasn't just excellent. Even simple pieces like the choral piece Luci Care are very well put together (the form for that piece seems perfect for the content).

Why is it that folks don't like Mozart? I'm perplexed. Him and Haydn really showed the way to go with counterpoint and orchestration after Bach and Handel made their contributions.

Lukecash... I am about as far away from disliking Mozart as you can possibly get. I personally would place only J.S. Bach above him and greatly suspect Mozart might have rivaled even Bach had he not died so young. In spite of this Mozart did write any number of mediocre works. How many of his symphonies prior to no. 25 are really "masterpieces"? His youthful piano sonatas, piano concertos, operas, etc... are of the same level. What I speak of when I speak of the "cult of personality" is the fact that one can far more easily find recordings of even minor and mediocre works by Mozart than major works by many of his peers. Until recently it was difficult to find recordings of Gluck's major operas... in spite of the merits of these works. Heck... even Handel's operas have been somewhat underrated until recently. What I am speaking of when I speak of the "cult of personality" is that when the name Mozart or Rembrandt or Keats there is virtually an assumption that the work is of the greatest merit and inherently better than the work of any of the numerous "also-rans". As a visual artist I have the advantage of being able to look at a painting in a museum or a gallery a draw my own conclusions and form my own opinions solely upon the merits of the work... before I ever need to look to the artist's name. This is quite difficult to do with music. I know what CD I've popped into the player... and so I come to the music with a preconceived notion that what I am going to listen to is Mozart or Schubert and all that means.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

SLG may wish to note that at his last major involvement in a proper classical music Board, his main line of attack was that W A Mozart had no proper musical education, never attended any schools etc, and that his father, Leopold ,was only a third-rate musician at best. On this basis he tried to work up an argument that W A Mozart would be incapable of writing high quality music as he simply lacked the requisite foundational skills.

In view of this, if I may suggest it to SLG, why not focus on asking Newman what his own musical credentials are, and in the event that he continues not to answer this question you could then posit that he obviously is not qualified to speculate on musicology issues. I know it's pointless, as nothing will deter or phase him, but at least you get to have a bit of "sport" with him. This is the only way to deal with him and hope that goes away. And don't forget to ask when his book is coming out, as it's now overdue by a month according to earlier statements

Good points. I have been thinking of the credentials route myself... especially with Newman's statements about his degree from a non-existent college of music. But you are also right that the general response to his postings have become skeptical at best.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Artemis said:


> . . . And don't forget to ask when his book is coming out, as it's now overdue by a month according to earlier statements.


Months? Try years!! If memory serves correctly, he's been "about to" publish that particular book since 2006. .

He referenced another book he was authoring on Evolution in our sister forum (MIMF) and stated: 


Robert Newman said:


> "unpublished, of course - LOL".


When later queried for more detail about that "book", he dodged the questions in usual form. 
Imho, the guy is such a perfect example of walking fertilizer, it's hard to care anything about what he says anymore. 

Kh


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Krummhorn said:


> Months? Try years!! If memory serves correctly, he's been "about to" publish that particular book since 2006. .
> 
> He referenced another book he was authoring on Evolution in our sister forum (MIMF) and stated:
> 
> ...


I fully realise that he has been promising this book on Mozart for several years. I only mentioned September 2009 because when he was last tackled publicly on this matter in May 2009 he indicated that he was aiming for publication by September, even though he said that he hadn't found a publisher. In fact, so confident was he about this that he was asking for e-mail addresses of anyone interested in getting an advance copy of his book.

I agree it's hard to take any notice of what he says, but unfortunately he still manages to pull in people to take a closer look at his claims, such is his audacity and his astonishing ability to B.S his way round awkward questions with seemingly relevant answers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will see almost immediately that it's all utter rubbish as there is absolutely no way that the most studied composer in history was a con-man and fraud with no ability, only to be exposed some 200 years later by an amateur "musicologist" with highly dubious qualifications and virtually no support from others in the profession. The mere fact that he believes the Moon landings were faked in some Hollywood studio should be enough to warn off most people.


----------



## MusicalOffering (Sep 11, 2009)

Read quite a long article on the subject not too long ago, not sure if it was written by this "Newman" you speak of. Either way, it did have some interesting points on Mozart as a composer. Here are some of the more interesting excerpts:

"Given that in the intervening years he wrote no other operas, the jump in quality from La finta to Idomeneo is not only curious but inexplicable, unless one considers that he had help with the latter's composition, something that is entirely possible considering that his father acted as intermediary between Mozart and the opera's librettist, Varesco. Similarly noteworthy is Mozart's often-quoted remark regarding the 'Haffner' Symphony. Upon receiving the score from his father in 1783, he commented, "'My new Haffner symphony has quite astonished me, for I had forgotten every single note of it. It must certainly make a good effect'" (Eisen 1991: 257). Scholars have made light of this remark, contending that Mozart was surely joking. Yet if we consider for a moment that Mozart did not in fact compose it (it was, after all, composed for a family friend at Leopold's suggestion) then the remark makes much more sense."

"From the many discussions and analyses of his music, it becomes apparent that Mozart was remarkably susceptible to the influence of other composers, in spite of his self-righteous confidence in his own abilities, and his habit of making disparaging remarks about his contemporaries frequently and often. These 'influences' were numerous and varied, and have given rise to observations of Mozart's 'indebtedness' to this or that work or composer in a considerable number of his compositions. Many features of his symphonic writing can be thus accounted for, such as the presentation of themes in reverse order in the recapitulation (found in many opening movements by Johann Stamitz), the inversion of sixths into thirds and vice versa and an abundance of trills in the opening theme (typical of Wagenseil), and finales that burst forth with orchestral brilliance that is quickly over (another Wagenseilian trait). Amongst his keyboard juvenilia, scholars have contended various borrowings or imitations from Carl Philip Emmanuel Bach, Johann Gottfried Eckard and Johann Christian Bach - all of whom were accomplished keyboard players and composers of their day."

"In turning to opera, a genre in which Mozart supposedly produced some of his greatest masterpieces, this pattern of derivation continues. In addition to the overture's echo of Haydn's Missa sancti Hieronymi and the previously mentioned contribution of Süssmayr, in the choruses of La Clemenza di Tito one can hear similarities with the majestic choruses of Gluck's Alceste (1767), and in "the demonic violence of the second-act finale of Don Giovanni" (1787) resounds the music for the furies from Gluck's Don Juan and Orfeo (first performed in 1761 and 1762 respectively) (Rice 1989: 133). The Marriage of Figaro, composed in 1786 "with a nudge from Paisiello's The Barber of Seville and King Theodore in Venice" was similarly obliged, both of Paisiello's operas having been performed in Vienna in the previous three years to great acclaim (Roselli 1998: 90). Unlike their predecessors, however, neither Don Giovanni nor Figaro were a success with Viennese audiences. What becomes increasingly clear is that Mozart exploited a myriad of sources in creating his body of works, but the most prominent of these, and also the most commonly cited and discussed, was Franz Josef Haydn, Michael Haydn's elder brother."

On Haydn's influence on Mozart.

"As an example from his formative years there is the Symphony no. 15 in G (K.124), written after his trip to Milan and dated February 1772. The first movement, Allegro, begins in 3/4, but after only twelve bars appears to shift into 6/8 for the appearance of the second theme. Heartz notes that "It is highly unusual for Mozart to make the modulation so quickly", and further observes "something else unusual about this second theme besides its metrical quirks. It resembles in several particulars the opening of Joseph Haydn's brilliant Symphony No. 28 in A, dated 1765" (1995: 558). Known for his intellectual and witty humour (a quality that was to come to the fore in his later works, particularly the op. 33 string quartets), Haydn's Symphony begins with a musical joke encapsulated by confusion over the metre that is both surprising and refreshing. Mozart's imitation of this opening was clearly deliberate, and, as Heartz further contends, "The passages are too close to be explained by coincidence or fortuity" (1995: 558).

"Mozart's last two string quintets K.593 (1790) and K.614 (1791) have likewise been described as "amongst the most Haydnesque music [he] ever wrote". Many of their features can easily be identified with Haydn's style: the use of a slow introduction, monothematicism, the inclusion of a movement in 6/8 metre, intricate thematic development and motivic construction (which is highly uncharacteristic of Mozart), a rondo movement, and a cantabile slow movement."

Whole article at http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000533.htm


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Lukecash12 said:


> Actually, that sounds like a better topic to continue this thread with, rather than the rubbish Newman started. How many people think they idolize their favorite composers a bit too much?


I don't think there's anything wrong with idolizing composers or artists. In fact, people who worship Mozart can at least be sure that the object of their devotion really existed - something that can't be said about the fairytale characters of religion.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

MusicalOffering said:


> Read quite a long article on the subject not too long ago, not sure if it was written by this "Newman" you speak of. Either way, it did have some interesting points on Mozart as a composer. Here are some of the more interesting excerpts:


As is clearly stated, the article was written by Dr Pei-Gwen South who is reckoned to be an Australian amateur musicologist. There isn't much information about this character other than the fact that he (she?) believes that Mozart was a fraud whilst Joseph Haydn was a true genius, from whom many works were stolen by Mozart. The article from which you quote was doing the rounds in 2003/4 among a few classical music Boards. The general consensus was that the article was a pile of nonsense not worth wasting time upon. If you look at some of the responses to the article you will see that RN had spotted it and invited Dr Pei-Gwen South to participate in a music Board at which RN was then active, _OpenMozart_. That Board was soon to collapse partly, it has been argued, because of the mayhem brought about by Newman's disruptive antics.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with idolizing composers or artists.


Indeed: live and let live. I'm all for that! But I'm wondering if we're all understanding this word in quite the same way. I mean, I'd regard _admiration_ as one of the finest, noblest things we humans are capable of, but the unquestioning, uncritical worship implied in the act of _idolising_ doesn't seem to me to do any favours either to the worshipper or the recipient, because it's based on ideals that aren't true.

So if I take my great hero, Elgar - my love and admiration for the man and his music is immense, possibly beyond any rational justification; but even _I_ can see the weaknesses and flaws; so I couldn't possibly _idolise_ him.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Elgarian said:


> Indeed: live and let live. I'm all for that! But I'm wondering if we're all understanding this word in quite the same way. I mean, I'd regard _admiration_ as one of the finest, noblest things we humans are capable of, but the unquestioning, uncritical worship implied in the act of _idolising_ doesn't seem to me to do any favours either to the worshipper or the recipient, because it's based on ideals that aren't true.
> 
> So if I take my great hero, Elgar - my love and admiration for the man and his music is immense, possibly beyond any rational justification; but even _I_ can see the weaknesses and flaws; so I couldn't possibly _idolise_ him.


I agree with that. Idolizing doesn't have to mean that we're not critical. I can hear the difference between a great and mediocre work of my favorite composers or artists.

PS: And just for the record - I didn't mean to offend anyone with my little remark about religion. I guess I was in a bit of a naughty mood.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> I guess I was in a bit of a naughty mood.


You will doubtless receive due punishment hereafter, and be forced everlastingly to listen to all your favourite works played and sung completely out of tune.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Elgarian said:


> You will doubtless receive due punishment hereafter, and be forced everlastingly to listen to all your favourite works played and sung completely out of tune.


Is this what you have in mind?


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> Is this what you have in mind?


Oh no, no, Gaston. Nothing could deserve punishment as bad as _that!_


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with idolizing composers or artists. In fact, people who worship Mozart can at least be sure that the object of their devotion really existed - something that can't be said about the fairytale characters of religion.


 you just pushed a few buttons there. But I see the point you're illustrating.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Had a quick read of Newman's and others' accusations of the Mozart fraud. One thing I always keep in mind reagarding conspiracy theories is it is easier to create one after a phenomenom than during its time. It seems more likely to me for someone to cause doubt and try to earn a living off of selling books on the subject. 

It would take great genius to compile the stuff written by others into one style, something his competitors would have been happy to bring to light. 

I read by another author Mozart was little known during his own time, but the reviews suggest otherwise, and also Beethoven himself studied Mozart in great detail and commented on his works.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

History changes over time, goodness knows what we will believe in 500 yrs


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

chillowack said:


> I'm currently reading two books about Mozart, one of which is a collection of his letters (_The Letters of Mozart & His Family_, by Emily Anderson). This book is quite large, and contains hundreds of letters between Mozart and his family members, friends, associates, etc.
> 
> Many of these letters reference works which Mozart composed, along with detailed accounts of when and why he composed them; for whom they were composed; where they were first performed; who performed; who attended the performance; how the performance was received, etc.
> 
> ...


It reminds of the "Laurel Canyon Conspiracy" nonsense. This theory posits that practically every major Rock artist of the 60's (Morrison, Hendrix, Lennon, Dylan, the Dead, etc.) were involved in an elaborate "psy-op". How the government had the time, talent and limitless resources to do all of this is beyond me. Not only did they pull it off, they also managed to keep it completely secret for more than 50 years. Hell, even Operation Gladio was found out in less time, and that was a lot more serious and damaging. And like most conspiracy theories of this type, there's usually a Christian Fundamentalist mindset (sometimes very cleverly concealed, but still there) at back of it. This guy Newman and his Jesuits being a case in point.


----------



## christomacin (Oct 21, 2017)

Artemis said:


> As is clearly stated, the article was written by Dr Pei-Gwen South who is reckoned to be an Australian amateur musicologist. There isn't much information about this character other than the fact that he (she?) believes that Mozart was a fraud whilst Joseph Haydn was a true genius, from whom many works were stolen by Mozart. The article from which you quote was doing the rounds in 2003/4 among a few classical music Boards. The general consensus was that the article was a pile of nonsense not worth wasting time upon. If you look at some of the responses to the article you will see that RN had spotted it and invited Dr Pei-Gwen South to participate in a music Board at which RN was then active, _OpenMozart_. That Board was soon to collapse partly, it has been argued, because of the mayhem brought about by Newman's disruptive antics.


How can you doubt anything coming from someone with the name "Pei-Gwen South"? It just can't be done.:lol: Lovingly referred to by her friends as "Penguin South Pole", no doubt.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> History changes over time, goodness knows what we will believe in 500 yrs


Trump was actually played by Donald Duck


----------

