# The Controversy over the true musical achievements of Andrea Luchesi



## Guest (Jun 11, 2007)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Very interesting. Which Luchesi works have been faked ? Please give us a list. Thanks.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2007)

robert newman said:


> Very interesting. Which Luchesi works have been faked ? Please give us a list. Thanks.


Thank you for your interest in this subject. I am more than happy to provide you with all the information you require in order to encourage conversation on the musical achievements of "Moxy", this being my aim.

The details I am able to release will amaze even the most ardent sceptic, and I do appreciate that there will be many such people about. I do not call them "crazy" because it is not their fault that they have fallen prey to centuries of Establishment fiction surrounding the complete and utter, and demostrable, fakery of this drunkard, charlaton of a third-rate composer.

I wish not to disappoint but to satisfy; and in abundance will I supply all the necessary evidence. But please note that I am currently on holiday in the Isle of Wight, and thus away from my detailed records at this moment of time. I also intend to await further comment and questions from any other interested parties.

Thank you so much.


----------



## The Purple Wasp (Apr 19, 2007)

May I warn You, Mango? 
You have been already banned from at least 57 forums, because of this thesis. As a matter of fact, you are stubborn.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

HAHA...it's pretty late at night here and I was wondering you bought this up all over again, till I read the thread title and the first few lines once again.  

Come on, give this topic a break! Mr.Newman should realise that no one here* believes in what he says about the 'Mozart-Luchesi-Controversy'. Even if it is true, it is apparent that this subject brings nothing more than flame wars to these forums. So why bother with the topic at all? 

To the Luchesi-camp: Why not go public about this, so that the whole world gets to know that Mozart was a fake? Umpteen news channels are waiting like vultures to air trivial and controversial topics all the time. Moreover, there are probably millions out there who will believe you in a heartbeat. 


*Forgive me if there are believers among the members.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2007)

The Purple Wasp said:


> May I warn You, Mango?
> You have been already banned from at least 57 forums, because of this thesis. As a matter of fact, you are stubborn.


As to being banned from at least 57 forums, I am more than happy to ignore such provocation. My record is pristine.

My motive is genuinely to encourage conversation on the musical achievements of "Moxy", as opposed to that charlatan Luchesi, and to show to the very sensible majority on this Forum the folly of believing all (or any) of the nonsense put out by establishment figures.

I await any further stimulating questions and comment.


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Very stupid.


----------



## The Purple Wasp (Apr 19, 2007)

Mango, you are a ray of sunshine.


----------



## Morigan (Oct 16, 2006)

Oh my God, this is priceless. Way to go Mango! ROFL


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2007)

opus67 said:


> HAHA...it's pretty late at night here and I was wondering you bought this up all over again, till I read the thread title and the first few lines once again.
> 
> Come on, give this topic a break! Mr.Newman should realise that no one here* believes in what he says about the 'Mozart-Luchesi-Controversy'. Even if it is true, it is apparent that this subject brings nothing more than flame wars to these forums. So why bother with the topic at all?
> 
> ...


Dear Opus

I am glad that news of "Moxy" has so soon hit the east coast of India. However, I can only express surprise that you wish me to withdraw further exposure of this subject, and yet you remained silent in the face of an almost identical set of allegations concerning the situation of that other musical genius, W A Mozart.

Can you or others please let me know why you allowed Mr Newman to continue for so long (9 months) in his quite vicuious campaign denigrating the record of W A Mozart (and he is still making the same points in several threads on this Forum right now) while you are ready to ask me to cease at this very early juncture in regard to "Moxy". If I may say so, such an attitude would appear to be at least a little inconsisent.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Mango said:


> Dear Opus
> 
> I am glad that news of "Moxy" has so soon hit the east coast of India. However, I can only express surprise that you wish me to withdraw further exposure of this subject, and yet you remained silent in the face of an almost identical set of allegations concerning the situation of that other musical genius, W A Mozart.
> 
> Can you or others please let me know why you allowed Mr Newman to continue for so long (9 months) in his quite vicuious campaign denigrating the record of W A Mozart (and he is still making the same points in several threads on this Forum right now) while you are ready to ask me to cease at this very early juncture in regard to "Moxy". If I may say so, such an attitude would appear to be at least a little inconsisent.


You're good at this.


----------



## Morigan (Oct 16, 2006)

Dear Mango,

That is a very interesting argument. I'm sure your personnal records are overflowing with proofs of what you expose here. It's unfortunate that you cannot provide us with such infinite knowledge.

What about Luchesi's most famous opera, Ademira? The most common hypothesis was that Moxy's authorship concerning this work was obscured by the plottings of the Persian Shah, Agha Mohammad Khan. Do you support this theory?


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2007)

Morigan said:


> Oh my God, this is priceless. Way to go Mango! ROFL


I will demonstrate to you - by evidence which is indisputable - that "Moxy" was the greatest composer the world has ever seen, or his case the world has never seen.

I have a list of works running from Moxy1 to Moxy 754 which cover the achievements of this great man.

I will show how the Jesuits, in cahoots with the King and Queen of Spain, conspired to protect the image of their protege, Luchesi, in an evil plot that involves scenes of expensive Dry-Out clinics on Lake Geneva, and the use of less than fully repectable "houses" in Paris for the purpose of bribing and cajoling.

I have watermark evidence galore.

I also have pretty concrete evidence that Luchesi's wife was a liar. She conspired to protect her husband's name after it appeared in a Swiss gossip column alleging he was there for alcohol de-toxing. She told lies that he was there purely on a fishing trip.

It is a tale of gross deceit and fakery the musical world will be astounded to hear further details of.

Thank you so much.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Mango said:


> I have a list of works running from Moxy1 to Moxy 754 which cover the achievements of this great man.





> I have watermark evidence galore.


Mango, this is extremely misleading. Did you read my widely-published paper, "The Luchesi Thunderstorm", which can be found in almost any reputable music journal? In that paper, I clearly prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that many, many works in your so-called Moxy catalogue are, in fact, genuine compositions of Andrea Luchesi. Your watermark evidence is not correct, because it is entirely based on the sloppy research of a certain author, Lobbins Randon, frequently known for making up completely undocumented "facts."

These works, which must certainly be registered to Luchesi, include the following:

Symphonies: Moxy 297, 319, 338, 385, 425, 543, 550, 551
Divertimenti: Moxy 136, 137, 138, 247, 251, 334
Serenades: Moxy 185, 203, 204, 250, 320
Piano Concerti: Moxy 271, 413, 414, 415, 449, 450, 451, 453, 456, 459, 466, 467, 482, 488, 491, 503, 595

It was once thought that the piano concerto Moxy 537 was also a composition of Andrea Luchesi, but new evidence reveals this is actually a composition of Luchesi's _sister_... whose name is also Andrea.

Please set your facts straight. Your claims about Moxy obviously _do not hold water_. Thanks again.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> Please set your facts straight. Your claims about Moxy obviously _do not hold water_. Thanks again.


The simple truth is that on issue after issue the iconic status of Luchesi is found to be built on quicksand. I have evidence that no composer has been so grossly exaggerated and falsified as Luchesi, and that no composer has been the object of such sustained fakery, falsehood and outright fantasy. Such things are plain fact and it's a fact that can be proved from many approaches. I intend to deal with your specific questions in due course, but rest assured the evidence I have is unshakeable.

Thank you.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Mango said:


> ...the evidence I have is unshakeable.


I hope you're not referring to the manuscript which has the faint, almost imperceptible outline of the name "B.U. Moxart", found on a copy of the Symphony in D Major, Moxy 297. In my heretofore mentioned paper "The Luchesi Thunderstorm", I make clear that this is a _copyist error_, who for a brief moment in time, thought he was copying a symphony of "Moxart", when, in fact, he intended to copy an authentic symphony of Kappellmeister Andrea Luchesi. "Moxart", who is, in fact, an unknown, second-rate composer, could certainly not have composed Moxy 297, a work which can only have been written by the great Andrea Luchesi.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Symphonies: Moxy 297, 319, 338, 385, 425, 543, 550, 551
Divertimenti: Moxy 136, 137, 138, 247, 251, 334
Serenades: Moxy 185, 203, 204, 250, 320
Piano Concerti: Moxy 271, 413, 414, 415, 449, 450, 451, 453, 456, 459, 466, 467, 482, 488, 491, 503, 595

We look forward to seeing the evidence. Please tell us when you want to begin.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Robert, I was rebutting Mango. I was claiming those works for Luchesi.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Yes Leporello. I look forward to seeing how this unfolds.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

For a detailed argument AGAINST Mozart having composed the 'Paris' Symphony KV297 I recommend that you - 

1. Read Prof. Taboga's 'Works Falsely Attributed to Haydn and Mozart' 

and also - 

2. Contact Professor Luca Bianchini and Professor Anna Trombetta of the website Italianopera.org 

These two musicologists have closely examined all the available musical versions of KV297 (including those at Regensburg with its original composer's name scratched out and that of Mozart substituted) as well as at Modena and elsewhere. Including the version published in Paris. They have also examined the supposed 'sketches' by Mozart for KV297. And they are familiar with the Mozart family correspondence from the time of KV297. They can provide detailed arguments against Mozart's authorship of this work. 

Regards


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

robert newman said:


> Yes Leporello. I look forward to seeing how this unfolds.


It won't. It seems that Luchesi manufactures shoes and handbags and is currently engaged with G*cci in a battle being played out as an opera at La Scala, titled "Mozza di Rella Utilizza le mie Borse, Non la Vostra". Anna la Pasta sings the lead role Mme Lou Cheesy with Papa Vrotti, the tenor, on the Mozza side.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2007)

robert newman said:


> Yes Leporello. I look forward to seeing how this unfolds.


*MOXY*

Thank you for your and others' close interest in the work of this sadly overlooked musical genius of the late 18th century, as a result of the huge fraud and deception perpetrated by friends, family and the cynical backers of Luchesi at the time, and the relentless and continued myth-making by the Luchesi "Establishment" over the past two centuries.

I aim, over the next 25-30 pages, to set out in full the horrific detail of this tale of fraud, deception and debauchery on a scale not since the closing days of the Roman Empire. I begin by giving a short biographical account of Bert Uri Moxart.

Unfortunately, detail of Moxy's early childhood is somewhat murky owing to the fact that he was brought up in a Jesuit orphanage near Bonn, and all the records of the place were lost in a major fire in July 178O when the place burned down. Coincidentally, at that time, young Moxy moved to the close-by Bonn Chapel under the "direction" of Luchesi. Moxy's age is thought to be about 10 at the time, and was placed among the LvB student set. The highly capable young Moxy quickly established a glowing reputation for his outstanding abilities. Reliable anecdotal accounts handed down suggest that Moxy's main non-musical pastimes were squashing bugs and playing with firelighters. However, music was his utmost passion and he had mastered the cello and piano within 2 years. His early compositions were a model to all, and he would often be heard practising the cello in the early hours of the morning, much to the annoyance of fellow students.

So good was his progress as a student that he was writing his first symphonies at the age of 12 (1782). The other students went wild with jealousy, as they were only playing around with very minor works, still learning the game. Moxy found instant favour with the top echelons of the Bonn Court, and it wasn't long before this brilliant young talent was being exploited in order to protect and cover up the increasingly evident deficiencies of the Kapellmeister, whose personal problems by this stage had become a major embarrassment. I have already set out the full details elsewhere and I see no need to repeat myself here, as children may be viewing and I wish to be discreet in my descriptions.

Jumping slightly forward in time to the end of 1791, the only account we a have of Moxy's last known activity was that he was a guest at the Jesuit-run Skiing Academy in Alpine Austria and that he failed to turn up after a day's advanced runs. The mystery of his disappearance remains to this day, but poisoning by bitter rivals anxious to make a name for themselves - and to extricate themselves from the fiendishly clever contractual licence conditions Moxy had made them all sign limiting rights to 5 years - may have been a factor in the sinister death. However, no body was ever recovered. Forensic research on the charred remains of the ski resort's social centre is still in the process , but, as I said earlier, the North Koreans - who are taking the detailed research lead - are proving obstinate in allowing full access to the files at the present time.

However, enough data has been released, and only a complete idiot would fail to see the obvious connections. The evidence of fakery is there to see in a file held in Peoples Central Library in Central Korea marked B.U.M/Luc/1781-1791. This refers to the indexation system in operation at the Bonn Chapel over the relevant period. Authenticated watermark evidence was obtained and corroborated by infra-red analysis, and rocket-age technology. The type of paper in question was not manufactured any more after 1790 owing to the fact that the Jesuit-owned factory in Bonn where it was produced actually burned down in that year, coincidentally, after a day-excursion visit by Moxy and a few of his musical colleagues from the Chapel earlier on the day of the visit.

Please note new evidence is coming in all the time, and I am currently investigating a suspicion, referred to me by another member of this forum who wishes to remain silent, that it may be no coincidence that all of W A Mozart's works and all of Beethoven's Opus works sum roughly to 750, which is the number easily traceable to Moxy. This, I think you will agree that even more staggeringly interesting possibilities open up, and we could be on the verge of the biggest breakthrough ever in musical research. Not only Luchesi but also two other iconic names of the late Classical and early Romantic era could be further under the spotlight soon. Of course, I make no wild claims at this stage based on mere speculation. However, this forum could become world famous for the announcement of news on further important breakthroughs in this sphere.

I will resume this story of deceit, bribery, and corruption - as we currently know it - very soon. The evidence is glaringly obvious of from whichever angle you view it. The huge controversy will continue to amaze you, and I trust what I have written above is succinct and directly answers all your questions thus far.

Best regards


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2007)

*MOXY - TODAY'S POST*

In response to my previous posts, I have received huge support, through private messages, from fellow forum members wishing me well in my campaign to promote "Moxy" as the true brains behind the fake reputation of Luchesi.

However, I have to be fair in pointing that I have received one long-winded questioning message which concluded:



anon said:


> "So, you [expletive deleted] can you cut the cr..p and just gives us the evidence, or else go and "[expletive deleted] off".


I was flabbergasted at this post. I do wish people would not personalise the matter. However, my mission is too important to be be put off by such incidents, so I continue now to reveal further details on the scale of the unimaginable fraud and deception perpetrated by a cynical 18th century musical establishment and all the evil cover-ups since that time. The story is truly scandalous.

Just to show you an example of the kind of devastating evidence I have, I provide below a recent e-mail from one of my co-workers in N Korea, Professor Kim Il Aitch Bom Fu, who is a leading expert on rocket research at the Pyonyang Academy of Advanced Research on Rocket Science & Nuclear Fuels" (for peaceful purposes). In his spare time he uses the Institute's resources to analyse the musical files relating to Moxy's works which I referred to in my earlier post. Here is his last e-mail to me:



Email from Professor Kim Il Aitch Bom Fu said:


> Dwar Elise
> 
> How you. I fine. Look forward to big bang soon. Ameriocan pig-dogs get meassage we no pushover.
> 
> ...


I realise, of course, that Professor Kim's English is not quite up my standard, and I rather feel that some possibly extranous material from another factory plant may have inadvertently crept into the above. But I think it's clear what he is saying about the scientific musical evidence, namely that "Moxy" rules. I have lots more such e-mails, if you'd like to see.

The evidence is clear-cut. We, the public, have been conned for two centuries on the fake achievements of this Luchesi, a dwarf of a composer. The controversy will very soon be fact.

Keep watching for daily bulletins. I understand that NBC and the BBC are on the verge of a joint major TV documentary.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Op 67 writes that -

'No one here believes in what he says about the 'Mozart-Luchesi-Controversy'. Even if it is true, it is apparent that this subject brings nothing more than flame wars to these forums. So why bother with the topic at all?

Yes, *'EVEN IF IT IS TRUE'. *

But isn't this the problem ? The 'flame wars' are caused by those who would refuse to believe things even if they are true. Who have nothing to offer here but sarcasm and personalisations. 'EVEN IF THESE THINGS ARE TRUE'. Those, Op.67, are your own words.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2007)

robert newman said:


> Op 67 writes that -
> 
> 'No one here believes in what he says about the 'Mozart-Luchesi-Controversy'. Even if it is true, it is apparent that this subject brings nothing more than flame wars to these forums. So why bother with the topic at all?
> 
> ...


Thank you so much for your kind message of support. I agree that we must try not to personalise this issue. It is certainly not my intention to do so, and I will remain fully respectful of other people's right to question my arguments. I do understand how difficult some people may find accepting new ideas after having been brainwashed all their lives by the grossly deceitful, highly cynical establishment arguments used to support the myth of the greatness of Andrea Luchesi.

Let me say that I do encourage the "Establishment" to field a candidate to defend its scandalously corrupt arguments. I would be delighted to debate my arguments here in public, and trust that the very decent management of this Forum will continue to fund it at their expense for at least another 9 months so that you all get the opportunity to benefit from my wisdom, and that of my distinguished co-workers in N Korea and Iran.

The amount of fakery lurking behind the career of this 18th century Kapellmeister is an utter amazement. I mentioned what a liar Luchesi's wife was. She habitually lied and exaggerated and faked to save the skin of her miserable husband. I have a fishing licence application form, supposedly signed by Andrea Luchesi, but clearly this was a fake by her, as he was too probably drunk at the time. This is a shocking revelation. I would like to ask my critics if they deny this signature is a fake. Let them speak. They can see the faked signature at the Central People's Library, Pyonyang, N Korea. There is at present an 18 month wait for Entry Visa to N Korea, but it's a nice place to visit for a touism treat (if you are not a USA citizen).

Let me make clear what I am saying. There has been fakery and deception galore, all the way through the 19th and 20th Centuries. Textbook after textbook has repeated errors and lies, lies and lies. It's a disgrace. The world is now waking up. Reason will prevail. The myth is about to explode and the day of reckoning will be exceedingly controversial.


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Stop being childish Mango.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

You are asking a lot, Handel !


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

I don"t care if Mango criticize the Luchesi thesis. I don"t see any problem to that, but do it seriously.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Handel said:


> I don"t care if Mango criticize the Luchesi thesis. I don"t see any problem to that, but do it seriously.


I believe that the "Mozart and Mythology" thread, which started off in a rather ridiculous fashion, has since morphed into a more serious discussion. So you might want to head there for a more serious discussion and stay here for, well, the new controversy surrounding Luchesi authorship


----------



## Handel (Apr 18, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> I believe that the "Mozart and Mythology" thread, which started off in a rather ridiculous fashion, has since morphed into a more serious discussion. So you might want to head there for a more serious discussion and stay here for, well, the new controversy surrounding Luchesi authorship




My bad.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> I believe that the "Mozart and Mythology" thread, which started off in a rather ridiculous fashion, has since morphed into a more serious discussion.


Serious discussion? You must be joking. All that's happened is that Mr Newman has now admitted that he has no credibility. He states unambiguously that he has not once attempted to get anything published, even though some of his colleagues have managed to do so, albeit in highly obscure places and nothing further has appeared since.

This thread is the new focus of attention for all serious students of the history of musical fakery in late 18th Century Austria/Germany/Italy. I am very glad to see that, so far, people are taking things very enthusiastically. I continue to receive many private messages of goodwill. The huge controversy is now reaching bubbling point. I understand from one contact on the East Coast of India that the internet airwaves are jammed to saturation, with musical enthusiasts trying to get access to this Forum for the latest news of the massive fakery. The situation remains highly controversail. Further astounding revelations will follow.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Mango said:


> Serious discussion? You must be joking. All that's happened is that Mr Newman has now admitted that he has no credibility. He states unambiguously that he has not once attempted to get anything published, even though some of his colleagues have managed to do so, albeit in highly obscure places and nothing further has appeared since.


Mango, you are starting to do the very things you accuse Robert Newman of! Namely, twist people's words.

If you look carefully at my wording it states the following: "MORE serious discussion." (This is, in fact, stated not once, but twice.) I noticed that you conveniently chose to leave out the word "more" in your reply to my post. The purpose of the word "more" is to compare two things. In other words, relative to this thread (which is obviously not the least bit serious, entertaining though it may be), that thread is MORE serious, since, at the very least, real pieces of music and real people are being discussed, at least in the most recent few pages. This is in direct contrast to this thread, which Handel found to be frustrating.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> Mango, you are starting to do the very things you accuse Robert Newman of! Namely, twist people's words.
> 
> If you look carefully at my wording it states the following: "MORE serious discussion." (This is, in fact, stated not once, but twice.) I noticed that you conveniently chose to leave out the word "more" in your reply to my post. The purpose of the word "more" is to compare two things. In other words, relative to this thread (which is obviously not the least bit serious, entertaining though it may be), that thread is MORE serious than this one, in that, at the very least, real pieces of music and real people are being discussed. This is in direct contrast to this thread, which Handel found to be frustrating.


If Handel found it frustrating, why does he read it? I find most of the other threads here exceedingly boring but I don't say so. What if I jumped in on other people's threads and made similar accusations? The answers to most people's questions are either obvious or can be far more reliably seached on Google. As for ranks of works etc, how boring. These opinions change frequently and are often so ill-defined (sometimes due to ignorance) so what's the point expressing them?

He and others might have a look at other forums if they want a proper taste of frustration and boredom. Some (big ones) are boring to death. Try a few. You will be amazed how tedious they are. If anyone said they found a topic boring they are likely to be jumped on by a Mod pretty quickly. I have seen it time and time again on several forums.


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> Mango, you are starting to do the very things you accuse Robert Newman of! Namely, twist people's words.


*Starting?* You just noticed?

He/she also picks up on some minor point and splurges out typing to divert the discussion or exercise some personal frustration. Example...a whole post picking up on your add-on remark.



Leporello87 said:


> ...............This is in direct contrast to this thread, which Handel found to be frustrating.





Mango said:


> If Handel found it frustrating, why does he read it? I find most of the other threads here exceedingly boring but I don't say so. What if I jumped in on other people's threads and made similar accusations? The answers to most people's questions are either obvious or can be far more reliably seached on Google. As for ranks of works etc, how boring. These opinions change frequently and are often so ill-defined (sometimes due to ignorance) so what's the point expressing them?
> 
> He and others might have a look at other forums if they want a proper taste of frustration and boredom. Some (big ones) are boring to death. Try a few. You will be amazed how tedious they are. If anyone said they found a topic boring they are likely to be jumped on by a Mod pretty quickly. I have seen it time and time again on several forums.


Mango, it's just possible that others including Handel and myself might want to contribute to or learn from the thread. Or just talk about it. 
But faced with your quagmire of typing, derision, sarcasm, vitriol and misquotation _readers get frustrated._ So, please focus on the spirit of the discussion, cut out the sarcasm, stop talking down to people. I mean, people don't need to be told to go elsewhere if they're bored...they're capable of working that out for themselves. Trouble is, most of them were here before you.

So if YOU don't like Mr. Newman's and others' contributions, then shouldn't you be thinking of being bored elsewhere?

Apologies that I can't be more conciliatory.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

Frasier said:


> [Mango, it's just possible that others including Handel and myself might want to contribute to or learn from the thread. Or just talk about it.
> Faced with a quagmire of typing, derision, sarcasm, name-calling and misquoting in the process usually just to twist the discussion round to something that suits you, _readers get frustrated._ It IS frustrating. So, Mango, please focus on the spirit of the discussion, cut out the sarcasm, stop talking down to people. I mean, people don't need to be told to go elsewhere if they're bored...most are capable of thinking that out for themselves. Trouble is, most of them were here before you.
> 
> So if YOU don't like Mr. Newman's and others' contributions, then shouldn't you be thinking of being bored elsewhere?
> ...


Are you denying my right to be able to comment as I see fit on the pile of nonsense that is spewed out incessantly by Mr Newman rubbishing the name of Mozart and Haydn?

As a lover of Mozart's music, I find the accusations both laugable and highly offensive, all rolled into one.

I find your apologies for encouraging yet more of this nonsense, after *9 months *of it so far, to be more than a little wet. Who are you to lecture me on how to handle my side of this debate? I'll do it the way I wish. I stand ready to be corrected by Mods, if necessary, not you. If you have any complaints take it to them, so please stop pestering me with your silly posts.

If the Mods have any sense, which they very clearly do, they will see that I am in the 99.999% majority here. All I am doing is responding to completely un-substantaited nonsense peddled by this anonymous, and self-confessed unqualified person. I think they would look very silly indeed if they tried to gag me, given the completely one-sided virtue of proper argument, but if that's what they want to do I couldn't care less.

I am sorry I can't be more conciliatory. OK?


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

You are not supported 99.999%. There aren't even 100000 members! And Mr Newman isn't talking _*completely* unsubstantiated nonsense_ because we do know that some music originally attributed to Mozart has more recently been transferred to the correct composer. Even I know that and I'm not a Mozart fan. I dare say there will be more.

However, this will be my last message on this and related threads. I had hoped to learn something. I think Mr Newman has something worthwhile to say but I have to skim through your diatribes so subsequent posts make sense and sure, I get a laugh but it's a waste of time!

Maybe the moderators will see this. I don't specially want to leave the site as it's otherwise a nice place to talk about music.

No need to reply. I'm leaving this topic alone. If you hurl any abuse my way I'll drop a report to the mods and ask them to edit it out.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Frasier said:


> *Starting?* You just noticed?


No, I've noticed before. Sorry, bad choice of words, I was writing that after midnight here in California. Was getting tired 



> Mango, it's just possible that others including Handel and myself might want to contribute to or learn from the thread. Or just talk about it.


I'd also like to point out that someone has to READ a thread first before they can decide they don't like it. Strange, but true! Handel seems to be genuinely interested in what evidence Mr. Newman has concerning Haydn, and he found the "Luchesi controversy" to be beside the point. Although I find the "Luchesi controversy" entertaining, Handel does have a point.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Mango said:


> I am sorry I can't be more conciliatory. OK?


Mango, there are different approaches to everything here. You will notice that in this whole discussion, I am, thus far, on your side. Although I agree with Robert that there is undoubtedly a mythological aspect to Mozart discussion, in terms of some outlandish ideas propagated by people in the 19th century, I am not currently in agreement with his assertion that Mozart is responsible for composing very few of the compositions now "attributed" to him.

But notice how differently we go about things! If you take a look earlier in the Mozart and Mythology thread, Robert and I have a fairly lengthy discussion about KV 361 and KV 46. Notice how even though Robert and I are not in agreement, it is nonetheless a courteous discussion, one that does not get degenerate into insults. You dismissively stated that such minutiae, such as what was discussed in connection with KV 361 and KV 46, belong in academic journals. But does it? You've stated yourself here you want to see Robert's specific evidence concerning Mozart's non-authorship. Then, the one time in this whole ridiculous discussion we actually go in-depth into one particular piece, in full detail, you write it off as something that belongs in an academic journal. What, precisely, are you trying to get out of this discussion, then?

Here's another idea. You feel your goal in this thread is to point out to others (who are perhaps less astute than yourself or perhaps do not have a native command of English) that Robert does not have the evidence that he needs, to convince others he is wrong. What better way to do than to actually engage in a discussion and try to debunk the argument. If you read the KV 361 discussion carefully, there is some good give and take. I begin by pointing out that Robert left out a couple important ideas from an article he cited, and brought up other issues. He countered with more information. In the end, notice how he AGREES there is quite a bit more in the way of evidence that is needed to prove this case. This is what you wanted to him to admit, right? Still, a very different approach from what you've taken in this discussion.

So, readers of this thread will see that in terms of building the case for Mozart not having composed KV 361, there is still work to be done, to say the least. People will either take away with them that Robert could be correct, based on the strangeness of the KV 46 situation, or they might take away with them that Robert is incorrect, based on the fact that there is insufficient evidence. But at least they thought about it. They got a chance to see some of the current discussion and evidence, and they've seen a couple different interpretations.

In that sense, I got to the conclusion I was hoping for -- to make it clear that the evidence is not there to PROVE beyond a doubt Mozart's non-authorship of KV 361. But it's a very different approach than the approach you take.

I will agree that Robert sometimes get caught up in writing long, elaborate posts which largely summarize the bigger case, without proof. I will agree that he says highly controversial statements with words like "indisputable", "in fact", "beyond a reasonable doubt", etc., suggesting that unorthodox statements are fact -- and then does not offer proof in the next sentence. The best thing to do here is to really press for specific details, to find out precisely which facts the argument in question is being based on. As the KV 361 exchange I had with Robert implies, this is certainly not impossible to do, as much as you've suggested that it is impossible.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

Frasier said:


> You are not supported 99.999%. There aren't even 100000 members! And Mr Newman isn't talking _*completely* unsubstantiated nonsense_ because we do know that some music originally attributed to Mozart has more recently been transferred to the correct composer. Even I know that and I'm not a Mozart fan. I dare say there will be more.
> 
> However, this will be my last message on this and related threads. I had hoped to learn something. I think Mr Newman has something worthwhile to say but I have to skim through your diatribes so subsequent posts make sense and sure, I get a laugh but it's a waste of time!
> 
> ...


I have never hurled any abuse at you. It's the other way round. It was your posts that were edited, and none of mine.

As regards the 99.99%, I was referring to the classical music population at large, not the small sample that dwells here. I though this point was quite clear.

You can do what you like about asking the Moderators to edit my posts. I can assure you that I have not once been asked by the Mod to moderate my posts. The only thing that has happened is that I was asked once not to respond to, or get too annoyed at, the abusive posts, I have received. I tried my best to do so but some of the rubbish was too much to listen to. I have responded in kind only when appropriate. So get a hold of that if you will.

I don't give in easily, as you will have discovered. The one thing in life that annoys me is dealing with charlatans.

Thank you so much, and I trust I will never hear from you again for all the use your input has been.


----------



## Saturnus (Nov 7, 2006)

opus67 said:


> Come on, give this topic a break! Mr.Newman should realise that no one here* believes in what he says about the 'Mozart-Luchesi-Controversy'. Even if it is true, it is apparent that this subject brings nothing more than flame wars to these forums. So why bother with the topic at all?
> 
> To the Luchesi-camp: Why not go public about this, so that the whole world gets to know that Mozart was a fake? Umpteen news channels are waiting like vultures to air trivial and controversial topics all the time. Moreover, there are probably millions out there who will believe you in a heartbeat.
> 
> *Forgive me if there are believers among the members.


Well I find Newman's theory intresting and not totally ridiculus. Why the Luchesi-camp does not go public is that I think those who make money out of the Mozart-logo (this man has become a logo, face it, it's enough to look at the Mozart-kügler) are simply way too powerful.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

Leporello87 said:


> Mango, there are different approaches to everything here. You will notice that in this whole discussion, I am, thus far, on your side.


You are a "Saint" and I admire your kindly attitude. I am far more convinced than you that Mr Newman is very substantially wrong.

I will, however, leave you in peace to develop your arguments. I promise not to comment further on this thread for a while yet. But I may return later depending on how things develop.

Thank you.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

I am not trying to be a saint. My view on this is wholly practical. If the arguments that Robert puts forth are rubbish and if he is "substantially wrong", as you put it, that will be abundantly clear when he posts whatever evidence he has, and then we can proceed on our merry way, having lost nothing except perhaps a little time.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Thank you Saturnus for your comments. You have a good attitude. Fairness. I hope you can continue to examine these arguments from both perspectives in forming your judgement on them. 

Regards


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2007)

Morigan said:


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


Dear Morigan

I promised a daily update. I continue the exposition of the absurdly positive reputation of the fake Luchesi at the expense of the super-brilliant, but grossly disfranchised, student Berti Uri Moxart ("Moxy"). This is tale of enormous deception and intrigue. The fakery revelations will astound you.

Earlier today I was sent an important e-mail from a colleague working on this project too, Professor Luigi Conamano who is currently on secondment to a top rated academic institution somewhere in Iran (I'm sworn to utter secrecy), who is an authority on jig-saw puzzles and mending broken false teeth.

Prof, Conamano has recently presented a paper to the Department of Mathematics at the said University on the the "Properties of Cumulant Generating Functions in Statitical Hypothesis Of Non-Parametric Distributions in the Field of Astrophysics". As part of his paper he turned at the end to present the following lucid account of his recent research into the likelihood that "Moxy", not Luchesi was the true composer of various high profile compositions allegedly composer by Andrea Luchesi. This is what he said:



E mail from Professor Conamano said:


> Hi Elise
> 
> _For the last two centuries the correctness of the attributions and the greatness of the Andrea Luchesi is thought to be confirmed by such nonsense and by forgeries that can be found, in more or less imaginative versions. I tella you from the bottoma my hart that logic excludes any odd hypothesis and ectoplasm. The ever-so-nica and very authentico Moxy, my favorite, diversified his production; he wrota many works for Lucehesi and wrota many nica works too for the Haydn too, mama mia. I say to you too that Schubert even though he only a tiny bambino knew that Luchesi wasa biga conman. I tell yoo too that Luchesi spent much time on the vino and his lady had mucho trouble getting him outa jail. I sincere too in saying Beethoven no flippin gooda without the longlasting benefit of Moxy his close student friend at Bonn. Is most clear I say ever-so-nice Moxy musica big shame gone in big encephalosclerosis problem. Not nica for mama. Gone no say Ciao. Not sure was skiing problem. Musical style of Moxy uniqa. Sounds not like Mozart. As we knew that the school style spreads like in a family, from master to pupils so Luchesi big con I say,
> 
> ...


With evidence like this, do I need say any more? It all adds up to a pretty striking indictment of Luchesi, wouldn't you agree? The meaning is all pretty clear to me and hardly needs further clarification.

I told you the case was open and shut didn't I?

More will follow.

Thank you so much.


----------

