# The Large Cloud of Falsified Truth & MOZART



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

The thing which gets under my skin about Mozart is the way in which esteemed musicians and the general public seem to esteem every droplet of notes to come forth from his pen.

My opinion differs from a lot of others. I don't think he really composed anything particularly good until about 1775. Even at this point, the quality of his work varies a lot. Other than one or two piano sonatas, I think his compositions in the medium were (as they were intended often to be) utilities for teaching, without real distinct in depth musical quality.

This comment from George Szell is exemplary of the blind love that I think goes along with Mozart's legacy

_21 piano sonatas, 27 piano concertos, 41 symphonies, 18 masses, 13 operas, 9 oratorios and cantata, 2 ballets, 40 plus concertos for various instruments, string quartets, trios and quintets, violin and piano duets piano quartets, and the songs. This astounding output includes hardly one work less than a masterpiece. _​
This thought process that Mozart's supreme genius left him with hardly a flaw, and that the near entirety of his music is so great...This is the problem that I think will ultimately come back to haunt the legacy of this composer. If you've listened to other classical composers of the time (Boccherini, Pleyel, Clementi....as discussed in another thread)....then you realize that most of Mozart's music, especially the early works have no superiority above these composers and that it is not likely that any of the composers mentioned above will greet unanimous critical acclaim in the form of "masterpiece after masterpiece." My love for Mozart's music is immense, but I feel I see him far more realistically. I do not think he had more than 3 dozen truly great works, and if I were to use the term masterpiece very conservatively as I prefer to, I would say Mozart had approximately a dozen masterpieces, maybe up to 16.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Yes, that statement is ridiculous. Three dozen great works is still more than just about anyone else though, as is sixteen masterpieces. And I can think of more than sixteen masterpieces even being conservative: Last 5 operas, last 4 symphonies, piano concerti #20, 21, 23-25 and 27, clarinet concerto. That's sixteen, but what about string quintets, clarinet quintet, string quartets, earlier operas, earlier piano concerti, Masses, etc...plenty of masterpieces to be found there also.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

If it's any consolation I'm not exactly keen on his juvenilia either - the earliest works I can probably claim to particularly like are his K190 Concertone for two violins and orchestra, the Bassoon concerto and symphony no. 25 but even then he was still only about 17 when he composed them!


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Since we are apparently looking for 'masterpieces', which can mean anything to anyone...first that pops up to mind is kv174. It sounds like a lot of this so-called 'blind love' is merely being countered by blind prejudice. Many of us who have truly sat down and listened to all of his works performed by different/and some of the best artists can easily start to name great works he has written and the list would pass a few dozen within a couple of minutes. If Mahler, however, is what one considers grandiose and holy then I am afraid Mozart will never fit into that description.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Put this on the short-list of "Thread-Titles-Most-Likely-to-Freak-Out-the-Moderation-Team!"

Headers like this bring back some really... scary... memories!

More on-topic, the comment that Mozart's legacy will be subsequently haunted is something I can't accept on its face. His legacy has endured for over 200 years since its passing, and will remain safe in spite of the comments of _über_-fans, admirers, critics, and yes, even the vendors of conspiracy hypotheses.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

kv466 said:


> Since we are apparently looking for 'masterpieces', which can mean anything to anyone...first that pops up to mind is kv174. It sounds like a lot of this so-called 'blind love' is merely being countered by blind prejudice. Many of us who have truly sat down and listened to all of his works performed by different/and some of the best artists can easily start to name great works he has written and the list would pass a few dozen within a couple of minutes. If Mahler, however, is what one considers grandiose and holy then I am afraid Mozart will never fit into that description.


with the exception of the rare few who have encyclopedic knowledge of every single melody ever penned by Mozart, I believe I could take even a second or third rate composer's composition from the same milieu in which Mozart lived, and if the CD read the name Mozart, that person would sit there and very possibly blindly evaluate in favor of Mozart, because Mozart can do no wrong.

The majority of Mozart's music (I've heard at least 300 works) is not supremely above the other composers of his day.


----------



## Eviticus (Dec 8, 2011)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Put this on the short-list of "Thread-Titles-Most-Likely-to-Freak-Out-the-Moderation-Team!"
> 
> Headers like this bring back some really... scary... memories!
> 
> More on-topic, the comment that Mozart's legacy will be subsequently haunted is something I can't accept on its face. His legacy has endured for over 200 years since its passing, and will remain safe in spite of the comments of _über_-fans, admirers, critics, and yes, even the vendors of conspiracy hypotheses.


Great links and very challenging theories - (especially the one that says Mozart did not actually compose the last 3 symphonies!) 
We know Mozart didn't compose a handful of the symphonies attributed to him (the most famous being 37) but i really do wonder if an major work was not Mozart?

Does anyone know what happened to the poster of these (Robert)?


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> The majority of Mozart's music (I've heard at least 300 works) is not supremely above the other composers of his day.


Name a composer for whom the majority of his/her music is supremely above the music of his/her contemporaries. Maybe the decade-or-so long period between Haydn's death and Schubert's maturity was dominated very much by Beethoven, but I can't think of any other examples.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

jalex said:


> Name a composer for whom the majority of his/her music is supremely above the music of his/her contemporaries.


My thoughts exactly. If there were one we wouldn't always be arguing about who was the greatest composer


----------



## Eviticus (Dec 8, 2011)

Found this on you tube by the ex poster Robert Newman (in reference to the links above)


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

DavidMahler said:


> The thing which gets under my skin about Mozart is the way in which esteemed musicians and the general public seem to esteem every droplet of notes to come forth from his pen.
> 
> My opinion differs from a lot of others. I don't think he really composed anything particularly good until about 1775. Even at this point, the quality of his work varies a lot. Other than one or two piano sonatas, I think his compositions in the medium were (as they were intended often to be) utilities for teaching, without real distinct in depth musical quality.
> 
> ...


You've truly mastered the art be being outraged.

Is there anyone who thinks that every work of Mozart is a masterpiece? The very early works are utterly charming. The symphony No 1, String Quartet No 1, a few others, are remarkable and strike a deeper chord with me than typical works of Mozart's contemporaries. There is a shocking directness to them. The middle works are the ones I am more likely to find dreary. But the major late works are at different level that other works of the classical period, at least as I perceive them.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

Eviticus said:


> Found this on you tube by the ex poster Robert Newman (in reference to the links above)


Oh my god, Mr. Newman is a borderline psychotic, and if this torrent of idiotic drivel is going to come up again I'm quitting the site.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

_Youtube text response_:

Beethoven only wrote one of the piano sonatas and none of the string quartets; Bach never played a fugue; Chopin and Liszt were mediocre pianists at best; Stravinsky was the best composer ever born and Haydn was really from South America...oh, and he didn't write any of the first 100 symphonies, either


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Eviticus, please don't. RN is a registered quack; according to one wikipedia editor his opinions are "non-notable fringe theories," without any substantial basis in fact. If you ask him directly about his theories they are all speculation based off a few "oddities" (ignoring the vast majority of documentation that supports what we know now to be fact).


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Eviticus said:


> Does anyone know what happened to the poster of these (Robert)?


One can only hope, but he may have crawled back under the rock he came out from.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I really don't understand the continued need to undermine Mozart. If you feel that Mozart is overrated, fine... but the constant efforts to prove that your personal opinions amount to fact border on the absurd. I might also suggest that statements such as...

_...with the exception of the rare few who have encyclopedic knowledge of every single melody ever penned by Mozart, I believe I could take even a second or third rate composer's composition from the same milieu in which Mozart lived, and if the CD read the name Mozart, that person would sit there and very possibly blindly evaluate in favor of Mozart, because Mozart can do no wrong._

...verges upon insulting. So all those who listen to Mozart do so unthinkingly and without listening... just accepting what they have been told? **. I can't think of any Mozart lover who doesn't recognize the superiority of some works over others. Personally, I could not care the least how many mediocre or even poor works of art an artist made, what matters is the great works. Picasso made more bad paintings than possibly any other artist in history... but at the same time he also made more great art than any other artist in the 20th century. His reputation rests upon this. I don't take points off for each mediocre or bad work that Mozart penned. I accept that he was a child prodigy... but his compositions do not begin to consistently surpass his peers until later in his career. The amount of brilliant works composed within that brief period of real maturity, however, is astounding.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Eviticus, please don't. RN is a registered quack; according to one wikipedia editor his opinions are "non-notable fringe theories," without any substantial basis in fact. If you ask him directly about his theories they are all speculation based off a few "oddities" (ignoring the vast majority of documentation that refutes them).


Mr. Newman also actively promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories, as well as other fringe theories. Susceptibility to conspiracy theories has recently been characterized as a mental disorder involving logically invalid thought processes and Mr. Newman seems to have a very severe case.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Great links and very challenging theories - (especially the one that says Mozart did not actually compose the last 3 symphonies!) 
We know Mozart didn't compose a handful of the symphonies attributed to him (the most famous being 37) but i really do wonder if an major work was not Mozart?

Does anyone know what happened to the poster of these (Robert)?

I will chime in in agreement with the others. Robert was a whacko. Beyond his theories concerning Mozart he also held firm to conspiracy theories concerning Shakespeare, Haydn, Beethoven, Goethe, the US Apollo moonlandings, crop circles, graffiti in London subways, the 9-11 attacks, and quite likely Elvis as well.


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2011)

Newman hated contemporary music, too, including some fairly old stuff like Schoenberg, though he did occasionally mention some twentieth century tonal composers that he thought were OK.


...


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

He's one step away from timecube.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I really don't understand the continued need to undermine Mozart. If you feel that Mozart is overrated, fine... but the constant efforts to prove that your personal opinions amount to fact border on the absurd. I might also suggest that statements such as...
> 
> _...with the exception of the rare few who have encyclopedic knowledge of every single melody ever penned by Mozart, I believe I could take even a second or third rate composer's composition from the same milieu in which Mozart lived, and if the CD read the name Mozart, that person would sit there and very possibly blindly evaluate in favor of Mozart, because Mozart can do no wrong._
> 
> ...verges upon insulting. So all those who listen to Mozart do so unthinkingly and without listening... just accepting what they have been told? **. I can't think of any Mozart lover who doesn't recognize the superiority of some works over others. Personally, I could not care the least how many mediocre or even poor works of art an artist made, what matters is the great works. Picasso made more bad paintings than possibly any other artist in history... but at the same time he also made more great art than any other artist in the 20th century. His reputation rests upon this. I don't take points off for each mediocre or bad work that Mozart penned. I accept that he was a child prodigy... but his compositions do not begin to consistently surpass his peers until later in his career. The amount of brilliant works composed within that brief period of real maturity, however, is astounding.


no you are mistaken in the sense that I admit that Mozart was the genius of the caliber. But the concept that all his works are above average, let alone extraordinary, for his time is a blind love affair with Mozart IMO. I think you can take Dittersdorf work that is fairly unknown and tell someone with at least an intermediary education in classical music that it's Mozart and that person will sit there and listen with more enthusiasm and attention than if the person were told it was writter by Dittersdorf. Conversely, I think you can take a fairly unknown Mozart work and tell the person it was written by Dittersdorf and they will say "oh, i guess it's ok"


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)




----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think you can take Dittersdorf work that is fairly unknown and tell someone with at least an intermediary education in classical music that it's Mozart and that person will sit there and listen with more enthusiasm and attention than if the person were told it was writter by Dittersdorf. Conversely, I think you can take a fairly unknown Mozart work and tell the person it was written by Dittersdorf and they will say "oh, i guess it's ok"

And do you honestly believe that we could not do this with a great many other composers? Considering the huge oeuvres of composers such as Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi if one were presented with one of the finer works of Zelenka, Alessandro Scarlatti, Buxtehude, Telemann, etc... one might be fooled into thinking one was listening to a work by Bach, Handel, or Vivaldi. I fully agree that one might take a work by Stamitz or Hoffmeister or many other less-well-known composers and convince someone that the work is by Mozart... of Haydn... or even Beethoven. But what does this prove? A good many works by Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Brahms, Handel, etc... are no better than a lot of fine works by other composers. Indeed, I might go further and suggest that some of the very finest works by less-well-known composers can rival some of the strongest efforts by the better-known composers. Mozart, Bach, Handel, Beethoven, etc... simply rise to such levels (and higher) more often, and their efforts have impacted the subsequent developments of music more profoundly.

Personally, I have been delving deeper and deeper into the vast wealth of great music of the Baroque. In spite of the wealth that I have discovered, I don't find myself feeling Bach's reputation is undeserved. If you are suggesting that Mozart's reputation is largely taken on faith by those who have not taken the time to listen to all that surrounded him, I ask you whose reputation is not taken on faith in a similar manner? Have all those who embrace Shakespeare read the wealth of English theater by other poets of the period (to say nothing of French, Italian, Spanish, etc... playwrights?) The reality is that there are many whose artistic achievements are unfairly ignored regardless of their merits. This does not infer that all those whose reputations tower over them are not deserving of their adulation.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

DavidMahler said:


> no you are mistaken in the sense that I admit that Mozart was the genius of the caliber. But the concept that all his works are above average, let alone extraordinary, for his time is a blind love affair with Mozart IMO. I think you can take Dittersdorf work that is fairly unknown and tell someone with at least an intermediary education in classical music that it's Mozart and that person will sit there and listen with more enthusiasm and attention than if the person were told it was writter by Dittersdorf. Conversely, I think you can take a fairly unknown Mozart work and tell the person it was written by Dittersdorf and they will say "oh, i guess it's ok"


I would see a point to this if you could name one person on this forum who would disagree with you (i.e., claim that every work of Mozart is a masterwork, untouchable by his contemporaries). I don't think you could find one. I'm a great admirer of Mozart but it is clear that some works are inspired and others were written to pay for the pork chops he loved so well. Why do you care of someone uninterested in music and who has seen the film "Amadeus" has this misconception?

You are so enamored of the state of being outraged, that you have to fabricate things to be outraged at?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

DavidMahler I would take George Szell's opinion before yours he didn't suffer fools gladly you know.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

moody said:


> DavidMahler I would take George Szell's opinion before yours he didn't suffer fools gladly you know.


It is also true that Szell did not perform every work of Mozart. It is important to consider the context of his quote. If it came in a press interview of in promotional materials for a Mozart concert, then I wouldn't assume it should be taken literally. (Or maybe he really held Mozart in such high esteem. I wouldn't hold it against him.)


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> no you are mistaken in the sense that I admit that Mozart was the genius of the caliber. But the concept that all his works are above average, let alone extraordinary, for his time is a blind love affair with Mozart IMO. I think you can take Dittersdorf work that is fairly unknown and tell someone with at least an intermediary education in classical music that it's Mozart and that person will sit there and listen with more enthusiasm and attention than if the person were told it was writter by Dittersdorf. Conversely, I think you can take a fairly unknown Mozart work and tell the person it was written by Dittersdorf and they will say "oh, i guess it's ok"


As someone who has listened to a great deal of obscure classical era composers, and knows how to appreciate things that many people would consider "routine," I have to say that time and time again, my desire to want to place other composers as being superior to many things by Mozart has been thwarted by my musical senses, which reveal to that even a less developed and serious Mozart had a grounding in musical theory and melodic inspiration that could best his contemporaries. A Dittersdorf or Michael Haydn work of more ambition and development than a quaint little Mozart symphony simply has a different sound to it, that though bigger, is arguably less magical and thematically distinct.

So, DavidMahler, my question to you that I'd like you to respond to, is one with musical examples that would demand your unbiased attention:
I find this work, and early Mozart symphony 



 on par with this very fine Michael Haydn symphony 



, perhaps in some ways superior to the Michael Haydn, though they both give me a different something to stimulate me. The Mozart is very finely wrought and sleek the ideas better connected, the Michael Haydn perhaps has a little more meat on it and is more excitingly jarring. What do you think?


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

I disagree with the OP. Mozart’s strong reputation was never based on the reckoning that all or even most of his works are of superlative value. 

The fact is that, according to his fans and many distinguished musicians down the ages, Mozart at his best was capable of producing generally far better work than any of his contemporaries. His ability to tower head and shoulders above the competition above is what gives added value to some of his less brilliant works, i.e. purely because they were written by Mozart. 

Likewise, works which were once thought to be written by Mozart but which were found out later to have been written by another composer (eg K 444) lost value overnight even though it obviously remained unchanged in all technical and quality respects. 

It's all simply a matter of elementary economics. This kind of thing is a fact of life, and you don't need to know a thing about classical music, or Mozart, to realise this. 

Again, it would appear that yet another thread has been created based on a naive interpretaion of the evidence to support its conjecture.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Artemis said:


> Again, it would appear that yet another thread has been created based on a naive interpretaion of the evidence to support its conjecture.


*Monocle pops off*


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't think there's any composer who only composed "masterpieces". Some composers created one work of lasting value... Some created dozens. The truly great ones are remarkable because usually even their lesser works are interesting. Mozart certainly fits that bill.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I don't think there's any composer who only composed "masterpieces".


I agree with this but I still find it amazing that my favorite composer wrote what I consider to be 5 perfect piano concertos, each one getting better; 9 of the finest and most unique symphonies ever composed; 32 piano sonat--

Oh, well, you know what I mean. Strengthens my belief that less is more.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Artemis said:


> Mozart at his best was capable of producing generally far better work than any of his contemporaries. His ability to tower head and shoulders above the competition...


I generally agree with your post but I think this does a bit of a disservice to Haydn. I don't think any of Mozart's works are 'head and shoulders' above The Creation or the Missa in Anguistiis.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Strengthens my belief that less is more.

Except when it came to his sole opera.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

David Mahler,

You've created a straw man and demolished him admirably. Where you are dead wrong is to suggest that Mozart has not created as many masterpieces as the other "great" composers. There are many,many dozens of WAM masterpieces.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Strengthens my belief that less is more.
> 
> Except when it came to his sole opera.


Amen to that!


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Whoa! This Robert Newman character's theories are very intriguing! I have to say I was astonished to read that the majority of the great works by Mozart and Haydn were written by this composer called Luchesi . . .

. . . Until I actually read his responses to the people who were questioning him. And, well, I wasn't impressed by how he responded to this:


> "Eyebrows have been raised at the spectacular output of Mozart and Haydn individually, but to have produced the output for both seems super-human."


His response was that he didn't actually respond. But who knows? Maybe it would have been possible if Luchesi had Bach's intellect combined with Telleman's productivity?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Robert Newman? That's what we call a bull-sheet-artist.


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Anyone who takes seriously R Newman and his idiotic theories is........... guess what - an idiot him/her self.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I agree with others that over all the amount of mediocre works don't bother me as far as Mozart. When I listen to certain things like his Piano Concertos and late Quintets etc. To my ears I am clearly listening to some of the finest music ever created. In ways I don't think Mozart has been surpassed in those two areas to this day. Not to mention his Operas, other concertos, choral works and late symphonies etc. Many and probably most of which are masterpieces.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'm not sure I know to what the phrase, "The Large Cloud of Falsified Truth", refers.

I agree with poconoron that the OP creates a straw man. Even if Szell believed that quote, I'd be quite surprised if even a moderate percentage of classical music listeners agrees with it. As others have pointed out (and DavidMahler apparently agrees), Mozart is considered to be one of the truly greatest composers because of the large number of masterpieces he wrote. I think we all (or almost all) agree that Mozart wrote lessor works. and for those of us who place him near the very top of compositional geniuses, _we don't much care_.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

What Newman wants is attention, and that's what Talk Classical and almost every other respectable classical music board around denied him. It's stunning that for awhile, so many people were actually listening to him, and giving him an actual debate to feed off of (the very epitome of troll's "food").

In other words, you couldn't have picked a better name for the thread, DavidMahler! 

Regarding Szell's statement -

We must remember that Old George was an individual as well, as is every other human being out there who has the healthy inclination to love one composer's music above the rest. Szell's fervent passion for Mozart is something that I have utmost respect for. In a time when classical era music was beginning to fall out of fashion, Szell was at the forefront of making sure that the music of Haydn and Mozart lived on. He loved what he did, and because he did so, Mozart's music survives in even more glory than it would have if he had not done so. Imagine a world in which no one was ever passionate, even "blindly" passionate, about any composer, any books, any jobs, any woman or man. It would be dull, to say the least.

A personal observation, to end -

I am a huge fan of classical radio, and the idea that classical music is being shared with the community where I live. While my station does cater to its audiences, it also tries to instill on them a more eclectic taste. Thus, I often hear a mixture of Mozart, Haydn, and many of their classical era contemporaries when I turn on the radio. One of my favorite exercises is to "guess" the composer of the work that I first hear. Having done this for many years, I have noticed a trend - I can almost _always_ pick out a Mozart work, even more so than a Haydn work or a Beethoven work or a work by any other classical composer. A certain quality - mind you, not a quantitative quality (i.e. it's "better"), but rather a qualitative quality - is always apparent, making it stand out above the rest. And that has got to count for something.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

The reason why I single out Mozart, far beyond Szell's quote which I used merely for example, is that unlike other composers (save for Bach), there seems to be this willingness on the part of general western culture to believe in Mozart's infallible genius. 

That's all I am getting at here. It is more accepted to criticize Beethoven it seems, than Mozart, who is seen as a composer of perfection. The way I see it, Mozart is practically a brand name. More than other composers.
Can this not be seen?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

bigshot said:


> I don't think there's any composer who only composed "masterpieces". Some composers created one work of lasting value... Some created dozens. The truly great ones are remarkable because usually even their lesser works are interesting. Mozart certainly fits that bill.


On the contrary Wagner is 10/10. The trick is to disown everything not up to par.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidMahler said:


> The reason why I single out Mozart, far beyond Szell's quote which I used merely for example, is that unlike other composers (save for Bach), there seems to be this willingness on the part of general western culture to believe in Mozart's infallible genius.


Millions of people think God is infallible and _he_ drowned the world after his first little effort didn't turn out so well. If God can be infallible and get away with a mistake like that, we can forgive the stuff Mozart wrote presumably after a heavy night of drinking.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Couchie said:


> On the contrary Wagner is 10/10. The trick is to disown everything not up to par.


Wagner was able to disown a symphony, several overtures and a few operas!


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

DavidMahler said:


> The reason why I single out Mozart, far beyond Szell's quote which I used merely for example, is that unlike other composers (save for Bach), there seems to be this willingness on the part of general western culture to believe in Mozart's infallible genius.
> 
> That's all I am getting at here. It is more accepted to criticize Beethoven it seems, than Mozart, who is seen as a composer of perfection. The way I see it, Mozart is practically a brand name. More than other composers.
> 
> *Can this not be seen?*


 Not in my case, I'm afraid.

Firstly, I think that the main problem is that there seems to be only a very tenuous connection between the sensational title you selected for this thread (_The Large Cloud of Falsified Truth and MOZART_) and the thesis as set out in your OP.

You have done yourself a disservice in choosing this highly provocative thread title. For those familiar with the antics of "Robert Newman", this would have been a perfect title that he himself might have selected as a device to launch yet another round of his bogus and far-fetched arguments to show that Mozart was a fraud and that generations of his fans have been duped into believing that he was the author of all the works attributed to him. The title itself is strongly suggestive that it's a proven fact that Mozart's reputation is based on false claims about what he actually wrote. But that's not what you are actually saying, since the OP raises an entirely different matter altogether in asking why generations of Mozart fans and scholars appear to have believed that everything he wrote was a masterpiece, despite the fact that some of them are no better than those of some of his contemporaries.

Secondly, on the matter which you say you are actually interested in - why Mozart fans appear to believe that everything he wrote was a masterpiece without questioning that he did actually write them - you've had your answer loud and clear from several members. I can't see why you are still questioning it. I don't disagree with the comments made by most others, but my particular take on all this is that many of the works of Mozart (including some of the lesser works looked at purely artistically) take on a higher perceived value than they otherwise would by virtue of the provenance that they were written by a an outstanding musical genius. Besides, I do not think that it is correct to argue, as you have done, that all the works of Mozart are highly esteemed by scholars and the general public, since there are clearly many minor works which are not looked upon in the manner you suggest.

In summary, you have selected a provocative and misleading thread title that bears little resemblance to your main question. Your actual question sets out an incorrect assessment ( I called it "naive" previously) of the way in which Mozart's entire output is actually seen by the majority of his fans and by scholars. They do not pretend that they are all masterpieces, as you claim. However, even some of the lesser ones are still generally highly valued because they're by Mozart. This shouldn't need any further clarification as it's a commonly observed phenomemon in any artistic field. Witness, for example, the great excitement last year when some previously lost minor work by Vivaldi was found. You can complain and bleat all you like about the way markets react to such discoveries by geniuses but it's a fact of life.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

jalex said:


> I generally agree with your post but I think this does a bit of a disservice to Haydn. I don't think any of Mozart's works are 'head and shoulders' above The Creation or the Missa in Anguistiis.


That's your personal opinion but I doubt that it's the opinion of the majority of classical music fans. Haydn was in the second tier of greats, not to be confused with the three "immortals" Beethoven, Mozart, Bach (in that order in my opinion.) In saying this I am not trying to underrate the importance of Haydn. He is in there among some other superb composers like Schubert, Brahms, Wagner, Tchaikovsky.

As evidence, look no further than the rankings of classical works in TC's own "recommended" list of classical works in the "music project". Haydn's achievements generally fall some way behind Mozart. In that list, I think you will find that Haydn's "The Creation" was placed at No 111, and his "Nelson" Mass at No 196. Mozart had no direct equivalent work to "The Creation" but several operas were placed much higher, as too were several of Mozart's Masses. Haydn wrote a few operas but nothing of any lasting significance emerged. It's the same story with respect to symphonies, chamber works and concertos, with Mozart achieving higher positions than Haydn.

Although it is well below Mozart's "Jupiter" symphony at No 18, I might begin to believe you had a valid point if I accepted the validity of the ranking of Haydn's Symphony No 104 at No 33, but I don't. I think that result for Haydn is highly questionable since I can think of several symphonies which are better than this work, and have wider appeal, but which appear further down the T-C list, like for example Schubert's No 9 ("Great") at position No 52 and his "Unfinished Symphony" at No 75. In my opinion, and trying my utmost to be objective here, there's no way that Haydn's Symphony No 104 is better than either of these Schubert masterpieces. I would suggest that DDD's listing got it better in placing Schubert's 9th and 8th in positions 34 and 50 respectively, and Haydn's 104 in the sub-100 domain of all classical works.

Minor detail on specific rankings of individual works apart, the fact is that Mozart is a super-legend and Haydn is second tier by comparison. Because of this, almost anything written by Mozart, or believed to have been written by him, will automatically have a higher esteem than would be denied to much lesser composers were any of them to have been considered to be the authors in place of Mozart himself. I know that you aren't disputing this point.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

For me Haydn is a tier one composer, although I would rank Mozart higher among those tier one composers (at number one - can't get much higher than that). I think Haydn suffers somewhat from the number of compositions there are of him in certain genres when it comes to how well he does in some of these polls. Everyone (well, most of us) love for example his London symphonies, but since most love all (or many) of them about equally as much everyone ends up voting for a different one and it divides the Haydn votes. He probably would do (even) better if there were only two or three to choose from. Same for the Paris symphonies, the sturm und drang symphonies and (even more so) the string quartets.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

I wasn't speaking from the viewpoint of personal preference. On that basis, I would haved selected Schubert as my favourite followed by Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Handel. 

Instead I was largely reflecting what I perceive to be majority opinion about the rankings of the top flight composers. I think that if you look in detail at any of the main indicators of greatness, and I fully accept that none is anything like perfect or sufficient on its own, that Beethoven, Mozart and Bach stand jointly in a unique cluster, separate from the next tier of "greats". I would accept that the lower edge of the second tier is very fuzzy before it merges into the next tier, but at the top end of the second there does seem to be a distinct gap separating it from the three "immortals". 

I fully accept the point about Haydn may suffer in the rankings becuase of the multitude of symphonies, and his chamber works, causing voting dilution problems. But I still suspect that if somehow the eligible range of Haydn works could be reduced to a comparable number vis-a-vis the likes of Mozart and Beethoven then these two would easily still win out against Haydn in a vote. 

I have touched on this subject some time ago but I still reckon that Mozart has an extra measure of sheer class compared with Haydn. When I listen to a symphony by Mozart, or any of his better known chamber works, these exude a greater degree of sophistication and refinement than any of Haydn's. If I'm not inclined to listen to any more Schubert, it's first to Mozart that I turn for chamber music, then to Beethoven. Haydn is way down the list. It's the same with regard to piano solo, symphonies, concertos.

I was at a concert earlier this month in London in which Haydn's Symphony No 98 was performed by the LSO under Sir Colin Davis. Yes, OK, it was nice and entertaining but not a patch on a late Mozart symphony, and in any event the main reason I was there was to listen to Mitchiko Uchida perform Beethoven's 4th Piano Concerto, which incidentally was very good.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

I think that before 1800 the whole attitude towards authorship and copyright was completely different. It wasn't considered wrong to take someone's work, change it a bit and present as one's own - while being aware that someone could do the same to you. It seems to me that our understanding of relation between work of art and its author started in early XIX century, with Beethoven and his contemporaries. That's when (I think) we got this notion that someone's oeuvre is his "life's work". But we apply the same "world view" when we look at XVIII century and before, and it seems to me to be the mistake. If I remember correctly, back in the day, printers took all the profit from a book, authors were given one time payment - royalties were invented later.

What happened around 1800 to change that? I don't know. French revolution might have cultural consequences that are overlooked , they might as well be too huge to track successfully.

The main problem is that the sole hypothesis that Mozart didn't write some of the best works attributed to him is no less than a blasphemy - a word used when something precious to you is being attacked, and you respond emotionally and not rationally. As a member (who likes Mozart) said here, one should respond with argument, not insults. It's not exactly the same as saying few centuries ago that Jesus story is fairytale, because back then you would die for that, today you are merely banned from an online forum. So there's some progress, after all.

The mere fact that attacking Mozart authorship is taboo should tell us that something is wrong. I understand the professionals whose PhD's would go down the drain, but I do not understand why general public would be so zealous about it. Which reminds me of Max Planck who famously said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Also paraphrased as "Truth never triumphs - its opponents just die out."

Off to listen "Dove sono" aria, whoever wrote it...


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Artemis said:


> I wasn't speaking from the viewpoint of personal preference. On that basis, I would haved selected Schubert as my favourite followed by Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Handel.
> 
> Instead I was largely reflecting what I perceive to be majority opinion about the rankings of the top flight composers. I think that if you look in detail at any of the main indicators of greatness, and I fully accept that none is anything like perfect or sufficient on its own, that Beethoven, Mozart and Bach stand jointly in a unique cluster, separate from the next tier of "greats". I would accept that the lower edge of the second tier is very fuzzy before it merges into the next tier, but at the top end of the second there does seem to be a distinct gap separating it from the three "immortals".
> 
> ...


I don't disagree all that much really. If we accept that Mozart, Bach and Beethoven occupy the top three it's just a matter of how far you're willing to go beyond that for a composer to be included in that tier one group. Many would include Haydn in their top 10 (I definitely would), and it just doesn't sound right to me to call a all time great tier two. Let's just say that what you call tier two I'd call tier one - section B. :lol:


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

also, one should keep in mind that a composer doesn't necessarily have control over his legacy, especially in the case of premature death. many works that are published posthumously might not have been approved had the composer still been alive to control what sees the light of day and what doesn't. for example, i might keep my academic "beginner" works in a box as a reference, but should i one day rise to fame -- then perish in a terrible car accident -- who knows what my family might do to pinch a penny over my late success... and exposing these works may well be the way for conspiracy theorists to tarnish my "godly" image.

in other words, being dead, defending yourself can be quite the challenge.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Artemis said:


> As evidence, look no further than the rankings of classical works in TC's own "recommended" list of classical works in the "music project".....
> 
> I think that result for Haydn is highly questionable since I can think of several symphonies which are * better than this work, and have wider appeal, but which appear further down the T-C list, like for example Schubert's No 9 ("Great") at position No 52 and his "Unfinished Symphony" at No 75.* In my opinion, and trying my utmost to be objective here, *there's no way that Haydn's Symphony No 104 is better than either of these Schubert masterpieces.*


I wholeheartedly agree! Not to undermine the validity of the vote, but in my humble opinion, Haydn and Schubert's placing of the symphonies are the biggest flaws on the TC's list. It's one of those moments that I lost my faith in the community. 



> I would suggest that DDD's listing got it better in placing Schubert's 9th and 8th in positions 34 and 50 respectively, and Haydn's 104 in the sub-100 domain of all classical works.


How I wish TC did that.. 

Regarding the OP.. It reminds me of Rod Corkin debacle over and over again.

Where is Mango when you need him?


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Mozart's last 4 symphonies are definitely better than any of Haydn's, I agree, and of course he admitted himself that his operas were nothing compared to Mozart's. I still don't think there's a great deal to split between the Lord Nelson and the Requiem though, and I'd take Haydn's Op 76 quartets over any chamber works by Mozart despite being a huge fan of M's string quintets and clarinet quintet. 

As an overall judgement, I can't think of any single Mozart work which I would describe as 'head and shoulders' above Haydn's Creation.


----------



## Eviticus (Dec 8, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> Whoa! This Robert Newman character's theories are very intriguing! I have to say I was astonished to read that the majority of the great works by Mozart and Haydn were written by this composer called Luchesi . . .
> 
> . . . Until I actually read his responses to the people who were questioning him. And, well, I wasn't impressed by how he responded to this:
> 
> His response was that he didn't actually respond. But who knows? Maybe it would have been possible if Luchesi had Bach's intellect combined with Telleman's productivity?


And why not just credit Luchesi and push him forward as the genius instead of promoting the "great actors Haydn and Mozart" who allegedly couldn't compose?

Incidentally, when i found that youtube clip i couldn't help but notice he has moved on to Shakespeare now. What's really interesting about that is it actually could have been the CT member 'Linz' who planted that seed years ago (see the first link).

Anyway, I'm not going to mention him again in case he comes back looking for more inspiration and see's me advocating Tchaikovsky... If it came out he never wrote a note then i'd definitely lose my on going debate with brian walker on the overrated thread!


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

jalex said:


> As an overall judgement, I can't think of any single Mozart work which I would describe as 'head and shoulders' above Haydn's Creation.


I thought that I had answered this. To repeat, take a look at the T-C list of most recommended classical works and you'll see Haydn's _Creation_ in the No 111 position. By contrast, you will find nine works by Mozart placed above it.

Similarly, on the DDD list of greatest works, Haydn's _Creation_ is at No 96, and there are ten works by Mozart works above it. This is quite a remarkable degree of similarity.

Taking _Le Nozze_ as an example of a really top-rated work, this is placed in the No 5 slot on the T-C list and at No 15 on DDD's.

It seems pretty clear to me that there are several works by Mozart that are judged to be "head and shoulders" above the _Creation_, with _Le Nozze_ being one example, although obviously I accept that this may not be consistent with your personal opinion.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Artemis said:


> I thought that I had answered this. To repeat, take a look at the T-C list of most recommended classical works and you'll see Haydn's _Creation_ in the No 111 position. By contrast, you will find nine works by Mozart placed above it.
> 
> Similarly, on the DDD list of greatest works, Haydn's _Creation_ is at No 96, and there are ten works by Mozart works above it. This is quite a remarkable degree of similarity.
> 
> ...


Aren't you always the first person to complain about those lists? I certainly place no stock in the TC list which to my knowledge is still missing at least two of Beethoven's late quartets as well as most of Bartok's, nor in DD's which has both the Missa Solemnis and the Grosse Fuge below 50th and the Hammerklavier Sonata below 150th.

Anyway, I think I could list 50 or so works without enough drop in quality to consider the first 'head and shoulders' above the 50th.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

jalex said:


> Aren't you always the first person to complain about those lists? I certainly place no stock in the TC list which to my knowledge is still missing at least two of Beethoven's late quartets as well as most of Bartok's, nor in DD's which has both the Missa Solemnis and the Grosse Fuge below 50th and the Hammerklavier Sonata below 150th.
> 
> Anyway, I think I could list 50 or so works without enough drop in quality to consider the first 'head and shoulders' above the 50th.


 I'm not denying that both of these lists may have the odd ***** or two, but they're not that bad.

Neither list is as good as I could achieve in about 5 minutes, and I'm sure with your help we could achieve utter perfection, not forgetting of course to include member "peeyaj" (and any other "little Mushroom" fans) for a view on Schubert.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

graaf- The main problem is that the sole hypothesis that Mozart didn't write some of the best works attributed to him is no less than a blasphemy - a word used when something precious to you is being attacked, and you respond emotionally and not rationally. 

It's blasphemy because it is pure fantasy based upon one unstable person's conspiracy theories. Robert Newman has been debated rationally across the internet by any number of individuals with different levels of musical background. He repeatedly sidestepped every question that might have challenged his theories and when this didn't work (as in the situations when he was confronted by a "real" musicologist... not a fraudulent one whose academic credentials have been repeatedly proven false) he became insulting.

As a member (who likes Mozart) said here, one should respond with argument, not insults. It's not exactly the same as saying few centuries ago that Jesus story is fairytale, because back then you would die for that, today you are merely banned from an online forum. So there's some progress, after all.

Don't romanticize Robert. He was never banned for questioning the attribution of Mozart's music. He was banned for repeated insulting behavior, trolling, and harassment. Let's be straight with the facts here.

The mere fact that attacking Mozart authorship is taboo should tell us that something is wrong. 

Nonsense. Any half-way intelligent person recognizes that if there were any real truth to the possibility that even a single major work by Mozart were actually written by another composer this is the sort of discovery that would make the career of a musicologist or music historian... ensuring them a nice tenured university post. But Robert could not even answer the question that I... a rank amateur put forth.

For example, Robert suggested that the entire oeuvres of Haydn and Mozart as well as that of early Beethoven were completely faked... the product of some consortium of composers out to establish a German hegemony of classical music.

1. How are we to believe a consortium of composers could successfully create a body of music that not only retains a stylistic integrity (ie. always "sounds like Mozart") but also displays the gradual development of the composer?

2. How is it that this consortium could composer music for Mozart that was distinctive from that for Haydn and Beethoven?

3. How is it that the supposed members of this consortium never composed anything under their own name that rivals the best works composed as part of this conspiracy?

4. What was the purpose of this conspiracy? Robert argued that the intention was to gain control of the lucrative classical music market, but exactly how "lucrative" was this market at the time of Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven?

5. Why was there even a need to gain control of the lucrative musical market from the Italians when the Germans already had J.S. Bach, Handel, J.C. Bach, C.P.E. Bach, Hasse, Telemann, etc...?

6. How is it that this vast conspiracy could be kept hushed up for so long when Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven are among the composers whose lives and careers have been subjected to the greatest degree of scrutiny by musicologists and other academics.

I understand the professionals whose PhD's would go down the drain...

You really don't grasp the reality of academia, do you? To discover that a major work of art was not by the artist to whom it was long attributed, and to be able to prove this to the majority of academia is a feat that rather than destroying a career, would ensure the career of the academic making such a discovery. Such questions of attribution are continually raised in literature, art, and music. The problem is that the burden of proof is placed upon the individual who questions the accepted facts. Robert never did this... he simply bombarded individuals raising any questions with a flood of quotes in French, Italian, and German taken from what he assured us were historical documents that could not disputed. Any documents to the contrary, however, were simply dismissed as fraudulent.

...but I do not understand why general public would be so zealous about it.

The general public probably couldn't care one way or the other... which brings us to a further question as to why such an effort... as imagined by Robert... would have been put forth.

Which reminds me of Max Planck who famously said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Also paraphrased as "Truth never triumphs - its opponents just die out."

Again, it sounds as if you are sold on Robert's inane conspiracy theories... for whatever reason. I wonder if you also buy into his ideas concerning the falsified attributions of Goethe, Shakespeare, the faked moonlandings, the 9-11 attacks, etc...


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio, Mozart authorship doesn't have to have much with this Robert Newman person. You've spent more time talking (rather typing) about him than I did (I linked one post, not even his), you're obviously too focused on him when it comes to Mozart (I guess he's only one you know that questioned Mozart's authorship) and then you say that I "romanticize" his case? 

Secondly, your post is exactly what I was talking about: emotional outbursts containing insults ("half-way intelligent person", etc...) - hardly a mature response.

Anyway, once you started rambling about some consortium or something, I could clearly see that you're arguing with someone else, while replying to my post. So, let's hope that someone else reads your entire rant.

best regards,
graaf


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

graaf said:


> The main problem is that the sole hypothesis that Mozart didn't write some of the best works attributed to him is no less than a blasphemy - a word used when something precious to you is being attacked, and you respond emotionally and not rationally. As a member (who likes Mozart) said here, one should respond with argument, not insults. It's not exactly the same as saying few centuries ago that Jesus story is fairytale, because back then you would die for that, today you are merely banned from an online forum. So there's some progress, after all.
> 
> The mere fact that attacking Mozart authorship is taboo should tell us that something is wrong. I understand the professionals whose PhD's would go down the drain, but I do not understand why general public would be so zealous about it. Which reminds me of Max Planck who famously said: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Also paraphrased as "Truth never triumphs - its opponents just die out."
> 
> Off to listen "Dove sono" aria, whoever wrote it...


If you are talking about Newman, he never presented any facts that could be argued with. He responded to every reason argument by ignoring it or changing the topic. What he passed for an argument was based on the conspiracy-theorists mind-set, that the slightest inconsistency in the established story is taken as proof of the conspiracy, but even the most obvious inconsistencies in the conspiracy theory are dismissed or ignored.

If you are going to claim that Mozart took credit for writing works that were actually written by others, you will have to explain how Mozart so often managed to steal works of transcendent genius, and why no other composer of the period managed to steal or write comparable works.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

graaf said:


> StlukesguildOhio, Mozart authorship doesn't have to have much with this Robert Newman person. You've spent more time talking (rather typing) about him than I did (I linked one post, not even his), you're obviously too focused on him when it comes to Mozart (I guess he's only one you know that questioned Mozart's authorship) and then you say that I "romanticize" his case?
> 
> Secondly, your post is exactly what I was talking about: emotional outbursts containing insults ("half-way intelligent person", etc...) - hardly a mature response.
> 
> ...


I'm not entirely sure what your main point is, and that's why I skipped your earlier post. But if you are suggesting that the reaction to Robert Newman's arguments were not treated fairly on this Board at an earlier time by either the members or administrators I would suggest that you are entirely wrong.

I know this to be the case because I have examined carefully all of the various threads that Robert Newman created on this Board, and several others on other Boards besides. On this Board, his views were questioned in a perfectly reasonable and friendly manner by several members. I would accept that towards the end, when it became very clear that he had nothing of substance to offer, that some members got irritated. But in the main he was given considerable latitude to develop and explain his position to his interlocutors, free of moderator intervention, for a long period of time. The owner and moderators of this Board acted with considerable fairness until it became perfectly clear that Newman's nonsense could be tolerated no more as it was so disruptive.

I won't suggest you read all the various threads but you might like to examine THIS one, which was his first and longest-running of all of them, which started in early October 2006. I know it is long but it's worth working your way through it. It shows clearly how Newman works. You might find the following short guide to the above thread helpful. As you read through it you will discover two former members in particular who were deeply involved in questioning Newman on his various theories about Mozart and Haydn. One was member _Topaz_ and another was member _Mango_. They have both left T-C long ago. I know them both well. _Topaz_ (real name Michael) is my brother, and _Mango_ (real name Elise) is his wife.

_Topaz_ started the process of questioning Robert Newman but left T-C in February 2007. This got quite involved but Newman failed to answer any of the questions satisfactorily. This went on for some time and some 4-5 months later things had simply become and more confused about just what evidence, as opposed to mere assertion that Newman actually had to support his fantastic theories. _Topaz_ left T-C in February 2007.

There was then a gap of about two months during which time a few other members got involved, including most prominently member _Manuel__, _but by then things were admittedly beginning to become more heated. Member _Mango_ joined in May 2007 in order primarily to take up the questioning of Newman who by that time had extended his involvement in this Board quite considerably. Member _Manuel_ then unfortunately got himself banned for other reasons. After that event, the main member on the offensive against Newman was _Mango_. Watch out here because during this process Newman was assisted by various stooges to try to help his case. Not a stooge as such, one of Newman's allies was a member who was also later banned and who runs another Board now. I'll leave you to work it out for yourself who I'm referring to.

_Mango_'s treatment of him admittedly degenerated into pure farce at the end but Newman deserved what he got because of his persistent failure to answer questions. I would be astonished if after reading through that thread you still reckon that Newman's theories have any credibility. Of course, T-C wasn't his only port of call. He has been everywhere. He started out on a Mozart focused forum which he succeeded in wrecking completely because of the chaos he was instrumental in causing there. Then he moved to the Mozart Forum itself, and again caused further havoc and got himself banned. Then he moved to the Beethoven Reference Site, then to CMG. He was banned from each of these after being given more than a fair hearing and several warnings. In both cases the management and members became utterly sick of him.

Then he came to T-C and lasted here about a year before his luck ran out. He had an especially long run here, during T-C's early days but still quite well known. After being banned from here he switched to the Classical Music Mayhem, then to Magle International. At the latter place he tried a soft-glove tactic warming up his prey by applying a lot of soft-soap, but it was duly spotted by the moderators in time to stop any further trouble. After that he moved to GMG where he got one of the biggest bruisings I've ever seen on any Board. Following that, he virtually ran out of music Boards altogether, and switched to various literature boards where he was less well known. I happened to be a member of the Mozart Forum, CMG, the Beethoven Reference Site, Magle International, and GMG so I knew all about his antics.

At most of these Forums, and all the early ones, he was given a generous opportunity to voice his opinions, but so weird and unconvincing were his views that he found hardly any support for them, apart from a few stooges and the occasional anti-Mozart member who drew some false comfort from what he was trying to say. Consistently, he provided no convincing answers to any of the questions put to him by the more serious members. Rather than attempt to justify his own assertions his standard tactic was to ask his questioners to justify their faith that Mozart was not a fraud. When defeated on one topic he would simply raise a new thread on some other aspect. He would also set about wrecking other members' innocent threads on Mozart, by posting some kind of negative comment alleging that the work in question was not written by Mozart. All this nonsense which he continued to spew out caused such mayhem everywhere he went that it was found that the only way to shut him up was to ban him.

Both _Topaz_ and _Mango_ asked to have their membership of T-C deleted. That is why they both appear as "guests". I obviously keep in touch with them both. They know I have written this potted history about them.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Eviticus said:


> And why not just credit Luchesi and push him forward as the genius instead of promoting the "great actors Haydn and Mozart" who allegedly couldn't compose?


Because . . . because . . . because then they would have had to title this brilliant masterpiece _Luca_ instead of _Amadeus_:






Seriously, _Luca_?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

peeyaj said:


> I wholeheartedly agree! Not to undermine the validity of the vote, but in my humble opinion, Haydn and Schubert's placing of the symphonies are the biggest flaws on the TC's list. It's one of those moments that I lost my faith in the community.


The reason why the Schubert symphonies got placed that low was because there was controversy over whether the 8th or the 9th should get in first, so both works ended up getting voted up and down for a long time in a see-saw battle until it was finally decided that (I think) the 9th would go in first. Clearly you could've helped out by voting though. 

But in all seriousness I don't think the order in the classical music project is even very relevant. After its over we could list all the works in alphabetical order as well, and both ways of looking at the list are equally valid. Its recommended - not greatest. The order is marginally helpful at best.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

StlukesguildOhio, Mozart authorship doesn't have to have much with this Robert Newman person. 

Who else, beside yourself, is questioning the attribution of Mozart's oeuvre? There are, of course, a good many works of questionable attribution. Some attributed to Mozart, some largely seen as spurious, others since attributed to other composers. The most famous example was the symphony 37, since recognized as being a work by Michael Haydn to which Mozart but added a few introductory bars. I have not come across any serious questioning of the attribution of any of Mozart's major pieces by anyone outside of Robert Newman or one of his pseudonymns or invented (ie. non-existent) academics.

You've spent more time talking (rather typing) about him than I did (I linked one post, not even his), you're obviously too focused on him when it comes to Mozart (I guess he's only one you know that questioned Mozart's authorship) and then you say that I "romanticize" his case?

Again... who else have you come across questioning the attribution of any major work or major portion of Mozart's oeuvre? How many of these individuals have any credentials and or supporting facts that make their suppositions worthy of consideration? I have little doubt that any number of us would be willing to consider such.

Anyway, once you started rambling about some consortium or something, I could clearly see that you're arguing with someone else, while replying to my post.

If you are going to raise the specter of Robert Newman and his theories considering the questionable attribution of Mozart's oeuvre, you would do good to actually have some idea as to what these theories entailed... including a vast conspiracy theory among many conspiracy theories.

Your initial post suggesting that Mozart fans are close-minded to questions of attribution is completely inane unless you are actually willing to talk specifics: what works are of questionable attribution and according to whom? What are the facts in support of this supposition?

So, let's hope that someone else reads your entire rant.

The only "rant" is that in which throw out the suggestions that because the attribution of Mozart's oeuvre isn't called into question... especially in light of such theories as those presented by Robert Newman... something is wrong. We might play this game with any composer: "I can't believe more people don't question the attribution of Wagner's operas. That fact in itself is enough to cast suspicion in my mind as to their veracity."

Your initial posts threw out insinuations concerning PhDs. worried about losing their posts (hence suggesting a cover up) and questions of "truth".

So what is your point? What are you arguing? More Mozart fans don't question the attribution of his music when there is no real question concerning this attribution? Or do you have some information concerning the attribution of Mozart's music that the rest of us lack.

Do tell. We're all ears.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

By the way... it is interesting that Robert Newman questioned Mozart and Haydn's epic-scaled oeuvre... and yet he fully accepted (and worshiped) the super-human achievements of J.S. Bach. He moved over to LitNet, the literature forum that I frequent, where he had a good run of about a year and a half espousing his theories on Mozart, Haydn, Goethe, Shakespeare, on through the moon-landings, the 9-11 attacks, steroids in our food, etc... He ended meeting his match in the form of another member (and I am unsure to this day as to whether he was an equally obsessed individual or just pranking Robert) who put forth an even greater theory in which a certain illustrious ancestor of this member not only composed all of that attributed to Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven, but also wrote most of Goethe's oeuvre as well... while his own predecessor had actually composed the whole of Handel's and Bach's output.:lol:


----------



## poconoron (Oct 26, 2011)

Open letter to Robert Newman:

So you are the unrivaled genius who has unravelled this vast conspiracy spanning 230 years or so. Let me get this straight - Mozart is not really the author of all those great works and masterpieces we have come to know. And you, of all people, have figured this out while the great composers who worshipped him (Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Tsaikovsky, Haydn, et al), and the great conductors and the music historians and musicologists down through the ages, as well as the rest of us, have all been duped in this massive conspiracy to hide the truth.

GTFO and go back to the hole you crawled out of!


----------



## Guest (Dec 19, 2011)

Actually, the truth is even stranger. Robert Neuman was not a real person, but rather a nom de plume for a large secret organization of influential individuals who have been covertly guiding and editing western cultural development for centuries. The fact that Robert's ideas seemed flaky was part of a ruse within a ruse within a ruse.... You and I might or might not be a member of the same group. Keep your eyes and ears open! Rosebud.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

BPS said:


> Actually, the truth is even stranger. Robert Neuman was not a real person, but rather a nom de plume for a large secret organization of influential individuals who have been covertly guiding and editing western cultural development for centuries. The fact that Robert's ideas seemed flaky was part of a ruse within a ruse within a ruse.... You and I might or might not be a member of the same group. Keep your eyes and ears open! Rosebud.


Man, that's crazier than the last Raymond Chandler novel I read.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Your initial posts threw out insinuations concerning PhDs. worried about losing their posts (hence suggesting a cover up) and questions of *"truth"*.


This word *"truth"* so often features in the vocabulory of conspiracy theory loons. The following article, set out in italics below, is a helpful guide I stumbled upon a while ago to aid the unitiated (and I'm most certainly not including you here) in identifying the "truthseeker".

The article was actually flagged up by one of the moderators on GMG who had been mainly involved in dealing with Newman throughout a 90 page thread on the subject of Mozart's alleged fraudulence, some two years ago in 2009. It came towards the end of that very long thread, just as the patience of the forum members involved in the discusion began to crumble badly.

Incidentally, that 90 page thread was dwarfed by a slightly earlier one of 190 pages on another forum, _Classical Music Mayhem_, in which Newman had tried to argue that Mozart's _Le Nozze_ was not by Mozart but was a copy of a very similar work written by some non-entity of a composer a few years before. That thread was a real hoot because it boosted membership of that forum n-fold (that was the probably the ploy in fact) and it managed to bring out a couple of genuine Mozart scholars who seemed astonished at such idiocy being perpretated on what tried to give the appearance of being a serious discusion forum. Those experts did a fine demolition job on Newman, but even in defeat he still wouldn't shut up. The administrator of that forum was forced to ban Newman because he was so disruptive, and yet the same individual had previously defended Newman's right to set out his anti-Mozart allegations both on a previous forum where they had been involved, and on T-C.

Here's the article:_*C**haracteristics of conspiracy theorists*
(A useful guide by Donna Ferentes)

*1. Arrogance. *They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

*2. Relentlessness. *They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

*3. Inability to answer questions.*_ _  For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

*4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.*  These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

*5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.*  Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

*6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.*  Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

*7. Inability to withdraw.*  It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

*8. Leaping to conclusions. *Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

*9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.*_ _  This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

*10. It's always a conspiracy.* _ _ And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore. _
​


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Eviticus said:


> Found this on you tube by the ex poster Robert Newman (in reference to the links above)


These guys are hilarious! Who the hell is this Mowss-art person they're talking about? And what is _John Giovanni_?

OK, assuming these idiots ARE telling the truth, these works exist. So WHO wrote them?? They don't make any suggestions (what a surprise!).

It's amazing how many people Mozart managed to dupe (Haydn and Beethoven included).


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Delicious Manager said:


> These guys are hilarious! Who the hell is this Mowss-art person they're talking about? And what is _John Giovanni_?
> 
> OK, assuming these idiots ARE telling the truth, these works exist. So WHO wrote them?? They don't make any suggestions (what a surprise!).
> 
> It's amazing how many people Mozart managed to dupe (Haydn and Beethoven included).


Mozart managed to dupe Haydn? No, Haydn was part of the same fraudulent set-up, according to Newman. In fact, Haydn was allegedly the first of the two composers to be in receipt of work actually produced by Andrea Luchesi.

So the story goes, once Mozart got wind of this scam, this Andrea Luchesi character (who was supposedly Beethoven's main teacher at Bonn, but allegedly "air-brushed" out of existence by the "Mozart industry") kindly changed his style of writing a bit and obliged Mozart with material too. Then there was Vanessa von Paradis who allegedly supplied Mozart with various piano concertos, not forgettiing the likes of Sammartini, Myslivecek, Vanhal and untold others beevering away in the background producing various works to feed to the two-arch villains who passed them off as their own. According to Newman, Mozart and Haydn were so musically dumb they couldn't trot out a simple nursery rhyme between them to save their lives.

And this is only touching the surface of the huge amount of skulduggery that allegedly went on. The Catholic Church was allegedly involved in the scam too. The Jesuits and "Illuminati" were busy scheming and conniving, and Mozart was a mere pawn in the grand politics of the day. It is all here on T-C if you care to delve into it. It is the most fantastic load of gobble-de-**** anyone could possibly contrive, and yet Newman was flogging this line in forum after forum, with only slight change of emphasis or focus according to his latest "research".

It's easy to laugh at it all now but at the time that all this nonsense was being heavily foisted upon the various music forums (mainly between 2005-2009) it was actually quite difficult to control the situation because Newman was extremely clever to avoid breaching forum rules, and would often attempt to pin the blame for any breach on other members. Take a glance at the exchanges he had with various members here in the main thread referred to previously. In the early stages he was very polite and accommodating. He was able to discuss other issues very sensibly. He was very clever in dodging and weaving difficult questions, his main aim being to survive for another day.

It was only in the later stages, from about May 2007 onwards, with the far more direct probing by members _Manuel_ and _Mango_ who really got to him. They fired questions at him relentlessly, not accepting half-answers that were Newman's stock-in-trade. Manuel was banned for other reasons, and it was mainly _Mango_ who continued to challenge him very hard. He tried all sorts of tricks to fight it off, even bringing in a stooge or two, and support from one of his old pals from a previous Board, and also sought moderator support that he was being victimised, but fortunately none of this helped him. The pressure continued and eventually he began to crack up by showing that he had no answers that made any sense. Rather he started blabbering on about the evils of organised reliigion etc, which rather suggested that he has some kind of hatred of the Church which possibly had mainly been fuelling his weird views. It was just as well that the moderation at that time was very light because otherwise he might not so easily have been exposed, on this Forum at least. Nevertheless, he certainly had a very long run here, of nearly a year.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

^^^What astonishes me is that people would take such pains to dispute with an obvious lunatic.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

I managed to listen further through the broadcast and found that they actually DID attribute a lot of Mozart's music to Vaňhal and Mysliveček, probably relying on the fact that no-one has heard of these Bohemian contemporaries of Haydn. However, being something of an enthusiast for exploring the music of little-known contemporaries of Haydn and Mozart, I am reasonably familiar with the music of these two composers. I enjoy most of it immensely, but neither of them seems to have written music under their own names which compares in quality to Mozart's (although Mysliveček's is probably the composer whose music comes closest in style to Mozart's). Perhaps this is part of the whole conspiracy?

And that guff about music colleges is pure diversion. What music college did Bach go to? Or Haydn? They didn't, of course, because such a thing was almost unheard of in those times and they learnt their trade through apprenticeships, singing in choirs or (in Mozart's case) being home-schooled (to give it a modern term) by his father Leopold.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Scarpia said:


> ^^^What astonishes me is that people would take such pains to dispute with an obvious lunatic.


I guess some people like their Mozart so much that they were prepared to take a stand and deal with loony attacks from people like Newman who weren't just saying they didn't like Mozart for some reason but who were trying to re-write history and seeming to be gaining a strong foothold in a Forum.

I guess too there was the additional "fun factor" for Newman's adversaries in pitting their wits against a very clever wheeler-dealer to see who could come up trumps with the better arguments.

It wasn't just here at T-C that Newman found robust interlocutors but on several other Forums too. You should perhaps check things out on the other forums mentioned. There was interest big-time on several of them, and virtually everything else stopped. I recall on GMG it was a daily show that lasted for some time, with several members joining in the questioning. The same was the case at CMM. It was only here at T-C that the main questioning came from just a few members.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

Artemis said:


> I guess some people like their Mozart so much that they were prepared to take a stand and deal with loony attacks from people like Newman who weren't just saying they didn't like Mozart for some reason but who were trying to re-write history and seeming to be gaining a strong foothold in a Forum.
> 
> I guess too there was the additional "fun factor" for Newman's adversaries in pitting their wits against a very clever wheeler-dealer to see who could come up trumps with the better arguments.
> 
> It wasn't just here at T-C that Newman found robust interlocutors but on several other Forums too. You should perhaps check things out on the other forums mentioned. There was interest big-time on several of them, and virtually everything else stopped. I recall on GMG it was a daily show that lasted for some time, with several members joining in the questioning. The same was the case at CMM. It was only here at T-C that the main questioning came from just a few members.


I'll admit to having also been drawn into the fray on occasion. But the fun of it evaporated when it became clear that Newman was not even capable of recognizing when one of his pseudo-arguments had been refuted or defeated.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Delicious Manager said:


> And that guff about music colleges is pure diversion. What music college did Bach go to? Or Haydn? They didn't, of course, because such a thing was almost unheard of in those times and they learnt their trade through apprenticeships, singing in choirs or (in Mozart's case) being home-schooled (to give it a modern term) by his father Leopold.


The lack of schooling bit has been covered too.

Newman maintained that Mozart had no proper schooling in composition, went to no college etc, so it must have been virtually impossible for him to have acquired such good compositional skills. Therefore, it was alleged, he must have been a fraud.

In reply the argument was put to him that Leopold Mozart taught young Wolfie all he needed to know and the rest he picked up as he went along because he was so talented. Newman replied that Leopold was no more than a useless third rate deck hand employed in a lousy court orchestra and hardly knew which end of a violin was the right one to bow, which is why the Archish was only too happy for the whole family to clear off on a tour of Europe!

I trust you get the picture. No matter what counter-arguments were put to Newman he would always find a reply no matter how stupid or far-fetched it was. The only way to get to him was to drop all the usual courtesies and confront him head on with pointed questions repeatedly.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I haven't paid much attention to Newman's theory, mostly because none of the evidence he has presented seems very convincing to me. That said if it turned out to be true (or partially true) it wouldn't change my view of the music, nor would it necessarily surprise me very much. But the music is what is most important, not who it is attributed to. As I've said before, I've often found the practice of crediting _one_ person with _any_ creative work (unless its almost impossibly 100% novel) a little sketchy.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

tdc said:


> As I've said before, I've often found the practice of crediting _one_ person with _any_ creative work (unless its almost impossibly 100% novel) a little sketchy.


Who else should I credit for writing this post?


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

tdc said:


> I haven't paid much attention to Newman's theory, mostly because none of the evidence he has presented seems very convincing to me. That said if it turned out to be true (or partially true) it wouldn't change my view of the music, nor would it necessarily surprise me very much. But the music is what is most important, not who it is attributed to. As I've said before, I've often found the practice of crediting _one_ person with _any_ creative work (unless its almost impossibly 100% novel) a little sketchy.


I see your point but I'm of the view that if ever it were proven that Mozart did not write any of the significant works attributed to him, any such works would lose value immediately. This happened with KV 444 (symphony No 37) when it was re-attributed to Michael Haydn. That work is now hardly ever performed, and hardly anyone is interested in it. So strong is the Mozart name that the quality of the works is not the only factor of significance, as the association with the Mozart name provides considerable additional value. Personally speaking, any such works would lose interest to me quite sharply.

Against this, I guess that if it could be shown, for example, that a whole raft of related Mozart works of high significance (eg all the late PCs) was actually written by another composer, especially one that we know about already from other material that is already attributed to that composer, then some partial recovery of their former status might be a plausible consideration. But this wouldn't happen. The most that might conceivably occur, as a worst case scenario, is that doubt might be raised about one or two such works, but it would probably not be discovered who were the actual composers of those works, if any exist. In that case, if they remained unattributed I would guess that the value would of the works would drop like a brick and never recover to anything like their former glory.

But I stress this not going to happen. I'm talking about a worst case scenario that might only conceivably occur just for the purpose of commenting upon your observation. There is no way that research now, especially by an amateur investigator, is going to unearth anything genuinely sinister on the scale alleged by Newman in the Mozart catalogue that is not already known, now more than 200 years since Mozart's death. All this has been looked at and analysed in great detail by experts for many decades, and there is no reason to question their opinion that it's all mainly genuine Mozart, except in a few cases where some doubt is already known to exist.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Scarpia said:


> Who else should I credit for writing this post?


Everyone in the universe. Or just us/I. Same thing.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Artemis said:


> I see your point but I'm of the view that if ever it were proven that Mozart did not write any of the significant works attributed to him, any such works would lose value immediately. This happened with KV 444 (symphony No 37) when it was re-attributed to Michael Haydn. That work is now hardly ever performed, and hardly anyone is interested in it. So strong is the Mozart name that the quality of the works is not the only factor of significance, as the association with the Mozart name provides considerable additional value. Personally speaking, any such works would lose interest to me quite sharply.
> 
> Against this, I guess that if it could be shown, for example, that a whole raft of related Mozart works of high significance (eg all the late PCs) was actually written by another composer, especially one that we know about already from other material that is already attributed to that composer, then some partial recovery of their former status might be a plausible consideration. But this wouldn't happen. The most that might conceivably occur, as a worst case scenario, is that doubt might be raised about one or two such works, but it would probably not be discovered who were the actual composers of those works, if any exist. In that case, if they remained unattributed I would guess that the value would of the works would drop like a brick and never recover to anything like their former glory.
> 
> But I stress this not going to happen. I'm talking about a worst case scenario that might only conceivably occur just for the purpose of commenting upon your observation. There is no way that research now, especially by an amateur investigator, is going to unearth anything genuinely sinister on the scale alleged by Newman in the Mozart catalogue that is not already known, now more than 200 years since Mozart's death. All this has been looked at and analysed in great detail by experts for many decades, and there is no reason to question their opinion that it's all mainly genuine Mozart, except in a few cases where some doubt is already known to exist.


I largely agree with this. I do think something on the scale that Newman is suggesting is highly unlikely - maybe something could occur where it is shown that some of Mozart's teachers works were wrongly credited to him or something, but until I see some powerful evidence of this, I wouldn't just assume something like that to be the case based on speculation.

On another note, in relation to my previous post - as far as who gets credit for what I personally think a lot of classical works should give credit to more than just the composer. I think when possible a composer's teacher for example should be credited in all works where that teacher had a large influence. For example (I am not trying to pick on Rodrigo here who is a favorite composer of mine I am just using a random example) but I think many of Rodrigo's works should properly be credited to something like - Falla / Rodrigo etc. The same rule could undoubtedly be applied to many works by Beethoven, Bach and Mozart and probably ALL composers. We should always remember this before idolizing individual composers too much, none of whom were brought up in a vacuum.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

Artemis said:


> I see your point but I'm of the view that if ever it were proven that Mozart did not write any of the significant works attributed to him, any such works would lose value immediately. This happened with KV 444 (symphony No 37) when it was re-attributed to Michael Haydn. That work is now hardly ever performed, and hardly anyone is interested in it. So strong is the Mozart name that the quality of the works is not the only factor of significance, as the association with the Mozart name provides considerable additional value. *Personally speaking, any such works would lose interest to me quite sharply.*


Well, you've made it clear that you need to know if the composer is famous before deciding if you like a work. I don't know why you are proud of that.

If any of Mozart's mature masterpieces, such as the Piano Concerti, were shown to be by someone else, my opinion of the music would not change. It would be clear that that someone else was a genius of the highest order, and it would be hard to imagine how such a person could remain unknown.

With the Symphony No 37, you are really using your imagination. You make it sound as though it was Mozart's crowning achievement, until it was discovered as a fraud and the Berliner Philharmoniker ordered all recordings destroyed. I haven't heard the piece myself, but the mis-attribution was corrected in 1907, and it is described as a small-scale, relatively simple work of less than 15 minutes. If it really were a substantial piece, people would continue to be interested in it, despite the loss of association with Mozart.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Scarpia said:


> Well, you've made it clear that you need to know if the composer is famous before deciding if you like a work. I don't know why you are proud of that.
> 
> If any of Mozart's mature masterpieces, such as the Piano Concerti, were shown to be by someone else, my opinion of the music would not change. It would be clear that that someone else was a genius of the highest order, and it would be hard to imagine how such a person could remain unknown.


So you are saying that if you had a collection of fine art works by various well-known and highly regarded historical masters, each item worth a small fortune, you would still regard each of them with the same high esteem as previously if some of them turned out to be the work of other artists of the same period who are far less well known, or unknown altogether because the relevant details are lost completely?

That's jolly good for you. But please don't try to rubbish my alternative opinion on the matter given the inevitable likelihood that your tidy little art collection would turn to be worth next to nothing on the open market, or at best a fraction of what it was previously worth. I guess however that, in view of what you say, this revelation would not bother in the slightest provided you could still look at each item and generate the same amount of viewing pleasure as previously. Their monetary value would be of no concern I assume.

However, as I said, don't be too surprised if some people, indeed many people I would suggest, would probably be amply disappointed about this revelation, and wouldn't necessarily find much consolation from the fact that each of suck work looks as nice as before, even though that particular art work was the product of some complete unknown artist or one of far lesser significance than the one hitherto thought to have been the true creator, i.e. they are fakes.

In view of your condescending assesment of my thoughts on the matter, I might even go a slight stage further and suggest that people who couldn't care less about the true creator of artistic works which they had previously treasured on the basis that they were the work of a highly rated artist, might be considered to be acting irrationally and could possibly benefit from a quick financial health check.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

^I think you enjoy art for all the wrong reasons. I don't love the 9th because it's by Beethoven, I love it because it's a great piece of music, and would still be so if written by Schubert or Cherubini or Beethoven's postman.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

Fine art works are not a good analogy because to possess such a work you presumably have to pay a lot of money, which would depend on how marketable the work is. If I purchased a painting that I thought was a Picasso and was a forgery I'd be unhappy, clearly. Plus, a forged painting is not a work of art, but a copy or simulation. 

However, if you told me that Mozart Piano Concerto No 24 was actually by Salieri, or Michael Haydn, or Nannerl Mozart, I don't think I would enjoy the work any less. It would not be a forgery, but a legitimate work of art, by someone else. I might interpret it differently, since I wouldn't try to place it with Mozart's Artistic development, but it would not loose its value to me. 

I can't think of any composers from Mozart's time that have produces works that I enjoy or esteem so much, but from later periods there are certainly composers who have produces works which I rank very highly. There are works by Enescu, Dohnanyi, Scharwenka, which seem to me to be on the level of Brahms, although their outputs are smaller an not as consistently superb.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

jalex said:


> …. I don't love the 9th because it's by Beethoven, I love it because it's a great piece of music, and would still be so if written by Schubert or Cherubini or *Beethoven's postman*.


 It's very brave of you to say that you would love Beethoven's Ninth just as much if turned out to have been written by someone else, including his *postman*. Such an eventuality is, of course, so hypothetical and far-fetched that it's easy to make wild claims such as this in the interests of promoting, perhaps exaggerating, the importance of one's aesthetic interest in art to the complete exclusion of all other considerations, including the work's provenance.

In general, and in contrast to your personal view, I would suggest that most people, and certainly including myself, would say that any work of art with a good provenance is worth more than one without. This is obviously because if its history is known it's it's less likely to be a fake.

But in your case you seem to be saying that you wouldn't mind even if the Ninth was a fake, that you'd like it just as much. This is an amazing admission. I am trying to imagine the next time you switch on the Ninth and sit back listening to it thinking "_my word, this is a fabulous work ... I can't thank Beethoven's postman enough for this … gem_."

If that's what you really do believe may I suggest that the next time you go anywhere near an auction room you might take a "minder" with you because if they see you coming you'll otherwise risk getting fleeced rotten.

Now turning to ...



Scarpia said:


> Fine art works are not a good analogy because to possess such a work you presumably have to pay a lot of money, which would depend on how marketable the work is. If I purchased a painting that I thought was a Picasso and was a forgery I'd be unhappy, clearly. Plus, a forged painting is not a work of art, but a copy or simulation.
> 
> However, if you told me that Mozart Piano Concerto No 24 was actually by Salieri, or Michael Haydn, or Nannerl Mozart, I don't think I would enjoy the work any less. It would not be a forgery, but a legitimate work of art, by someone else. I might interpret it differently, since I wouldn't try to place it with Mozart's Artistic development, but it would not loose its value to me.
> 
> I can't think of any composers from Mozart's time that have produces works that I enjoy or esteem so much, but from later periods there are certainly composers who have produces works which I rank very highly. There are works by Enescu, Dohnanyi, Scharwenka, which seem to me to be on the level of Brahms, although their outputs are smaller an not as consistently superb.


 I'm not sure what to make of all this, as it seems to be self-contradictory.

At one stage you appear to be agreeing with me when you say that if you purchased a painting that you thought was a Picasso but was actually a forgery you'd be unhappy. But then you say that a forged painting is not a work of art, but a copy or simulation. Suppose, however, that the Picasso you bought turned out to be not a deliberate forgery but was wrongly accredited to Picasso by a genuine error, and was actually the work of a much lesser painter? That work would still be worth considerably less, wouldn't it? If so, why would you still value it as highly as before? It doesn't make sense to me to say that you would.

But then you say that if Mozart's PC No 24 turned out to have been written by Salieri, or Michael Haydn, or Nannerl Mozart this of itself wouldn't cause you to enjoy the work any less. To this I can only repeat what I said in reply to _jalex_ above, that its perceived value in the wider market would very probably fall considerably, e.g. the frequency of concert performances would drop, the number of new recordings would reduce, the reputation of existing Mozart PC "sets" would be impacted adversely, etc. I'm not denying that you personally may still like it as much as previously, but looked at from the wider perspective I think it would extremely optimistic to assume that it would retain all of its former glory.

In this eventuality (which is obviously entirely hypothetical situation, and most unlikely ever to happen in prcatice), I'm afraid to say, speaking honestly, that I would doubt that my own estimation of PC No 24 would remain unaffected. How far my estimation of it may fall is difficult to say because it's so hypothetical, but I'm pretty sure it would fall. As I suggested in my earlier post, it's possible that some loss of reputation might be recovered if the work could be accredited to another well-known composer of the period, rather than left completely un-credited to anyone in particular. The former is the more likely situation, in which case some of a particular work's former glory could possibly be re-instated, but I haven't a clue how much. In that case I might revise my own opinion somewhat.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Scarpia said:


> If any of Mozart's mature masterpieces, such as the Piano Concerti, were shown to be by someone else, my opinion of the music would not change. It would be clear that that someone else was a genius of the highest order, and it would be hard to imagine how such a person could remain unknown.


That's true for the masterpieces, yes. If the Jupiter symphony, Figaro, the Vienna piano concerti or any of the other masterpieces were proven to be by someone other than Mozart they would probably remain just as popular (or close) as they are now. If the lesser works however would be proven to be by someone else interest in them would immediately take a nosedive because the reason for that interest is primarily that they are part of the story of a great composer, show the evolution of his music and help put the masterpieces into context.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

jhar26 said:


> That's true for the masterpieces, yes. If the Jupiter symphony, Figaro, the Vienna piano concerti or any of the other masterpieces were proven to be by someone other than Mozart they would probably remain just as popular (or close) as they are now. If the lesser works however would be proven to be by someone else interest in them would immediately take a nosedive because the reason for that interest is primarily that they are part of the story of a great composer, show the evolution of his music and help put the masterpieces into context.


I agree with you.

In various recent posts I have been trying to say the same kind of thing in a slightly different way. In essence, Mozart's very strong reputation rests on a number of superb quality works (let's not argue over exactly which they are). Below these there are various layers of intermediate zone musical quality, tapering off into some lowish quality works mainly from his youth.

However, these less spectacular works enjoy a higher status than they otherwise would purely because they are by Mozart. In other words, in terms of perceived value, there is a variable "economic rent" element in Mozart's works. This is very low or non-existent for his very best works, but it increases as we go down the quality schedule (ie the value is higher purely because it's by Mozart). It's much the same situation for all famous composers or artists of any description.

It's mainly the latter type works - those with a highish "economic rent" elements - whose perceived value would drop if ever they were discovered to be fakes. In addition, I still believe that some drop in value would also occur even among some (not all) of the higher quality works if the same could be proven of them being fakes, for reasons I gave in reply to _Scarpia _in my previous post_._


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> That's true for the masterpieces, yes. If the Jupiter symphony, Figaro, the Vienna piano concerti or any of the other masterpieces were proven to be by someone other than Mozart they would probably remain just as popular (or close) as they are now. If the lesser works however would be proven to be by someone else interest in them would immediately take a nosedive because the reason for that interest is primarily that they are part of the story of a great composer, show the evolution of his music and help put the masterpieces into context.


No disagreement. But those lesser works of Mozart are not held in high esteem even with the Mozart attribution. They would go from being uninteresting minor works apparently tossed off by Mozart, to obscure minor works.


----------



## Scarpia (Jul 21, 2010)

Artemis said:


> At one stage you appear to be agreeing with me when you say that if you purchased a painting that you thought was a Picasso but was actually a forgery you'd be unhappy. But then you say that a forged painting is not a work of art, but a copy or simulation. Suppose, however, that the Picasso you bought turned out to be not a deliberate forgery but was wrongly accredited to Picasso by a genuine error, and was actually the work of a much lesser painter? That work would still be worth considerably less, wouldn't it? If so, why would you still value it as highly as before? It doesn't make sense to me to say that you would.


I am only acknowledging that the piece would loose monetary value if it was a forgery. If, for example, a painting attributed to Rembrandt was found to be by a contemporary, I don't think it would make much difference to me. But I have little interest in or respect for fine arts.



Artemis said:


> But then you say that if Mozart's PC No 24 turned out to have been written by Salieri, or Michael Haydn, or Nannerl Mozart this of itself wouldn't cause you to enjoy the work any less. To this I can only repeat what I said in reply to _jalex_ above, that its perceived value in the wider market would very probably fall considerably, e.g. the frequency of concert performances would drop, the number of new recordings would reduce, the reputation of existing Mozart PC "sets" would be impacted adversely, etc. I'm not denying that you personally may still like it as much as previously, but looked at from the wider perspective I think it would extremely optimistic to assume that it would retain all of its former glory.
> 
> In this eventuality (which is obviously entirely hypothetical situation, and most unlikely ever to happen in prcatice), I'm afraid to say, speaking honestly, that I would doubt that my own estimation of PC No 24 would remain unaffected. How far my estimation of it may fall is difficult to say because it's so hypothetical, but I'm pretty sure it would fall. As I suggested in my earlier post, it's possible that some loss of reputation might be recovered if the work could be accredited to another well-known composer of the period, rather than left completely un-credited to anyone in particular. The former is the more likely situation, in which case some of a particular work's former glory could possibly be re-instated, but I haven't a clue how much. In that case I might revise my own opinion somewhat.


I'm not sure I agree. There are one-off composers, who managed to get one or two works in the repertoire, like Cherubini and his Requiem. The 24th concerto would probably turn into one of those. There are the Conceri Armonici, supposedly by Pergolesi, determined to have been written by an obscure German Count. Still popular. There's also (if I recall correctly) one concerto in Handel's Op 6 set that turns out is by someone else (publisher slipped it in, or something along those lines). Still performed.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Artemis said:


> In this eventuality (which is obviously entirely hypothetical situation, and most unlikely ever to happen in prcatice), I'm afraid to say, speaking honestly, that I would doubt that my own estimation of PC No 24 would remain unaffected. How far my estimation of it may fall is difficult to say because it's so hypothetical, but I'm pretty sure it would fall. As I suggested in my earlier post, it's possible that some loss of reputation might be recovered if the work could be accredited to another well-known composer of the period, rather than left completely un-credited to anyone in particular. The former is the more likely situation, in which case some of a particular work's former glory could possibly be re-instated, but I haven't a clue how much. In that case I might revise my own opinion somewhat.


On the other hand, if PC No.24 turned out to be a composition by M.Haydn or Salieri interest from the record companies (or what remains of them) would go up, more of their music would be recorded and you'd be more motivated to check them out in the hope of finding other works of a similar standard - or at least of one that makes PC No.24 a credible achievement for that composer.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

jhar26 said:


> On the other hand, if PC No.24 turned out to be a composition by M.Haydn or Salieri interest from the record companies (or what remains of them) would go up, more of their music would be recorded and you'd be more motivated to check them out in the hope of finding other works of a similar standard - or at least of one that makes PC No.24 a credible achievement for that composer.


 You're possibly correct but I specifically allowed for this factor if you care to re-read the last two sentences of what you quoted:"_As I suggested in my earlier post, it's possible that some loss of reputation might be recovered if the work could be accredited to another well-known composer of the period, rather than left completely un-credited to anyone in particular. The former is the more likely situation, in which case some of a particular work's former glory could possibly be re-instated, but I haven't a clue how much. In that case I might revise my own opinion somewhat".
_​I still feel intuitively that if it were only a single late PC that was re-assigned to Salieri or whoever the kudos attaching to this PC would not recover its full former glory because the marginal favourable impact on Salieri's reputation would be insufficient to offset the loss. It would require a much more substantial set of ex-Mozart "finds" in a favour of Salieri before sufficient momentum was gained to offset the losses.

If you re-read the relevant Newman threads, and pick your way through all the bun-fighting and other forms of silliness that was the only way to deal with him, it would appear that one of his aims was not simply to discredit Mozart and Haydn but to champion the various composers whom he claimed were the true creators of all their work.

Names like Vanhal, Sammartini, Paradis were commonly mentioned. Obviously, he didn't really have any evidence to substantiate any of these composers as the true authors, and he most likely pulled them all out of hat. In any event, there seems to be no chance that any of his claims could be correct because the musical "fingerprints" of these various compsers, Mozart and Haydn included, are so well established that it would be impossible to merge their works into the corpus of these other composers.

This aspect was always one of the main weaknesses of Newman's arguments, that he could not support his allegations in terms of musical technicalities and traits etc. Instead he could only waffle on in terms of highly selective bits of anecdotal "evidence", which didn't add up to more than a row beans, or do I mean crotchets? You'll see if you care to check back at the various threads that whenever such technicalities were raised he ducked and weaved like crazy, and the waffle factor went into over-drive.
​


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Artemis - I know and I agree, but I'm not going to re-read old Newman threads. I've read plenty of his stuff back in the day when he virtually ruled CMM, so I'm familiar enough with his theories and tactics to have developed a serious Newman phobia for the rest of my days. :lol:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

As I've said before, I've often found the practice of crediting one person with any creative work (unless its almost impossibly 100% novel) a little sketchy... as far as who gets credit for what I personally think a lot of classical works should give credit to more than just the composer. I think when possible a composer's teacher for example should be credited in all works where that teacher had a large influence. For example (I am not trying to pick on Rodrigo here who is a favorite composer of mine I am just using a random example) but I think many of Rodrigo's works should properly be credited to something like - Falla / Rodrigo etc. The same rule could undoubtedly be applied to many works by Beethoven, Bach and Mozart and probably ALL composers. We should always remember this before idolizing individual composers too much, none of whom were brought up in a vacuum.

I don't know where you are going with this, but it sounds like you have a rather confused notion as to the process of artistic creativity. There are certainly works of art that involve the creative input of more than one artist. This painting, for example...










... has been attributed to three major artists of the Italian Renaissance: Giorgione, Bellini, and Titian. It is quite likely that all three shared in its creation. Quite likely begun by Giorgione, Bellini took over after Giorgione's death... and Titian finished the work after Bellini's passing. In such a case the attribution is surely owed to all three artists.

What you seem to suggest, however, is that the attribution of a work of art should include the artist's teachers, mentors, and sources of inspiration.










Rembrandt's classic _Self Portrait, 1669_ is one of the great portraits of Western art. It quite possibly owes something to Rembrandt's great Flemish peer, Peter Paul Rubens' _Portrait of Susanna Fourment_:










... an equally brilliant portrait... portraying the young sister-in-law (as possible lover) of the artist. Both paintings are undoubtedly indebted to the great Italian Renaissance painter, Raphael, whose _Portrait of Baldasare Castiglione_...










is a clear inspiration for the composition of both portraits. Rembrandt was even known to have made studies of Raphael's painting (which still exist).

So are we to attribute Rembrandt's _Self Portrait_ to Rembrandt/Raphael? But then we should recognize that Raphael's portrait was clearly based upon the composition of Leonardo Da Vinci's _La Gioconda (Mona Lisa)_...










Like Rembrandt, Raphael made studies of this work of his predecessor:










So Rembrandt's painting should be credited to Rembrandt/Raphael/Leonardo? But of course it wouldn't stop there. Leonardo had precursors and they had precursors _ad infinitum_.

A precursor... a source of inspiration... is not the artist. Art involves a dialog... not merely with the imagined audience, but also with other art as well as with the world as experienced by the artist. To expect Rembrandt to credit Raphael as co-creator is as absurd as to suggest Rubens should credit Susanna Fourment as a co-creator of his painting.

I suspect your whole agenda in making such ridiculous suggestions concerning artistic attribution has little to do with any grasp of the artistic creative process, and more to do with some outdated concept of political correctness and the concept of aesthetic relativism raised by brianwalker. What better way to tear down the notion of the individual "genius" or "creator" and ensure true egalitarianism than to suggest that no individual creates within a vacuum (gee! original idea, that) and thus attribution for any work of art should be spread out among all who had any sort of influence upon the artist.

And how does that play out in music? Mozart cannot lay claim to _Don Giovanni_ without sharing credit with Gluck and every operatic composer he ever heard... starting with Monteverdi. He must also share credit with Leonin and Perotin who helped develop the polyphonic style that allows for the layers of voices going off on their own... and how many others?

Let's get real here. You may find the the practice of crediting one person with any creative work a little "sketchy..." but as a practicing artist myself my response to your suggestion that I am not entitled to the sole and complete credit to my creative endeavors would likely be something that might lead to my earning a few infractions.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

@St.Lukes, I think you've misread my motives, I don't even really know anything about aesthetic relativism, but glancing through the definition of it on wiki - I would say I'm on the fence on that one, but that I would agree its probable universal beauty exists. (?) Nor did I read through many of the longer posts in this thread. That was a post where I was more or less thinking out loud about how it can be deceiving in a way and lead to idol worship in a sense to get too attached to the idea of 'one creator' of certain works of art. We should remember that artists still work with teachers and influences from their time. In no way do I think we shouldn't still give those main creators the lion's share of the credit for those works, but I was thinking of alternate ways in which it could be done, to give people a more realistic view of the artist. I for one like to separate the artist from the art, and not get too caught up in 'fanboy' antics over composers, which lets face it - happens from time to time on this forum, and has been an issue you've personally addressed on more than one occasion. 

I just wonder if less focus was put on 'one creator' of a given piece of art it would help with this unbalanced view of the god-like artist, and change social perspectives in this area in a positive way. But I agree its a grey area, and I in no way would want to detract from an artists livelihood. etc. I think its a balance, and speaking as a type of artist myself I understand the need for credit and acknowledgment and the desire to leave a legacy and I have those strong desires myself, and I do agree there are positive and inspirational aspects that go along with giving praise to artists who have accomplished brilliance in their works - and they should be honored. Its a complex issue I think and by no means do I feel like I've come up with any kind of a solution to it, as I said I was more or less thinking out loud in that post.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

I think it is OK to have composer-hero but this is just a personal thing, whiich should *not* be used as arguments over other listener's preference on some other composer's music. I have my favourite tennis champion but I should not want to convince other people who prefer a different player.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

To be honest, I kind of lost track of what this thread was about.


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

I didnt have the energy to read the entire thread, but I did read the OP post and sort of wanted to respond from my own perspective. (Like this topic hasnt been hashed over a zillion times!)

Technically, I agree with you... There are a couple dozen Mozart works that rank up there with the best music ever written. Your problem is the messianic adoration that some have of the mans work n its entirety.

Shrug. Who cares. I admit, I am more swayed - more touched by some of Mozarts works than any other composer. (OK, Ok.. I think Beethovens 7th is the best piece of music I have ever heard, but that is besides the point. And OK, Haydns string quartets are just jaw dropping and done even get me STARTED on the Brandenburgs....)

My first point, if there is one... is that you cant really objectively get upset about it, can you? 

One thing that I believe people overlook is the consistency of mozarts output - and his age. (I know, I know.. I can see you shaking your head...this as nothing to DO with the caliber of the music. Are you sure?). Take his serenade for winds K361. (361 / 25 ) +10 = 24. He was 24 when he wrote it. How about Symphony #29, K201. (201 / 25) + 10 = 18. He was 18. I must say - is that not some of the best composition you have ever seen/heard from n 18 year old? As far as I know - that little parlor tick only works with mozart because of the frequency and regularity of his output. Clarinet Concerto 622. (622 / 25) + 10 = 34. It of course fall apart for very early works. Violin Concertos 10-15 were written when he was about 8. 8! It boggles me. The thought that he was dead at 35, at the pinnacle of his prowess - nearly makes me want to weep. What would we have gotten in the next 10 or 20 years...

Secondly - I find some of the melodies and transparent composition.. and the *fluidity* of some of it breathtaking. Some of it can seem cliche when you listen to ALL of it as he was I believe honing his emotional weaponry, but it is nonetheless some very serious, very persuasive, unusually good stuff. Bach owns baroque. OWNS it. Beethoven streched the limits of classical and ushered in Romance. Mozart... I honestly believe this... wrote some of the most decievingly beautiful, graceful, classical era music there is. Besides Beethoven, I can find no single composer in history with as many recurring melodies that persist to this day. I have a hard time putting my finger on what it is...and believe me I have tried.

But to your point - anyone that makes blanket assertions regarding any composers unblemished perfection is obviously suffering from a deplorable hyperbolic attack - but - I cast no blame, none whatsoever on someone who is swayed by Mozarts music in an unusually powerfull way. I say - good for them, I hope they enjoy it. All of it. ;-)

Honestly - there is nothing better I like to hear than someone who gushes over some piece(s) of music or another. I have learned quite a bit that way - far more than challenging them on how 'wrong' they are. ;-)

-S


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> ...the reason for that interest is primarily that they are part of the story of a great composer, show the evolution of his music and help put the masterpieces into context.


*brilliant* observation.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think you can take Dittersdorf work that is fairly unknown and tell someone with at least an intermediary education in classical music that it's Mozart and that person will sit there and listen with more enthusiasm and attention than if the person were told it was writter by Dittersdorf. Conversely, I think you can take a fairly unknown Mozart work and tell the person it was written by Dittersdorf and they will say "oh, i guess it's ok"
> 
> And do you honestly believe that we could not do this with a great many other composers? Considering the huge oeuvres of composers such as Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi if one were presented with one of the finer works of Zelenka, Alessandro Scarlatti, Buxtehude, Telemann, etc... one might be fooled into thinking one was listening to a work by Bach, Handel, or Vivaldi. I fully agree that one might take a work by Stamitz or Hoffmeister or many other less-well-known composers and convince someone that the work is by Mozart... of Haydn... or even Beethoven. But what does this prove? A good many works by Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Brahms, Handel, etc... are no better than a lot of fine works by other composers. Indeed, I might go further and suggest that some of the very finest works by less-well-known composers can rival some of the strongest efforts by the better-known composers. Mozart, Bach, Handel, Beethoven, etc... simply rise to such levels (and higher) more often, and their efforts have impacted the subsequent developments of music more profoundly.
> 
> Personally, I have been delving deeper and deeper into the vast wealth of great music of the Baroque. In spite of the wealth that I have discovered, I don't find myself feeling Bach's reputation is undeserved. If you are suggesting that Mozart's reputation is largely taken on faith by those who have not taken the time to listen to all that surrounded him, I ask you whose reputation is not taken on faith in a similar manner? Have all those who embrace Shakespeare read the wealth of English theater by other poets of the period (to say nothing of French, Italian, Spanish, etc... playwrights?) The reality is that there are many whose artistic achievements are unfairly ignored regardless of their merits. This does not infer that all those whose reputations tower over them are not deserving of their adulation.


A little off topic, but I've always preferred Greek theater over English theater. I'm guessing you enjoyed plenty of it yourself, as well? I don't think Shakespeare holds a candle to some of the Greek poets and playwrights, to be perfectly honest.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> A little off topic, but I've always preferred Greek theater over English theater. I'm guessing you enjoyed plenty of it yourself, as well? I don't think Shakespeare holds a candle to some of the Greek poets and playwrights, to be perfectly honest.


I'm considering teaching myself Greek, after reading Heidegger imperiously extol the superiority of the Greek language over every other Western language, including latin. Yeats famously sided with the lost plays of Sophocles over Shakespeare. Are the Greeks really as great as they are?

I guess my mistake was to have read Shakespeare after reading Harold Bloom's exegesis; yes, you can even over-hype Shakespeare. No piece of literature can live up to the expectations he set in Shakespeare: Invention of the Human.

On a superficial level English just isn't as phonetically pleasing as many other languages. From the names alone... in Latin you have Julius, Germanicus, Octavius, Claudius, Livia.... in Greek... Cassandra, Penelope, Thrasymachus, etc...


----------

