The life, death & life of Wolfgang Mozart

[Droell]

[quote]Originally posted by Frank H:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Frank H:
[b]

Originally posted by Droell:
Hello Frank,

I am not the subject of this, but since you ask:

Please give us the definitive answer to Mozart's death.

Or please leave the arena.


Well, you asked for it!

Please accept my apologies for the request, which I have already edited out of the original.

But please do something more than restate the obvious. The next step, it seems to me, is to establish that Nissen was fluent in both Danish & German. I think this can easily be done, and it would be definitive.

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Droell:
Please accept my apologies for the request, which I have already edited out of the original.

But please do something more than restate the obvious. The next step, it seems to me, is to establish that Nissen was fluent in both Danish & German. I think this can easily be done, and it would be definitive.

I would have thought I had done anything but "restate the obvious" in my theory that you, David R. Roell, are, in fact, Mozart/Nissen!

As for Danes and Germans, "restating the obvious" might be exactly what is necessary if one version of Droell seems to ignore it in his arguments.

Just as the "obvious" existence of pieces of moon rock in museums might need to be pointed out if I ignored it in my argument that the Moon is actually made out of green cheese. Although of course those pieces might be forgeries by Opus Dei, Wal-Mart etc.

[Whatever the situation in the beginning, established historical and scientific fact thereby becomes "obvious", which is why most conspiracy theories work by ignoring the obvious in favour of the dubious - and accusing all those who won't go along with their particular theories of being blind unthinking stick-in-the-mud conservatives.

But to accept that there are questions about Mozart's death, which most seem to agree had a number of unresolved details, doesn't mean that we should thereby accept the Droell alternative - without good honest "obvious" evidence to back it up]

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 03-20-2006).]

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by Frank H:
Close study of the posts under the name of “Droell” reveal an intriguing mystery, which suggests VERY STRONGLY that “Droell” is actually a composite of (at least) two individuals.

For instance, in a post of 03-14-2006 08:26 PM, Droell asserts that “The problem we have is that Constanze's second husband, the Danish ambassador is, in fact, Mozart's identical twin". And again, in a post of 03-15-2006 01:18 PM Droell writes “Someone who looks exactly like Mozart comes to Vienna & marries Mozart's widow.”

As I pointed out in a previous post, these sorts of assertions imply that Mr. David Roell, who (apparently) posts as Droell, knows EXACTLY what Mozart looked like.

Yet, in a post of 03-16-2006 12:26 AM Droell(?) writes “And no, we don't know what Mozart looks like, because the only surviving portraits are of him as a child, or in a family setting.”

So there appear to be two different people posting as Droell. (1) Someone, whom I will call Droell A, who knows the exact appearance of Mozart, presumably as a result of super-natural revelation of some sort. He uses this knowledge to assert that Nissen is none other than Mozart. (2) Someone, Droell B, who admits that we DON’T KNOW WHAT MOZART LOOKS LIKE. He then uses this to implicate Constanze and Nissen/Mozart in this obfuscation.

What unites Droell A and Droell B is that they both believe that Mozart and Nissen are the same person. But it is clear that in other ways their assertions are incompatible, indeed diametrically opposed. I take this to be clear proof that we are dealing with different people.

But, hide-bound unthinking conservatives might object to my discovery by pointing out that surely the true David Roell would have complained about the false pseudo-Roell. To which I would reply “How do you know he hasn’t complained? All we know is that there is no written evidence that he has”. Which of course might only mean that his complaints have been suppressed by what is clearly a powerful conspiracy to cover up the existence of multiple Droells.

Who is then the true David Roell? I’m afraid the situation is too complex to offer a simple solution. A conspiracy might very well have invented BOTH Droells. The existence of a site called “Astrology Center of America”, apparently owned by David R. Roell, is no evidence to the contrary – that site is possibly part of the same conspiracy. The photo of (allegedly) David R. Roell, on that site, is of
course absolutely no proof that he actually looks like that. In any case, I see many people every week who look suspiciously like the person in the photo.

Once my suspicions had been aroused on this point, other suspicions began to arise.

The remarkable way in which Constanze and Mozart/Nissen apparently managed to totally hoodwink so many intelligent and knowledgeable people of their time suggests that they were people of remarkable abilities. I suggest that they perhaps managed to find the cure for mortality. Not only did Mozart not die in 1791, but the “reincarnated” Nissen/Mozart didn’t die later either, and neither did Constanze. I suggest that, sadly, after centuries of marriage, their relationship began to get a bit stale, and they fell out. Constanze emigrated to Australia, and has recently written her supposed biography, using the pseudonym “Agnes Selby”. Meanwhile, Mozart/Nissen emigrated to the USA, and took the name "David R. Roell".

I haven’t as yet determined which particular powerful group is responsible for the conspiracy to cover up this momentous discovery of the elixir of life. HaydnFan pointed out that I hadn’t included “Wal-Mart” in my list of potential conspirators. I must admit that they hadn’t occurred to me as likely conspirators in this – but that may only mean that they are even more secretive and subtle in their control of the media, academia, governments, the UN etc. than such groups as Opus Dei. On the principle that “there is no smoke without fire”, I accept HaydnFan’s suggestion.

Of course, it will, regrettably, take a LOT of work to disprove my thesis. I advise anyone not to bother, because you won’t be able to do so.

----------

Yes, indeed! And only the other day I saw
Mozart/Nissen walking up the steps to the Sydney Opera House. He was there, so he said, to attend Queen Elizabeth II's opening
of a new addition to the Sydney Opera House.
He was also going to the opening of the Commonwealth Games by the aforementioned Queen while he was in
Australia. He was sad, he said, to be the only person still interested in the English Monarch.

And, what pleased me most, he
was on his way to buy my book, "Constanze Mozart's Beloved" at the Opera House bookshop. He was going to publicize the book when he returns to where he is staying on a permanent basis. A bit of publicity does not hurt.

Regards,
Agnes Selby.

[Droell]

I am just astonished you guys didn't know.

Mozart & Nissen got together & adopted Carl van Beethoven, who married Mrs. Schumann & they all lived happily ever after.

[Hofrat]

Dear Droell;

I beg to differ with you. Constanze was a von Weber, a well know musical family. She was an accomplished singer. She most certainly could read music.


Hofrat

[HaydnFan]

Frank, previously you asserted than Droell was in fact, two different people posting under the same name. I think I have found a solution to this:

Both David Roell and Robert Newman are posting under the Droell name...in fact, if I am not mistaken, they are the same person!

Where is Mr. Newman anyway?

[erk]

Originally posted by Droell:

I can't see that you've answered my posts. Repetition of accepted facts does not interest me. Analysis will.

We need Nissen's signed, handwritten documents in both fluent Danish & fluent German. Letters will do. Mozart is only capable of one of these. This would seem to be a definitive test.

I am reminded of the recent DNA tests on Mozart's skull, and the comparison to DNA test run on the bones of his blood relatives. Fewer Mozarts were found than expected.

Apologies.

I rest my case. You are obviously beyond the reach of reason.

Erik

[Droell]

Originally posted by erk:

I rest my case. You are obviously beyond the reach of reason.

Erik

Produce anything of Nissen's in Danish.

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Droell:

Produce anything of Nissen's in Danish.

Suppose Erik can't produce anything, what would this mean? Only that Erik hasn't come across anything.

Even if no one comes across anything, what would that mean? It wouldn't necessarily mean that Nissen never wrote anything in Danish. "All we know is that no written evidence has survived".

Even if Nissen never wrote anything in Danish, what would that mean? Only perhaps that he was one of the not unsubstantial number of Danes who were German speakers, or who preferred to write in German - a much more international language than Danish.

It's not for Erik to prove that Nissen was Danish, it's for you to prove that he wasn't - and was actually Mozart.

I think I've actually got more "evidence" that you aren't David Roell, than you have any "evidence" on the identity of Nissen !

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 03-21-2006).]

[Droell]

Originally posted by Frank H:


Suppose Erik can't produce anything, what would this mean? Only that Erik hasn't come across anything.

Nissen is Danish. Danish is his mother-tongue. He has friends & family in Denmark. He spent 19 years in Vienna, in his archives should be, at the very least, the collected letters, in Danish, which he received from friends in his his native country while he was abroad.

I simply cannot set the bar lower than this. If the man is a Dane he will have no trouble proving it. If not, he is an impostor.

*********************************

I had some thoughts about the posthumous publishing of one of Mozart's piano concerti.

True, Constanze was trained as a singer. She learned solfegio, which is a glorified do-re-mi sort of thing. You need a lot more training than that.

The major problem in publishing a posthumous concerto score is preparing the score for publication. Concerti are some of the more difficult to prepare.

Concerto score is in two parts: The orchestral parts, and the soloist part. These are always kept separate, so that only the performer (usually the composer) can make use of it - it's one of the ways a composer makes a living.

Ries said of Beethoven that Beethoven wrote the solo part of his 3rd concerto in code, and that it was expressly written out, by Beethoven himself, a year or more after its composition, for Ries's own premiere performance.

So that's the first thing. Finding the two parts of the score (the conductor's score & the soloist's part), and then deciphering whatever shortcuts the composer may have left behind in the solo part. Almost all composers have a shorthand, specific to them. Young composers - like Mozart - may in fact never fully write down their own solo passages. Mozart wrote out none (or almost none) of his cadenzas & as he died unexpectedly, it is quite surprising he got around to explicitly writing out each & every solo passage from each & every piano concerto he ever wrote. So there are problems here.

Next, it's not enough to simply give it all over to the printers. You've got to figure out exactly where each & every one of the solo entries appears in the conductor's master score (and if there's no conductor's score, then you have to assemble the various orchestral parts). Then you have to check that all the pages, for each of the two scores, are in the proper order, that none are missing, that no page of any other score has crept in by mistake.

If I were to take one of my Dover scores & chop the binding off & throw the pages into the air, I could probably figure out how to put them back together. And no, page numbers won't help, since we won't necessarily know who numbered them, or when the numbering was done. But I would have the advantage of recordings, and my own memory, to assist me. Constanze & Nissen did not have that. They worked blind, so it would seem.

Do you see what an enormously complicated thing this is, the casual printing of a concerto score? I am in awe of Mendelssohn who did exactly this to the long forgotten scores of Franz Schubert.



[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 03-21-2006).]

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Droell:
Nissen is Danish. Danish is his mother-tongue. He has friends & family in Denmark. He spent 19 years in Vienna, in his archives should be, at the very least, the collected letters, in Danish, which he received from friends in his his native country while he was abroad.

I simply cannot set the bar lower than this. If the man is a Dane he will have no trouble proving it. If not, he is an impostor.

Who says "he will have no trouble proving it"? Not everyone hoards all their correspondence. Although of course it might be a case of "all we know is that no written evidence has survived" - a principle of reasoning which I derive directly from yourself.

And if material supposedly from Danish friends turns up, why couldn't that be part of the same conspiracy covering up his identity as Mozart? If "Mozart" had the ingenuity to fake his identity as Nissen for do many years - of course he could accomplish such a simple thing!

The fact is, that you have constructed your thesis in such a way that it is almost impossible to "disprove", and it wouldn't be worthwhile for anyone to bother to do so. This is the hallmark of pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories. Only the equivalent of a religious conversion would change the minds of adherents to these sorts of theories.

But the principle remains - it is up to those who claim that Nissen was Mozart, or that Elvis is alive, or that George Bush is an alien, or that the Moon is made of green cheese to try to "prove" their points. It is not up to those who don't accept these startlingly interesting and revolutionary ideas to disprove them.

If you haven't taken that on board, then you haven't begun to understand the necessary processes of scholarly discussion.

Frank

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 03-21-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 03-21-2006).]

[Droell]

Originally posted by Frank H:

Who says "he will have no trouble proving it"? Not everyone hoards all their correspondence.

In that day & age, letters were virtually the only way cultured people had of knowing each other, much less simply "staying in touch". Each & ever letter was precious. They were typically bundled together & tied with red ribbons. They were taken out on special occasions & re-read with pleasure. They were some of the most prized of all possessions.

The art of correspondence extended even to people living in the same city, as any casual reading of the short stories of Saki will demonstrate.

PS: George Bush, by the was, is a monster. He doesn't belong here.

You go on & on about how I am warping scientific investigation. Eventually what comes is Occam's Razor: That Mozart = Nissen explains a lot more than Mozart = dead 1791, Nissen = Dane ever could. What this will do to the study of Mozart simply cannot be imagined. Robert Newman's Italian researchers will simply jump for joy at the implications. This is staggeringly vast. If Nissen wasn't Mozart, he will forcibly be made to be Mozart, this is that powerful.


[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 03-21-2006).]

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Droell:


Ries said of Beethoven that Beethoven wrote the solo part of his 3rd concerto in code, and that it was expressly written out, by Beethoven himself, a year or more after its composition, for Ries's own premiere performance.

Dear Droell;

What do you mean by Ries' own premiere performance of the 3rd piano concerto?? Are you suggesting that Beethoven premiered it, then Ries premiered it again at a later date?? If so, you are dead wrong!! There was but one premiere of the 3rd piano concerto, and it took place on 5 April 1803 with Ries at the keyboard. It was published in 1804.

Droell, you seem to be making things up as you go along.


Hofrat.

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Droell:


True, Constanze was trained as a singer. She learned solfegio, which is a glorified do-re-mi sort of thing. You need a lot more training than that.

Dear Droell;

Another point I want to make. In Mozart's time, performing music was a popular past time. Lots of ordinary people could read music then. It was not unusual to see help wanted ads that read as follows:

"Butler wanted. Must be able to play violin."

As I mentioned before, Constanze was from the von Weber family. This was a family that was very much into vocal music. Carl Maria von Weber needs no introduction from me when it comes to operas. All four of the von Weber girls were singers and they would often go on concert tours. The eldest, Josepha, had a remarkable voice and sang the Queen of the Night in *The Magic Flute*. Constanze sang one of the solo parts of a Mozart mass in a public ceremony. So, we are talking about very accomplished musicians, not "shower sopranos!"


Hofrat

[Droell]

Originally posted by Hofrat:
Dear Droell;

What do you mean by Ries' own premiere performance of the 3rd piano concerto?? Are you suggesting that Beethoven premiered it, then Ries premiered it again at a later date?? If so, you are dead wrong!! There was but one premiere of the 3rd piano concerto, and it took place on 5 April 1803 with Ries at the keyboard. It was published in 1804.

Droell, you seem to be making things up as you go along.


Hofrat.

Beethoven's premiere was a private one. Somewhere at a performance of some concerto, Ries turned the pages for Beethoven as he played. He writes that there was so little to go on, he had to wait for Beethoven to nod before he dared turn the page.

Ries in fact did give the first public performance of the 3rd. He was slated to give the first public performance of the 4th, but honesty got in the way. And yes, I think that must have been a very high honor for the young man.

[This message has been edited by Droell (edited 03-21-2006).]