The life, death & life of Wolfgang Mozart

[Droell]

Originally posted by Frank H:

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

My guess is that Eric is working from some biography & does not have immediate access to primary materials, which is what is needed.

There is someone who has been posting in this thread who I suspect would know off the top of her head, but has instead been amusing herself taking pot shots at me. She should be able to make an ass & a fool of me in 50 words or less.

[Droell]

Originally posted by Hofrat:

Dear Droell;

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

Regret to disagree. Orchestral scores are more than a vocal line & a simple accompaniment. If you didn't write the score you won't really understand the score without considerable study. Let me see - No flutes, Mozart didn't like them. A pair of oboes, a pair of clarinets (M liked them), a pair of bassoons, a pair of horns, timpani & the usual strings. This seems to be the typical Mozartean orchestra (I might be wrong about doubled horn & winds). And for a concerto, a piano, of course.

Mostly the melody stays in the strings, which makes them easier to track, but I suppose the only way to figure out if you've got the winds right is to work out the harmonics under them. In other words, things like sub-dominant second inversion with the root in the bassoon, etc. It's second nature to a composer & something Mozart delighted in.

Which might be why, when Nissen needed to support his claim that he couldn't read music, he didn't ask his wife for help reading a score, he asked others. Of course, I think he asked around simply to make it seem as if he couldn't read scores (being a pest), as the project he undertook was, for the most part, impossible unless you could read. But if that was true, he would have made such huge demands on someone that they would probably have taken over the project outright. Or have politely told Nissen to please not bother them so much. This is real work.

For the concerto project, Constanze paid her own money for the printing. If she didn't get it exactly right, it was money wasted. Printing is merciless that way.



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

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by Droell:
Regret to disagree. Orchestral scores are more than a vocal line & a simple accompaniment. If you didn't write the score you won't really understand the score without considerable study. Let me see - No flutes, Mozart didn't like them. A pair of oboes, a pair of clarinets (M liked them), a pair of bassoons, a pair of horns, timpani & the usual strings. This seems to be the typical Mozartean orchestra (I might be wrong about doubled horn & winds). And for a concerto, a piano, of course.

Mostly the melody stays in the strings, which makes them easier to track, but I suppose the only way to figure out if you've got the winds right is to work out the harmonics under them. In other words, things like sub-dominant second inversion with the root in the bassoon, etc. It's second nature to a composer & something Mozart delighted in.

Which might be why, when Nissen needed to support his claim that he couldn't read music, he didn't ask his wife for help reading a score, he asked others. Of course, I think he asked around simply to make it seem as if he couldn't read scores (being a pest), as the project he undertook was, for the most part, impossible unless you could read. But if that was true, he would have made such huge demands on someone that they would probably have taken over the project outright. Or have politely told Nissen to please not bother them so much. This is real work.

For the concerto project, Constanze paid her own money for the printing. If she didn't get it exactly right, it was money wasted. Printing is merciless that way.

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

---------------

Dear Mr. Droell,

Please note that Nissen's letters in Danish are housed at Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Nissen was Nissen and Mozart was Mozart. This is proving to be a lengthy and useless argument.

Should you be interested in an analysis of Mozart's illnesses and his death please read
"Mozart in Person - His character and Health by Dr. Peter J. Davies. It is published by Greenwood Press, Connecticut.

Mozart's Death Mask cast by Thaddaus Ribola
presents a real portrait of Mozart. It is housed at the Mozarteum, Salzburg. Mozart bears absolutely no resemblence to Nissen
and not a single feature between the two men is alike. Yes, they both have a pair of eyes, one nose and a mouth. This is where
it ends.

Should your theory not be seen as a manufactured one, you are most welcome to support your theory with valid documentations.


Agnes Selby.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Droell:
My guess is that Eric is working from some biography & does not have immediate access to primary materials, which is what is needed.

There is someone who has been posting in this thread who I suspect would know off the top of her head, but has instead been amusing herself taking pot shots at me. She should be able to make an ass & a fool of me in 50 words or less.

Now that Agnes has demolished your latest theory (hand-writing analysis alone would do this let alone a letter in Danish), how do you explain the presence of Mozart's name in the registry of deaths for 5th Dec 1791 which states that he was examined? That alone should have prevented you from this pointless shambles of a theory which even Robert Newman distanced himself from!!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[erk]

Originally posted by Droell:

Produce anything of Nissen's in Danish.

Try this piece of common sense instead: We know for a fact that Nissen wrote poetry in Danish and German. And that he was a member of a literary society (mentioned in earlier post) which included people like Hans Christian Andersen. And that he was a censor of the newspapers.

These are established facts from independent sources (Danish and German). Now if you disagree with this, you are the one who should supply proof. Not me.

Erik

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Droell:
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.

But of course documents, even tied in bundles, get destroyed, lost, mislaid, hidden away in archives etc.etc. Which is why there is nobody in history for whom we have anything more than a proportion of their documents, usually a rather small proportion.

But in any case, it appears, from Agnes Selby and others, that we do have good documentary evidence to show that Nissen was Danish and was...Nissen. [Unless "Agnes Selby" is really Constanze ]

You go on & on about how I am warping scientific investigation.

I go “on and on” about it because you go “on and on” doing it. I have no basic objection to someone believing something for non-scientific reasons. I get annoyed however at those who try to present their theories as scientific, scholarly, research, when it is quite clear that they have little or no idea as to what that entails.

Eventually what comes is Occam's Razor: That Mozart = Nissen explains a lot more than Mozart = dead 1791, Nissen = Dane ever could.

No, it doesn’t. For a start it doesn’t explain how Constanze and Mozart managed to hoodwink everyone at that time into believing that Mozart had died, and that Nissen wasn’t Mozart, and how these amazing frauds have managed to evade generations of intelligent and learned scholars, until the advent of David R. Roell. These problems are more than all the problems about Mozart’s death in 1791 put together.

Most illuminating is this quote from your post:

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.

Well, YOU said it!

Frank

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 03-22-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 03-22-2006).]

[Droell]

Originally posted by Peter:
Now that Agnes has demolished your latest theory (hand-writing analysis alone would do this let alone a letter in Danish), how do you explain the presence of Mozart's name in the registry of deaths for 5th Dec 1791 which states that he was examined? That alone should have prevented you from this pointless shambles of a theory which even Robert Newman distanced himself from!!

Hello Peter,

Agnes Selby's latest remarks are what I had expected, and would otherwise have accepted, a week ago. But instead she personally denigrated me, which makes me wonder what she did, while researching her book, when she was confronted with evidence she didn't like. If one ridicules in public, what does one do in private?

If I am wrong, then I am wrong. Will not have been the first time. (Goethe's remark about boldness comes to mind, but that just makes me a sore looser.) Apologies to all.

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Droell:
My guess is that Eric is working from some biography & does not have immediate access to primary materials, which is what is needed.

And that is, of course, precisely why you challenged him to produce the material.

Most pseudo-scientific conspiracy theorists propound their views on various forums, in the generally correct assumption that most of those who question their theories will only have access to secondary material. This is because most people will not have the time or money to investigate the primary sources. They thus are “vulnerable” to precisely the sort of challenge you made.

However, as I pointed out, it is not up to those who disagree with conspiracy theorists to disprove the particular theory, it is up to the proponents of the theory to provide real “obvious” evidence.

If I wish to propound the “Moon is made of green cheese” theory, it is not incumbent on my opponents to “prove” that the samples of moon rock in museums are not forgeries – it is up to me to prove that they are. Of course, as a typical conspiracy theorist , I would challenge my opponents to produce original documents showing that the samples come from the Moon. Of course, if such documents turn up, I would then immediately dismiss them too as forgeries, and ask for documentary evidence that they aren’t. And if such evidence turns up, I would then immediately dismiss…..!

There is thus of course absolutely no documentation which, from "my" viewpoint, would disprove my theory.

Incidentally, if Erik has no access to primary sources, or understandably decides that he can’t be bothered to take the time to chase up what is probably a meaningless farrago of nonsense, he would be quite correct to largely trust the secondary sources, for the time being. That is because most scholars are basically honest, and any dishonesties and honest mistakes will tend to be eventually corrected by the scholarly world as a large. Of course, it might be that an exceptionally high proportion of dishonest and/or stupid scholars are concentrated in the field of Mozart studies, but I can’t see any reason why that should be the case.

So Erik, or anyone else, would be wise to pay much more attention to the generality of Mozart scholarship, than to the startling new theories of Taboga, Newman, Roell etc. At least initially. If of course these various gentlemen can come up with real evidence, which stands the scrutiny of true scientific research, to support their theories, then – and only then – do we need to pay them real attention.

Frank

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Droell:

Hello Peter,

Agnes Selby's latest remarks are what I had expected, and would otherwise have accepted, a week ago. But instead she personally denigrated me, which makes me wonder what she did, while researching her book, when she was confronted with evidence she didn't like. If one ridicules in public, what does one do in private?

As Peter pointed out in an earlier post, Agnes Selby did NOT denigrate you personally.

On the other hand, in this last post, YOU HAVE QUITE CLEARLY DENIGRATED HER PERSONALLY, by accusing her of scholarly dishonesty. This is a much, MUCH, more serious matter than the harmless fun she made with your posting name (not even your real name)!

But of course this gives you a perfect "excuse" to ignore yet more real evidence fatal to your "thesis".

If I am wrong, then I am wrong. Will not have been the first time. (Goethe's remark about boldness comes to mind, but that just makes me a sore looser.) Apologies to all.

If you really are sorry, and are not going to waste any more bandwidth on this, your apologies ought to be accepted.

Frank

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 03-22-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Droell:

Hello Peter,

Agnes Selby's latest remarks are what I had expected, and would otherwise have accepted, a week ago. But instead she personally denigrated me, which makes me wonder what she did, while researching her book, when she was confronted with evidence she didn't like. If one ridicules in public, what does one do in private?

If I am wrong, then I am wrong. Will not have been the first time. (Goethe's remark about boldness comes to mind, but that just makes me a sore looser.) Apologies to all.

Why should you be sore? Why would you gain any pleasure from showing Mozart to be a fraud? I'm delighted we've managed to nail this slight on his character.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Droell]

Originally posted by Frank H:

As Peter pointed out in an earlier post, Agnes Selby did NOT denigrate you personally.

On the other hand, in this last post, YOU HAVE QUITE CLEARLY DENIGRATED HER PERSONALLY, by accusing her of scholarly dishonesty. This is a much, MUCH, more serious matter than the harmless fun she made with your posting name (not even your real name)!
Frank

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 03-22-2006).]

Hello Frank,

I have merely pointed out that Ms Selby made fun of me before she would give me a serious answer. I don't consider that any more denigrating than her initial reply.

[Droell]

Originally posted by Peter:
Why should you be sore? Why would you gain any pleasure from showing Mozart to be a fraud? I'm delighted we've managed to nail this slight on his character.

Hello Peter,

Consider this: Mozart's daddy made Mozart's reputation based to some extent on well-meaning hype.

Robert Newman has brought us preliminary Italian research indicating that perhaps the Mozarts were not always above board in the compositions claimed for the wunderkid. I thought briefly about the opera Mozart composed, age 14, which was either 3 hours or 5 hours in length, and I thought of those high school term papers of my 17th year where no one could get even 10 pages without the most awful padding. I thought of Felix M. & a few other boy wonders. I even thought of Babaji, an Hindu saint who achieved enlightenment before he reached puberty & is now known as an eternal youth.

And I thought of all the misinformation around Mozart's death.

And I thought, if he faked his death & became a fraud, in what way was that any different from how he seems to have been living his entire life?

I also came to realize just how socially isolated he was. Everyone else is off having a good time, socializing, laughing, carrying on. Mozart is the entertainment. He isn't part of the party. It does him no good to play by conventional rules, since he will never get the conventional reward, which is to be a member of his own society. This means he is forever hatching schemes & working outside of the norms. This sort of thing is described by Andre Gide, the French novelist, as the "slim" and the "crusted". Mozart, and to some extent, myself, are among the "slim". See Gide's exposition in Les Caves du Vatican, generally known in English (which is how I read it) as Lafcadio's Adventures. (One of the best adventure novels ever written, by the way.)

In thinking about my theory, which for the sake of argument I will now declare baseless & worthless & for which I apologize, but thinking about it anyway, I began to realize that if Mozart did this, he got no relief. That life in fact got worse, not better. That he was trapped. That in 1812 he was likely disgraced & packed off to Copenhagen to eek out as best he could. (He was a diplomat. They always say polite things like, "illness". Sometimes it's actually true.)

I also got to wondering about Mozart's wonderful piano concerti. Why do they exist? Was even a single one lost, ie, orchestral score but no decipherable piano part? Most of them seem to have been first printed in the years after his death. He either left perfect solo parts behind, or perhaps Mr. Newman is right, that he bought them & had to learn them like anyone else, or perhaps someone somewhere later successfully deciphered the composer's own notes.

So this quickie query of mine simply brought up more paradoxes. I would not be surprised if my silly theory has a long shadow.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Droell:
Hello Peter,

And I thought, if he faked his death & became a fraud, in what way was that any different from how he seems to have been living his entire life?

Without wishing to reopen the Newman/Taboga argument, it should be realised that their controversial claims are not proven or accepted by the vast majority of serious scholars. Therefore to claim that Mozart lived his entire life as a fraud is like your Nissen theory, way off the mark.



------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Droell:
Hello Frank,

I have merely pointed out that Ms Selby made fun of me before she would give me a serious answer. I don't consider that any more denigrating than her initial reply.

Here is your original "merely pointed out":

Originally posted by Droell
Hello Peter,
Agnes Selby's latest remarks are what I had expected, and would otherwise have accepted, a week ago. But instead she personally denigrated me, which makes me wonder what she did, while researching her book, when she was confronted with evidence she didn't like. If one ridicules in public, what does one do in private?

The bit I have highlighted clearly implies that Agnes Selby has possibly, indeed probably, doctored the evidence. You are accusing her of intellectual dishonesty.

If you really contend that this doesn't constitute denigration of a much, much higher degree than her playing around with "droll" and "Droell" - which wasn't even denigration in any true sense of the term - then I am flabbergasted.

There are, as far as I can see, only three possibilities:
(1) You don't understand English properly.
(2) You are a totally naive "innocent", and shouldn't really be exposing yourself to the rigours of intellectual discourse.
(3) You are behaving in a typical conspiracy-theorist way, and, when confronted by crushing evidence against your theory, try to destroy the credibility of those who present that evidence, by personal denigration.

If either (1) or (2) is the case, then I am sorry for what amounts to cruelty on my part towards an "innocent", but you can't blame me for expecting that someone who is clearly intelligent and well-read (as you are), wouldn't suffer from those disabilities.

Frank

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 03-23-2006).]

[Peter]

I think this topic has run its course and nothing is to be gained by pursuing it any further.

------------------
'Man know thyself'