'Le Nozze di Figaro' and the 'Mozart' Violin Concertos

[Frank H]

Originally posted by RE Newman:
These are my considered views on 'Figaro' and the Violin Concertos and I will of course be willing to say why I hold them in some detail if a traditionalist can tell us here why they believe Mozart was the true composer of both 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and these 5 Violin concertos.

Dear Robert,

This statement is typical not just of the tone of your postings on your theories, but of what is wrong with the whole myriad of pseudo-scholarly theories which infest various fields of study, especially those concerned with history, psychology, anthropology and biology (the scholarly scientific fields most concerned with our identity as humans).

The first point is that it is not up to those who disagree with a conspiracy theory to disprove the particular theory, it is up to the proponents of the theory to prove it. Every true advance in scholarship has come about in this way, and I can’t see why “Mozart” studies should be any different.

At the risk of boring readers even more than they have already been bored by these Mozart/Luchesi/Kraus threads, I am going to quote part of my previous replies to yourself and to David Roell, on why your approach is so fundamentally flawed. I quote them, because I have not enough time to compose totally fresh replies to your renewed corruptions of scientific method, which are of a very similar nature to your former ones.

In reply to a previous assertion of yours that many works attributed to Mozart were actually by Luchesi, I wrote:

“In a previous post I asked for the core, essential, evidence you have for your claim that these works are actually by Luchesi. In your replies, you significantly failed to do so, while waxing at length about all the wrongdoings of the Jesuits.

As I pointed out, in all the very few (but very important) cases where formerly heretical theories have proved to be “right”, and thus become the new orthodoxy, it has ultimately hinged on a very few pieces of evidence, indeed often on a single issue. The fact is that heretical theorists and conspiracy theorists are always very good at building up a large volume of “evidence”, which, when looked at closely is only in effect saying the same thing over and over again, and which, however “impressive” it might look in bulk, would all collapse unless (one or) a few pieces of evidence stood up.

It is usually only too easy to pick holes in the “orthodox” theory. This is because total consistency is rarely a feature of the human world, except on a small scale, is often not a feature of the biological world, and is even sometimes apparently lacking in the physical world. Thus if anyone is determined to believe, or not to believe, in a particular theory, they will always be able to find “evidence” to support their belief – yes, even that the earth is flat. Such a procedure is scientifically invalid in itself, unless it honestly takes into account contrary evidence.”

I gave an example, facetious but valid, in reply to a post by David Roell, I wrote:

“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 (anyone) has no access to primary sources, or understandably decides that he (or she) 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...anyone...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.”

I see nothing in your latest forays against the hated hide-bound “traditionalists” and “conservatives” – undoubtedly brainwashed by the Jesuits or some other secret society – which suggests that you should be taken any more seriously, and Peter, in his quiet understated way, has already pointed out massive flaws in your argumentation as it stands.

I too dislike unthinking hidebound conservatism. In fact one of the worst consequences of pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories, such as yours, Taboga’s, and David Roell’s, is that they effectively “queer the pitch” for genuinely scientific, but “heretical” theories, the very ones which occasionally prove to be correct, and change the course of scholarship in their field.

So, if indeed many of the works of “Mozart” are actually by Luchesi, Kraus etc., you may have effectively delayed recognition of that by years, if not decades.

Regards,

Frank

[Hofrat]

Dear Mr. Newman;

Professor van Boer will not participate on this thread.


Hofrat

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:


Peter,

My case does not rest on 'improbables'. It highlights the improbability of the traditional view - a view that has Mozart and Da Ponte working without any commission or any approval on 'Le Nozze di Figaro' and in a situation where the 'librettist' was no more qualified or experienced than you or I.

Da Ponte was not appointed as Imperial court poet for nothing,the recommendation from Salieri was not based on nothing. As for the commission, I'm not aware that Schubert wrote all his operas to commission, or that Beethoven was commissioned to write Macbeth which he seriously contemplated in 1815.


refer to Beethoven's 'Leonore'. Fine, but in that single case Beethoven worked for years and Da Ponte/Mozart claim they worked for a mere 6 weeks - this around the time when the said da Ponte was already up to his eyeballs with two other operas.

Beethoven revised the work over many years but the initial composition didn't take years. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be impossible for anyone to prepare 3 libretti in one year?


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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 03-27-2006).]

[Droell]

Originally posted by RE Newman:

Hello everyone !

I thought I'd take a break from scribbling notes in my spare time to share on some fresh controversies regarding the life and supposed career of Mozart. ...

Best regards

Robert Newman

My compliments on another post.

You realize, of course, that instead of engaging the Beethoven board in a free-form fantasy of what might or might not have happened, which might unearth other details or suggest other forgotten relationships, the board instead simply retreats into a No, we're not having any of this & then makes efforts to discredit the messenger. (As if that could change anything.)

I knew, going in, that this would be the outcome of my death of Mozart thread. Things proceeded by degrees until orthodoxy reestablished itself. The board might not have previously been aware of the process, but it should be obvious by now, when arguments against me are recycled as arguments against you.

In my thread, a few interesting details came up, the principal one that the Constanze/Georg household was a rather strange place. I had hoped for more.

You, of course, knew the retrograde was on & sagely sat mine out. The eclipse is on for mid-Wednesday morning (GMT), so there's still time for fun & games on this thread.

I am getting a sense of who & what Mozart was (a rather unique & lonely fellow). I only wish I had more detailed knowledge of his life to go with it.

Billy Joel has a song in which he lamented that if he, a major pop star, didn't keep producing hits, season after season, he would eventually end up in the remainder bin. Mozart must have felt the same pressure to produce, year after year, or risk loosing what status he had. If what you say is correct, that he turned to all manner of sources to keep himself fresh in the public's opinion, then he was at risk of cunning fellows hanging something like Figaro on him.

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Droell:
I knew, going in, that this would be the outcome of my death of Mozart thread. Things proceeded by degrees until orthodoxy reestablished itself. The board might not have previously been aware of the process, but it should be obvious by now, when arguments against me are recycled as arguments against you.

"Orthodoxy" is of course, ipso facto, always wrong. As is "traditionalism" and "conservatism".

These things only exist because the majority of people are unthinking sheep who have been brainwashed by the Jesuits, the CIA, FBI, Vatican, McDonald's, Opus Dei, the Jews, the Chinese, Al Qaeda, George Bush etc.etc., not of course forgetting Wal-Mart.

[Droell]

Originally posted by Peter:


Beethoven revised the work over many years but the initial composition didn't take years. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be impossible for anyone to prepare 3 libretti in one year?

Mozart would have spent years on Fidelio if he had a libretto as bad as Fidelio's was. Beethoven idealized the subject and so was willing to plod away, putting priceless music to a poor script.

An accomplished writer can write far more than three libretti in a year, but to do that takes experience in the theatre, in addition to talent.

[robert newman]

Thanks Droell. I respect the fact that you are prepared to think beyond convention because there are so many paradoxes and problems in the traditional version. That's justification enough.

(It reminds me that in studies of ancient Egypt there was until the late 19th century only three accepted sources on the history of that country - two of them partial - the Bible, a version of dynastic history by one 'Manetho' (an Egyptian priest who lived in the Roman Period) and the references found in the Histories of Herodotus. But a huge amount of new evidence in Egyptology has been discovered by those brave enough to have thought the 'unthinkable', though it clashed (and still does) with the 'established' view.

Whether Nissen was Mozart is an extraordinary question beyond me to answer but one you certainly deserve credit for having first asked. It's a bold theory and anything more you might say on the subject of Mozart as a whole will certainly be of interest to me.

Regards

Robert

[Gurn Blanston]

Robert,
Since the production of a commission for this opera is obviously of such importance, I look forward to seeing the Kraus commission. For such an obviously important document to have been "lost for so long, and now to have it produced has me all a'twitter!
Cheers,

------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[robert newman]

Your post reminds me of the the passage where the peasant plays music out of time in the Beethoven Pastoral. You enter the fray only to make a pig's ear of what is being said.

Firstly, a commission was/is standard practice if any composer is to take the time and trouble to compose an opera. (I speak here of the rule and not of obvious though rare exceptions). Secondly, the same is true of the librettist (though in many cases his payment can be made from funds received by the composer). Thirdly, (and I think indisputably) operas were not written and performed in Vienna during the late 18th century without their texts having first been submitted to and approved by the Vienna censors. Fourthly, in this case (with 'Le Nozze di Figaro') it is more than strange that we have no evidence of any of these things actually being done. Fifthly, (and as mentioned several times already) da Ponte had no more experience of writing for operatic composers than has my next door neighbours cat - yet da Ponte is credited with writing no less than three during 1786 alone. Sixth, da Ponte had arrived in Vienna less than 2 years earlier and could hardly have had a close working relationship with Rosenberg or anyone else that mattered on such a hugely controversial piece. And yet, so we're told, it was this fugitive priest da Ponte who singlehandedly persuaded the authorities to allow 'Figaro' to be written. How can this be true if, in fact, da Ponte did not have at this time a finished libretto to submit for its approval ?

None of these remarks prove the true composer of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' was Joseph Martin Kraus. Nor are they meant to. Tney show (I think quite clearly) there are things about this most controversial opera which contradict standard practice in all of the above matters. This made me very suspicious and I therefore started looking elsewhere for a solution. This is also the same Lorenzo da Ponte who tells us Mozart wrote this music in 6 weeks, and so on.

You say if such points are valid they are equally valid in asking whether Joseph Martin Kraus was commissioned.

Well, your point would be a really good one if it was not for the fact that this opera was actually written FOR Mozart and FOR da Ponte without that truth being advertised. (Kraus did get his commission but not in the normal form).

The whole affair is strange though it remains for me to show how this came about and why.

'Figaro' represents in one sense the apex of Mozart's entire career. But it also represented the start of collaboration with da Ponte, of course. Mozart had been largely 'manufactured' in the same way that Hadyn had. Figaro was an extension of this extraordinary career designed to bring glory and prestige to the 'Wiener Klassik' and to the Empire.

Astonishing, for sure ! Even bizzare. But this is why I believe we must consider not simply this work in isolation but it's place within the context of Mozart's entire career.

It was Mozart who was nurtured to become the 'composer of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' whether he actually composed it or not. 'Figaro' made Mozart immortal and though Don Giovanni, Cosi fan Tutte, Die Zauberflote and La Clemenza were still to come it's 'Figaro' that (in terms of Mozart's career) presents the faithful with evidence of an astonishing higher grade of opera than anything Mozart had produced before. Far suprerior (I think) than The Abduction (very good though that work is).

'Figaro' is the point where the Mozart enthusiast has always been literally compelled to believe virtually anything. Having this precedent with 'Figaro' he finds it less difficult to accept (as convention decrees) that in the summer of 1788 this same Mozart (again without evidence of a commission) wrote a trilogy of symphonies (39,40 and 41) in almost the same timescale. Having swallowed this astounding feat with 'Figaro' who are we to deny such a second miracle ? Small wonder one is made speechless !

Let it all end with a Requiem (though, here too there we can overlook the fact that no hard evidence exists of there having ever been a commission for Mozart to write one and even despite the faked signature and much else). KV626 accompanied by the pitiful myth of its parts being rehearsed on the day before the composer's death - an orgy of grief so appropriate for this paragon of music of the late Holy Roman Empire that one can feel guilty for wrecking its poignancy by refusing to buy in to it. Add to this a myth or two more about a 'grey messenger' (this to be repeated in newspapers widely within days of Mozart's death so as to remind us that the Catholic church is still in control of all that really matters) and we have, in fact, a version of this man's life and death that has all the elements of popular myth. For that is precisely how Haydn and Mozart were cultivated and how they were meant to be portrayed and received. (Somewhere in the midst of all this was a remarkable man whom a biographer will one day discover).

This is of course 'stage management' worthy of a novel, and yet it's a version that is fiercely defended by convention despite its many absurdities.

Did you ever listen to works by Joseph Myslevecek (1737-81) ? It was he (Myslevecek) almost singlehandedly who taught Mozart to sound Mozartean (and Mozart's father too) and taught them almost all they ever knew about writing symphonies. It's truly incredible that this great composer should have been so virtually ignored. But such has always been the dominance of Mozart. It's only very recently that we've had a chance to hear his phenomenal music. Myselevec does not sound like Mozart. It is of course Mozart who so closely mimics him. Amazingly so.

Let anyone who loves Mozart's music (particularly his early/middle symphonies and his violin concertos) pay homage to Myslevecek. Let them appreciate that, in a very real sense, credit to him and other composers just as little known is long overdue. JM Kraus is yet another case.

I accept that posts of this kind are messy, hugely controversial and can easily be ignored. But I do think the case in favour of Kraus can now be made. I hope to post again on this subject in the next few days.



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 03-28-2006).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, I certainly didn't intend to be a pig's ear! I was just asking what I felt at this point must be a valid question, which no one else had apparently thought to ask. I appreciate your rather circuitous reply.

In fact, I HAVE heard several of Myslivecek's symphonies, alas, no violin concerti though. I find him to be a rather average though entertaining, middle-of-the-road composer, of approximately the same quality of composition as Benda, Vanhal and Ditters: i.e. - I very much like his work but I wouldn't rank it at the top. If he posessed the musical inventiveness that we have traditionally attribute to Mozart, he certainly hid his light under a bushel, so to speak, at least in work that he put his own name on.

Cheers,

[robert newman]

Dear Hofrat,

Thanks for your message.

I sincerely hope the Professor will find some food for thought in the posts I wish to put together on this subject in the next few weeks. I will do my best to sketch an outline that he can judge fairly.

Regards

Robert

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Hofrat,

Thanks for your message.

I sincerely hope the Professor will find some food for thought in the posts I wish to put together on this subject in the next few weeks. I will do my best to sketch an outline that he can judge fairly.

Regards

Robert

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

What puzzles me Robert is why Luchesi, Mysleveschek, Kraus etc., published their
INFERIOR works under their own names and why did all of them give their master pieces to Mozart? and Haydn?

Agnes Selby.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Well, your point would be a really good one if it was not for the fact that this opera was actually written FOR Mozart and FOR da Ponte without that truth being advertised. (Kraus did get his commission but not in the normal form).

It is not A FACT that Figaro was written for Mozart and Da Ponte, yet you state this with no evidence only your incredulity at the official version. Because we don't know the full facts surrounding the commission, it doesn't mean there wasn't one or that someone esle wrote the work. Why would Mozart and Da Ponte have commissioned another librettist and composer to write a work that was banned? They would have faced exactly the same problem. Beethoven and Schubert both wrote without commission, yet this you consider impossible for Mozart.

You dismiss the possibilty of composing Figaro in 6 weeks - Handel composed Messiah in 23 days and orchestrated the work in 2 days! Samson followed immediately after and was completed the following month.
Regarding Mozart's last 3 symphonies, Schubert's last 3 sonatas were written in a similar times scale.



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

[WoO]

From the MozartForum, thread "Mozart and Kraus":

member igorvragovic quotes from a Kraus letter (26 december 1785): "Kennst du Mozarts Entfhhrueng aus dem Serail? Er arbeitet nun an seinem Figaro, eine Operette in 4 Aufzuhgen, worauf ich mich herzlich freue."

... Kraus says Mozart is working on Figaro, ...

Regards,
WoO

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Hofrat,

Thanks for your message.

I sincerely hope the Professor will find some food for thought in the posts I wish to put together on this subject in the next few weeks. I will do my best to sketch an outline that he can judge fairly.

Regards

Robert

Dear Robert;

From 1782 to the end of 1786, Joseph Martin Kraus was touring Europe to learn of the trends in theater music. Much of that time was spent in Vienna, where for a short period of time Kraus was Mozart's neighbor.

During this European tour, Kraus wrote about his experiences in extensive diaries and correspondences that he kept, which were preserved and to this day form a most interesting commentary on European music culture. One would think that writing an opera for Mozart would merit some sort of journal entry or a reference in a letter. But the only mention of "The Marriage of Figaro" appears in a letter Kraus wrote to his sister where he states: "Mozart is working on "Figaro."


Hofrat