Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I've been reading the preceding posts in this lengthy thread trying to determine what is the gist of Robert's argument. Sifting thru the thousands of words by both him and his critics, I find his argument to consist of three points:

    1. There is some doubt as to exactly when Mozart and Da Ponte were actually (or allegedly) working on the opera.

    2. There was apparently no commission.

    3. There was apparently no granting of permission to write the opera.

    For point one, the genesis of a work is often in fits and starts, with other works interceding and receding. Mozart could have been thinking about an opera at any time after the play's performances and notoriety in 1784. The lack of a clear chain of evidence as to when the opera was actually created can mean little. It could even be exhibited as proof of the work's legitimacy in Mozart's ouevre by someone familiar with the uneven nature of artistic creation. In other words, this factor really proves nothing.

    For point two, it has been answered by several posters who point out that a work can readily be written without a commission.

    For point three, several posters have pointed out that since nobody claims the work was not performed, permission had to be given at some point or else was not necessary. Robert has steadfastly refused to acknowledge these replies, and has instead continued to rely, without explicitly stating so, on the assumption that permission from the authorities was necessary BEFORE composition began, instead of AFTER, before the actual performance. Since this assumption is shaky, it is no surprise that he's not actually stated it, but has just continually relied on it in a sort of shadowy way, all the time continuing to insist forthrightly on the more general charge that permission was not granted.

    While I consider these arguments of Robert's refuted, I am more interested in this post to inquire why he prepares the ground so long and lovingly before giving his whole argument, whatever it may finally be. He opens the thread a full week ago, with sweeping accusations which anyone must realize will bring intense rejoinders, with as proof nothing more than these three weak points, all the while promising further proof when he finally marshals his whole argument. In the meantime, he lays more charges - about another conspiracy, this time in Egyptology scholarship, to push back the dates of the Old Kingdom; and about yet another conspiracy, to defeat the already-defeated Bach; in each case making grand claims but providing no or very little evidence. The pronouncements and the charges are restated and expanded upon in paragraph after paragraph, yet the proof is always promised for sometime next week. So that after a week and three full very long pages, we have a lot of wordy circling around the target and various other targets, a lot of digression, a lot of unsupported claims but almost nothing else.

    Would someone really confident of his proofs not lay them all out in fullness, logical order and clarity FIRST, instead of restating the charges many times and still delaying the evidence?

    In short, the WAY in which he argues seems to me quite as indicative of the lack of substance here, as the absence of real evidence itself.


    [This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 04-04-2006).]
    See my paintings and sculptures at Saatchiart.com. In the search box, choose Artist and enter Charles Zigmund.

    Comment



      Dear Chaszz,

      I'm not aware of being late with any promised post on this thread - in fact I write here early. But so well put is your argument that I've put to one side the proposed second posting of three and will answer you today in detail instead.

      This means, in effect, that Post No. 2 of 3 will be my reply to you of later today.

      So you see I would not wish such a strong argument as yours to go unanswered for a single day and will even surrender my own original plan to answer you.

      I aim now to follow this with a lengthy last post within the week - this to conclude my case for Kraus being the true composer of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'and not Mozart.

      Best wishes

      Robert

      Comment


        Thank you Chaszz for making a whole series of criticisms on whether Mozart or Kraus was the composer of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. I'll do my best here to answer you within a short post. And why not ? You've summed up the traditional view (which attributes the work to Mozart/da Ponte so very well readers must be expecting nothing but obfuscation and smokescreens from me.

        Before I try to reply to the many good points you've made I must take the unusual step of (temporarily) adding still further to my own problems on this issue. I mean, you don't say I'm guilty of prejudging the very case I'm trying to present. For this you deserve thanks also. Let let me deal with this extra (self-inflicted) criticism first (since it might be raised by others).

        In a court nobody disqualifies the Prosecution for going about its business of prosecuting. And nobody disqualifies the Defence for defending. I hope you agree that such a criticism would neither be wise nor fair in a 'Court of Fair Hearing' (though such wisdom and fairness do not feature in, say, a court of inquisition - where the judge presumes official interpretation from the outset and where the Defendant must fight for his life). It seems we're happy that these issues (these rival versions) are judged by he/she who has heard and given careful consideration to both sides of the case. I openly confess I've prejudged this issue as much as you yourself and am glad of it. It only remains to be seen which of our two different views is more sustainable.

        I want to begin by highlighting the fact that the traditional attribution (crediting the work to Mozart and da Ponte) is unable to justify its case with any real substance on the 3 issues you so helpfully list in your letter. You argue that these 3 points are each well able to be accomodated/explained/absorbed within the traditional model. (For example, you say it's unusual but not unprecedented that a composer can write an opera without commission to do so - and no doubt you could show us cases in music history where this has occurred. You say too the very fact 'Figaro' was performed at the Burgtheater in Vienna on 1st May 1786 is more than adequate response to speculative questions on the matter of Vienna censors approval. And so on. In short, you say these 3 points, when considered individually, though unusual, do not prove Kraus wrote the opera and do not, cast great doubt on Mozart having been its true composer. In reply, I agree with you but ONLY in respect of each of these 3 individual points - NOT collectively. You see, Chaszz, it's not until these 3 points are added together that we have grounds for noting the truly unusual (even extraordinary) fact that these exceptions to the rule (to the norm) occur together in this particular opera. Individually the 3 points are not specially exceptional and can be explained away, but, collectively, (I say) they most indicate something more than ordinary. They give us sufficient grounds to say they are abnormalities in the story of the premiere. I think a fair-minded jury will agree.

        Bear in mind this was no ordinary play. And no ordinary opera. It was an extraordinary play and an extraordinary opera. It was the talk of Europe. It had been born in Paris and saw the light of day only after having survived no less than 7 trials over years at the hands of censors and having undergone not less than 4 revisions by its writer - this before it was first staged at the Comedie Francaise. 'Figaro' was also a topic of concern at diplomatic level and in France the time would come when Napoleon Bonaparte would say that, 'If I was king I would have arrested Beaumarchais - for it is the Revolution in action'. Such remarks (about the risk this opera brought to the society in which it was created/performed) have real and obvious bearing on this issue when we consider the history of it as an opera in Vienna. Does it not matter that (as Peter has pointed out) the premiere of the play in Paris was, technically, done without official approval of the King of France ? And that the libretto was, in point of fact, censored in Austria as it was in France ? What is it that causes you then to so easily pass over what censorship was involved with the premiere of the opera in Vienna ? We surely cannot marginalise or quickly pass over such huge matters. Unless of course we believe as you do on these 3 points.

        That the opera was allowed in Vienna is indisputable. That the details of its approval by the authorities are shrouded in mystery is entirely consistent with the view that approval came NOT through da Ponte's supposed diplomacy or da Ponte's arguments but instead from within the highest levels of the Austrian government itself. And yet what picture does the official version present us with on this point other than the da Ponte myth of him singlehandedly and heroically changing the mind of a government by inducing Rosenberg and the Emperor to do what they would otherwise not have wished to do - allow such a piece a premiere in Vienna. Surely, here again, the traditional version of events is so feeble that little more needs to be be said. The history of the play in France and the huge controversy surrounding its birth (let alone its content) must surely indicate beyond reasonable doubt this opera came in to existence only by a decision made internally by the Emperor in consultation with men like Rosenberg, but NOT because Da Ponte or any other 'private interests' decided to present it. Likewise, the notion that Mozart, without patronage/commission decided to work on it on his own unpaid initiative seems to me in complete contradiction to all we know of this man.

        But you present a scenario where Mozart and da Ponte work for many months without commission on what is, after all, the most controversial and socially explosive, banned, play in the entire history of western classical music. You say that one of them somehow summed up the courage to approach the court with news that they, illegally, and despite the work having caused years of censorship problems and social comment in France etc, had collaborated to the point where Da Ponte and Mozart were able to produce and willing to produce the opera in Vienna. Imagine for a moment the extreme improbability of either of these two men actually doing such a thing. Isn't such an assumption (unsupported as it is by any hard evidence) far weaker than the view that they did NOT do so as you suppose ? That they risked immediate arrest even, or censure, or the end of their careers over a whim they had somehow secretly decided on - one that all of Europe knew was highly controversial and which could have devastated their own personal and professional lives. And, even in the 'official' story, Da Ponte is agreed by you and your supporters to have grossly exaggerated (twice in print) his statement that he and Mozart actually worked on the piece 6 weeks prior to its first performance.

        Consider next these two men and what we know of their characters. It was Mozart who, from Paris, rejoiced at hearing news of the death of Voltaire so much that he writes to Salzburg in joy describing Voltaire as having died 'like a pig' - and filling his letter with such happy news before ending the very same letter with news of his own mother's death ! How is such a remarkable letter possible if on the one hand we have a Mozart who hated Voltaire, Rousseau and the threat they and the reformers posed on the conservative Jesuit order and on the conservative Catholic status quo that Mozart represents, yet, on the other hand, we have this very same Mozart picking up his pen with the fugitive da Ponte to compose on his own back and with no promise of any reward that most revolutionary opera of them all, 'Le Nozze di Figaro' ? No such private impulse makes any sense to me. Yet it's something you happily accept. Part of your traditional view.

        The evidence shows Jesuit domination of music never diminished in 1773. It took a lower profile with networks of those party to their restoration and, in fact, Jesuit goals for their revival created an ever widening division within Catholic Europe on a whole range of issues which culminated, eventually in the French Revolution itself. That is why, I suggest, time must be taken to allow such contexts to become part of our approach to this issue. Again, the Encyclopaedists of France were not ememies of the Jesuits but were (in actual fact) massively supported by them - though such support was of course hidden.

        In Austria of Joseph 2nd's time the whole series of reforms he wished to push through included, yes, the banning of the Jesuits. That was successful and he stood against them on issue after issue. Joseph even stood against the complaints of the Pope during his visit to Austria as regards the idea of a national Austrian church. Joseph was admant. Here again Joseph is against the Jesuits. It was Joseph who wanted German to be the medium of education and instruction across most of the Austrian Empire, for example - this in plain contradiction to the dogmatic methods of the Jesuits. It was Joseph who wished to have established a German opera - this opposed by the Italianates. Joseph comprimised - and it had huge consequences.

        1773 changed things. The Jesuit domination of education was over - at least officially. Papal ban on the Order meant that from now on these 'soldiers' (hated in every country of Europe and exposed as being an obstacle to real reform and subversives of good government) were forced to make a hard choice - to side with the inevitability of reform in Europe of their 'Holy Roman Empire' or to become a historical relic. They chose the first, but only in a limited sense - and soon continued to work against Joseph 2nd and the reformers in areas such as church government. Their new strategy was to side with reformers such as Joseph only in so much as it served their own Jesuit interest- that of their reinstatement by the Pope in Rome. The Jesuits would continue (from behind the scenes) to support, for example, the glorious and vain idea of Vienna as the 'city of music'. To this extent Austria and the Jesuits were in complete harmony and this scheme included 'grooming' Haydn and Mozart's reputations. It would even, eventually, create a situation where Vienna staged 'Figaro' before everyone else - and this as an opera. The advisors would advise Joseph there was minimal risk - and Joseph, reformer (was already keen to stage it anyway - if it was safe to do so).

        It's clear the one thing missing in the 'traditional view' of this opera is history itself. By arguing for Mozart/da Ponte we are largely ignoring or skating over the true contexts within which these things occurred.

        Did Joseph believe Mozart and da Ponte wrote this opera ? Yes, for sure. It was virtually presented as a 'fait accomplis' - a work those two men had written and which, anyway, would bring Joseph and all Austria glory. So it was decided (some 6 weeks before it was performed) that no fuss would be made about censorship. I believe it was Rosenberg who persuaded Joseph - since Rosenberg was top of the pyramid as far as the Jesuit campaign was concerned. And by late 1785 Mozart already had the score (from Kraus) from which to begin making his own handwritten 'original'. It's in this sense that Kraus wrote to his sister that 'Mozart is working on 'Figaro'. The 6 weeks to which da Ponte refers was that time during which a score in Mozart's hand had already been created with Mozart's own arrangement in which minor changes were made to its libretto by da Ponte and in collaboration of Mozart himself, so as to justify to posterity the view/the assumption that he and da Ponte were its true authors. Mozart had input into the final version of the 'da Ponte' libretto.

        Why should this be any surprise ? If this single case was the only one in Mozart studies it would be amazing. In point of fact it had occurred many times before. It occurred with many symphonies. It occurred with the 'Paris'. Again with the Haffner' symphony. Such 'arrangements' were not alien to Mozart. They were, in fact, part and parcel of Mozart's adult reputation. The official/unofficial 'arrangements' made by Mozart are exquisite whether we are talking of Handel oratorio or his 'own' mature symphonies. And I certainly grant to Mozart such genius - a genius always acknowledged but far more relevant in terms of his supposed career than has ever yet been accepted by convention. If a version of the 'Haffner' exists in Modena which came from Bonn (having been inventoried there in 1784) and predates the Haffner we know - has this no bearing on this question ?. Or if the same can be shown in various other cases, does that have no bearing on how Mozart was attributed and finally claimed authorship of these works ? The evidence that Mozart was receiving works from other, highly talented, composers is, in my view, as true of his childhood and youth as of his adulthood and last years. The fact that he was able to transform manuscripts, to create unique and lovely arrangements is also in my view a plain fact.

        So, again, we come back to the need for context - a context denied to us if we choose to overlook the real discrepancies in 'Figaro' as far as its premiere in Vienna is concerned.

        I think that if you look at Mozart studies in depth you will see that until recently it has suffered from what we can call 'the problem of paradigm'. That is, the study of Mozart has until recently tended to be based exclusively on the documents relevant only to the versions of him and his life on which the first biographies and the first editions of Koechel were based. It would be possible to write learned books on the man without ever taking in to account the context within which he lived other than to pay the most superficial respect to what those contexts actually say.

        Mozart in Vienna, or Mozart studied in his social context, for example, are relatively recent approaches that have tended to challenge convention. It's vital that this trend is encouraged whether it leads to real revision in our understanding or not. How about 'Mozart and the Holy Roman Empire' ? Or, 'A Study of 'Le Nozze di Figaro' within the context of what was happening across Europe at the time when it was written' ? Such a study would, I know, call in to question why tradition pays so little significance to the 3 points first identified in connection with its premiere n Vienna.

        'Figaro' became Mozart's for the simple reason that Mozart became the icon (as did Hadyn) of the musical Austrian Empire. But even bigger than Mozart's reputation was 'Figaro' as forerunner to the French Revolution - a Revolution whose final resolution, politically, brought back a situation where the 'eternally banned' Jesuit Order could be and was restored.

        And therefore Mozart, the glory of Austria, and his own reputation were made within a far greater context, that of Europe being dragged, step by step, in to what we call the French Revolution.

        Austria, conservative nation, hosting the premiere of the revolutionary opera. And Mozart, that most conservative composer, being till now the official author of the same work. Its this remarkable contradiction which the contexts provided by history provide explanation for. ('Figaro' was without doubt Mozart's greatest work in terms of the acclaim and status that it brought him).

        I would describe the traditional attribution of this opera to Mozart and da Ponte as being like a hologram of a flame - whose validity is not able to be verified by three dimensional analysis, by heat, or touch or any of the sorts of things we can and must bring to bear on this piece.

        (I will of course end by posting in detail on Kraus, Beaumarchais and other matters in my last post - perhaps within the week). Hope this helps.

        Robert



        [This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-04-2006).]

        Comment


          Originally posted by robert newman:


          Does it not matter that (as Peter has pointed out) the first performance of the play in Paris was, technically, done without the official approval of the King of France ? And that the libretto was, in point of fact, censored in Austria as it was in France ? What is it that causes you, then, to so easily pass over what censorship was involved with the premiere of the opera in Vienna ? We surely cannot marginalise such huge matters.

          No we can't - so let's get the facts straight. As far as I am aware there was an initial performance of the play in 1781 in Paris and it was quickly banned. Then I believe it was performed in Paris with the full permission of Louis Vl. The play was allowed to be read in Austria but not performed. Now the official version is that changes to the play were necessary in order to persuade Joseph II to grant permission, a verifiable fact as much of the play's subversive quality and radical fervour is not in the opera.

          I'm afraid Robert as I expected your lengthy argument so far still has not provided a shred of evidence to prove your case.

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

          Comment


            Robert doesn't plan out his arguments...he writes and writes and writes a lengthy post in hopes that something he wrote will prove to be true...sometimes, he writes so much that he contradicts himself...

            Comment




              Peter amd HaydnFan,

              I made it clear that the post today was an answer to points made earlier by Chaszz. And now I must finish my case within the week by a final argument in a single post. (This is clearly enough stated).

              Chaszz criticised the way I've argued this subject. So that was my reply to him.

              Rgds

              Comment


                Originally posted by robert newman:


                Peter amd HaydnFan,

                I made it clear that the post today was an answer to points made earlier by Chaszz. And now I must finish my case within the week by a final argument in a single post. (This is clearly enough stated).

                Chaszz criticised the way I've argued this subject. So that was my reply to him.

                Rgds
                Yes but you made some points which I think were inaccurate and anyone is entitled to respond to any post!

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

                Comment


                  Robert;

                  I attach a copy of the original letter from Kraus to his sister. Sorry it took so long.

                  Hofrat
                  -------------------------------------------

                  Quoted in toto Leux-Henschen, Briefe von Joseph Martin Kraus (original lost):

                  Beste Mariana! Um Dir zu beweisen, wie lieb mir Deine Briefe sind, antworte ich flugs. Mach es ebenso; unser Briefwechsel bleibt mir dabei hübsch gesund. Es thut mir leid, dass Du die Musikalien nicht schon in Händen hast. Die Ursache dieses zufälligen Verzuges habe ich Dir in meinem letzten Schreiben gesagt. Ich hoffe aber bald eine glücklichere Gelegenheit zu erhaschen, Dich zu befriedigen und mich Eurem musikalischen Klubbe bestmöglichst empfehlen zu können. Dass Du Dich an Kozeluch und Clementi gemacht hast, freut mich. Kozeluch is Mann meines Herzens. Clementi ist mehr für Kopf und Finger. Abbé Sterkel für dormeusen und Kurzsichtige. Wenn Du noch etliche gute wissen willst, so sind's Mozart, Reichardt, Haydn, Hässler, Türk, Eckhardt, Adam, Küfner und mein herrlicher Freund Albrechtsberger zu Wien. Wie steht's mit eurem Theater zu Frankfurt? Welches sind die neuesten und besten Produkte? Kennst Du Mozarts Entführung aus dem Serail? Er arbeitet nun an seinem Figaro, eine Operette in 4 Aufzügen, worauf ich mich herzlich freue. Piccini hat uns neulich seine Penelope gegeben, die aber nicht so recht gefallen wollte. Ueberhaupt hat keine von den Opern, die man in Fontainbleau gab, hier Glück gemacht. Dagegen ist die Erndte im Instrumentalfache desto gesegneter. Klein und gross schreibt, wie es immer die löbliche Gewohnheit war und wahrscheinlich auch bleiben wird, weil es immer Leute giebt, die es lesen. An Konzerte fehlt's nicht, folglich giebt's Gelegenheit genug für die musikalischen Versuchungen, sich auf gute Art zu prostituieren. Da kam zu Beispiel gestern ein gewisser Troni und gab im Concert-Sprituel ein Motett, dass mit Gluck anfieng und mit Jomelli aufhörte. Die lieben Pariser wurden gleichwohl darob nicht böse und klatschten mit bestem Herzen, so wie anderwärts. Wahrlich, ich glaube manchmal zu träumen, wenn ich die nähmlichen Hände in Bewegung beim Rameau, Gluck, Grétry, Philidor, Floquet und Condaille sehe, die von Gottes Welt nicht das geringste gemeinschaftliche zusammen haben.

                  "Is it not strange that sheep guts should hale souls out of men's bodies?"

                  Comment



                    Yes Peter, of course. I was responding to inaccuracies myself. They are such a feature of the traditional version of events but it's not till authorship of the opera's music and libretto is reconsidered that such matters allow us to put evidence in its true context. (At least, that's my view).

                    This theory has really two parts -

                    1. That Mozart/da Ponte did NOT write the opera.
                    2. That the 'someone else' who DID can be identified.

                    My last post in a week or so will try to focus on the second of these.

                    Comment



                      Thank you so much Hofrat. This is so very, very helpful.

                      Best regards

                      Robert

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Peter:
                        No we can't - so let's get the facts straight. As far as I am aware there was an initial performance of the play in 1781 in Paris and it was quickly banned. Then I believe it was performed in Paris with the full permission of Louis Vl. The play was allowed to be read in Austria but not performed. Now the official version is that changes to the play were necessary in order to persuade Joseph II to grant permission, a verifiable fact as much of the play's subversive quality and radical fervour is not in the opera.

                        I'm afraid Robert as I expected your lengthy argument so far still has not provided a shred of evidence to prove your case.

                        Dear Forum members;

                        Are we talking about the right Louis? According to my encyclopedia, Louis VI (the "Fat") lived from 1081 to 1137 and rule France from 1108 till 1137.

                        Should we not mean Louis XVI?


                        Hofrat
                        "Is it not strange that sheep guts should hale souls out of men's bodies?"

                        Comment



                          Dear Agnes Selby and Agent 007,

                          The theme of 'Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star' cannot be credited to Mozart. He produced only a set of variations to it. Is it not an old French nursery rhyme that Mozart used ?

                          You can safely exclude that particular theme from your list of his achievements.

                          Comment


                            Robert, once again your reply is lengthy but contains little that is new or meaningful. I look forward to your next post -- showing why it makes sense to regard Kraus as the true composer of Figaro -- as perhaps having more real substance to it.

                            A large part of your argument concerns the radical and subversive nature of 'Figaro,' and the unlikelihood that a conservative like Mozart would have been involved with it. However critical Mozart was of liberalism
                            he was also a Freemason. Freemasonry in the 18th C. was a liberal and not a conservative affair. Also we know of his irreverance and delight in poking fun at authority. Taken all together, these facts cast doubt on a thoroughgoing archconservatism in the man and make it more likely that his thinking and feeling on these issues was somewhat mixed.

                            Before the French Revolution gave reform a bad name, its tenets were embraced by many aristocrats and even monarchs. It was to a certain extent fashionable for a king to be 'enlightened' in the Age of Enlightenment, and Louis XVI and Joseph II were by no means the only ones who adopted some of the ideas which were sweeping Europe. The abuse attacked in 'Figaro' - the right of a nobleman to have sex with the wife-to-be of one of his subjects -- was one of the most regressive and hated features of the 'Ancien Regime' and its abolition is likely to have been embraced by many an 'enlightened' despot. Somewhat like George Bush trying to find a little space for himself under the mantle of Martin Luther King this past January 15, it must have been regarded by many nobles and kings as an easy and relatively painless thing to espouse, and thereby hopefully cover oneself with glory in the eyes of one's subjects. And as Peter has pointed out, the Figaro story as rewritten for the opera downplayed the political angle and concentrated more on the farcial nature of the situation-comedy-like plot.

                            So these are certain features of the broader social context as I see them. I believe they tend to counter the interpretations you have placed on the social context. In doing so, I think they also throw into high relief the importance of having hard facts -- not merely interpretations and suspicions -- at hand when attempting to rewrite history.


                            [This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 04-05-2006).]
                            See my paintings and sculptures at Saatchiart.com. In the search box, choose Artist and enter Charles Zigmund.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by robert newman:

                              Dear Agnes Selby and Agent 007,

                              The theme of 'Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star' cannot be credited to Mozart. He produced only a set of variations to it. Is it not an old French nursery rhyme that Mozart used ?

                              You can safely exclude that particular theme from your list of his achievements.

                              _------------

                              I don't remember mentioning this sonata.

                              However, I look forward to all the documentations and references which you are still to present.

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

                              Comment



                                Dear Agnes,

                                I think you must have access to archive information no-one else has seen to call that work a sonata. It's a theme (not by Mozart) and a set of variations derived from it. The theme is the popular French nursery ryhme of the time 'Ah, je vous dirais maman'.

                                As to your question whether Mozart ever at any time composed an original melody, (a question you surely ask as a joke) let me reply by saying that had it not been for Mozart we might not have these musical treasures in any form. It's not possible to go through all these works and often be puzzled that his name is uniquely associated with them. But I attribute him with great musical talent, great keyboard virtuosity, the ability to extemporise and to arrange and, of course, with having the sheer persistancy to develop and keep his great reputation. Just as you must come to terms with plagiarism and downright falsehood in terms of Mozart biography, so must others do the same in terms of many manuscripts falsely attributed to him. He remains in my view a great man though I cannot give him the iconic status that is so often the norm.

                                We are with Mozart dealing with a virtually unique case. The last thing I would do is to condemn the man. But I do plead guilty to seeing him as being fallible, the same as you and I.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X