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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Hofrat:
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

Quite right Hofrat, sorry for my Roman numerical slips! I did mean the 16th. Thanks for the info about Louis 'the fat'! The last Louis (XVIII) was also incredibly gross.

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

[atserriotserri]

This topic is still open and after about 100 posts, a single word has not been said about the violin concertos, focusing the discussion on "Le nozze de Figaro".
What I know (I prefer being more than humble since I'm not a scholar but just a self-taught fan) is that the 1st violin concerto is supposed to be written in 1773, and he last 4 in 1775 (Wolfgang Plath is cited for having discovered that the 2 digits of the date on the manuscripts were tempered). This time lapse, under my point of view, makes more difficult to Robert to prove that his theory is true since would mean a long-time relation with "ghostwriters" (because at the end of the day, I understand this is what we're talking about, or would it be "shadowcomposers"? ) with no written trace at all.
Da Ponte himself would had a good opportunity to unveil that scandal when writing his memoirs in NY after departing from Viena. (Da Ponte memoirs have just been 1st published in Spanish).

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by robert newman:
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.

So why did Mozart get paid for the opera and not Kraus? This is most unfair!

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by robert newman:

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

So why did Mozart get paid for the opera? Wasn't this unfair? Or was it a fraud?

[Frank H]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
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

Chaszz, your perceptive post goes to the heart of the matter. The really interesting thing is not the substance of Robert’s theories, because no real substance has ever been put forward. The really interesting thing is the WAY in which he “argues”, as that reveals very clearly why he will never be able to make any real progress in proving anything.

The way that Robert argues is typical of the vast majority of “conspiracy theorists”. Through my interests, both as a professional and as an interested amateur, in various fields of science and history, I have come across a considerable number of these conspiracy-theory scholars, and they almost universally share a number of characteristics.

Firstly, they set out to amass and disseminate (much easier now because of the Internet) a large amount of supposed “evidence” in support of their theories. This looks impressive, indeed daunting, at first sight, but it doesn’t take much study to realise that this evidence is largely the repetitive working of a small number of points, usually very weak ones. These points usually take the form of pointing out uncertainties in the “official”, “traditional”, “establishment”, “conservative” viewpoint.

As I’ve pointed out before, it is usually only too easy to point out uncertainties and even apparent inconsistencies. 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 sometimes apparently lacking in the physical world. Thus any theory, however well-supported by real scientific evidence, is always open to attack on the grounds of inconsistency.

There is nothing necessarily wrong in these attacks, so long as those making them keep a sense of proportion as to what exactly they are doing. Otherwise 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. Even patently absurd theories, “the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese”, could be “proved” in this sort of way.

The fact is that unless one or two or a very few pieces of genuine evidence can be produced, none of the mass of “evidence” produced by conspiracy theorists is generally of much or any value. It is these few pieces of crucial evidence which conspiracy theorists nearly always fail to provide.

Robert is absolutely typical in this. Shortly after I first came across his theories about Luchesi in this forum, I asked him to provide the core, essential, evidence for his theories. After his reply, I had to post: “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.”

He has still not provided any such evidence, and shows no signs of doing so.

Secondly, there is the basic attitude to research and scholarship of most conspiracy theorists. Here Robert gives himself away in the very reply to your post in this thread. He writes:
“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'... 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.”

It is clear from this that Robert regards the field of scholarly scientific research (and history is, or ought to be, a science) as akin to a law court on the Anglo-Saxon (British and American) adversarial model, with antagonistic prosecution and defence parties, each trying to get one over the other by “proving” the opponents wrong. For historic reasons this is the way these legal systems have evolved, and it may indeed be the best way to approximate “justice” in these particular circumstances. But it is a very bad way to engage in scholarly research, whose ultimate aim is to determine the truth, not to score points off “opponents”.

[A classic case which showed how bad the adversarial model can be in determining the truth was the infamous O.J. Simpson case in the USA. The real scientific evidence overwhelmingly showed that either O.J. Simpson was guilty of the actual murders, or that he was so closely implicated that he was a major accessory in the murders, and must know who actually did them. But the clever, and unscrupulous, defence lawyer, exploited minor inconsistencies in the prosecution case, together with the abysmal lack of scientific knowledge in the general public – and the “race” card thrown in as well – to get the jury to acquit O.J.. In fact, the defence used typical “conspiracy theory” type tactics to do this. It was a victory for them, but not for truth or justice.]

It is of course true that the scholarly community does not consist of totally pure seekers for the truth. Rivalries do of course exist. But in general rivalries are not played out in the adversarial sort of way that legal advocates tend to behave in court. Those scholars who attempt to behave like barristers are almost universally unsuccessful in promoting their views, even in those few cases in which they may actually be on to something.

At least Robert is being honest in revealing that his particular “pattern” for scholarly research is as that of a legal advocate. I have come across conspiracy theorists who claim that their pattern is that of a detective or forensic scientist. In fact, their pattern is also, like Robert’s, that of an advocate. But perhaps they are more dishonest than Robert simply because they realise that an adversarial law-court would NOT be accepted by most scholars, as a good pattern for the arena of scholarly research.

Robert Newman is clearly a highly-intelligent and well-read person with many fine qualities. The same seems to apply, to some extent, to David Roell (“Droell”). Indeed many conspiracy theorists are like this. The interesting points which emerge from this are:
(1). Why do so many such people seem to lose their marbles when confronted with the particular subjects over which they obsess in their theories?
(2). Why are “conspiracy theories” so popular among the general public (witness “The Da Vinci Code”, and many others)?

I have theories on these points myself, but this post is already too long!

Regards to all,

Frank


[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 04-05-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Frank,

You correctly say the study of history is a science. Being a science it is founded on the presupposition that order exists and may be studied and appreciated. It's a plain fact of history that, for example, King Gustav 3rd of Sweden was assassinated in 1792 by those who conspired to take his life. Note that sources such as 'Encyclopaedia Brittanica', 'Groves Dictionary of Music and Musicians' and others too many to mention (all of which refer to this historical fact) must have employed 'conspiracy theorists' if your theory is right. Are you a conspiracy theorist who believes that on this issue of Gustav there is a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists who write this about Gustav in our reference books - all of which have clandestinely agreed that Gustav was the victim of a conspiracy ?

Please, Sir, shake off your lazy thinking.

Those who encounter evidence of conspiracy are no more talented and no more misguided than any other sort of researcher. Investigative journalists and lawyers work in these areas quite often. But in all cases he must submit his stuff for fair and open judgement and must (if he has integrity) be answerable to his critics in the sure knowledge that the jury will come to their own verdict. What is more healthy and right than that ?






[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-05-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Atserriotserri,

I should really have begun two threads at the same time - one on 'Figaro' and the other on the Violin Concertos. Being a little busy at this time I hope it's all right if I come back to the Violin Concertos after finishing with 'Figaro' - perhaps within a fortnight ?

May I mention briefly that Mozart and he had a relationship that lasted fully 8 years so the problem of dates does not really arise in this case.

Regards

[Frank H]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Frank,
Please, Sir, shake off your lazy thinking.

Those who encounter evidence of conspiracy are no more talented and no more misguided than any other sort of researcher. Investigative journalists and lawyers work in these areas quite often. But in all cases he must submit his stuff for fair and open judgement and must (if he has integrity) be answerable to his critics in the sure knowledge that the jury will come to their own verdict. What is more healthy and right than that ?

Dear Robert,

Of course, some conspiracy theories are right, and deserve consideration, because conspiracies have existed, and do exist!

Just as some paranoid feelings turn out to be justified, because there are bullies and criminals.

But paranoid delusions also exist. As do delusions of conspiracies.

What enables us to distinguish between the truth and the delusion is REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Please, Sir, provide us with some. You have been asked over and over again to do so - and still have failed to satisfy.

To go on and on about the wrongdoings of the Jesuits is not enough - awful people as they may have been (as a "Protestant" I certainly don't have any prejudice in their favour).

Regards,

Frank

[robert newman]

Dear Frank,

Forgive me, but this thread exists to establish (or try to) whether Mozart or Kraus is the true composer of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. I would love to engage with you on the philosophy of science, the Egyptian Old Kingdom, the likeliest winner of the football World Cup, Beethoven's last sonatas or the superiority (supposed) of your education and methods. But I cannot agree that such exchanges will affect the verdict of those who must reach one on this issue. Rival versions exist on 'Figaro' and readers must (and surely will) deliver their verdict on which is more consistent. That is all.

If you have a contribution that would strengthen the traditional view on this matter please, by all means, submit it. But let us not bore our audience to tears. I frankly care nothing for your methods (mine having already been described at some length) and far more for what you may be able to prove on the actual issue. You may pick up golden nuggets with your hand, with a vacuum cleaner, or with a bulldozer. The method you choose is of course entirely up to you. But be sure what you collect and present will be assayed and a verdict given on its value. The same is true for me.

[Frank H]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Frank,

Forgive me, but this thread exists to establish (or try to) whether Mozart or Kraus is the true composer of 'Le Nozze di Figaro'. I would love to engage with you on the philosophy of science, the Egyptian Old Kingdom, the likeliest winner of the football World Cup, Beethoven's last sonatas or the superiority (supposed) of your education and methods. But I cannot agree that such exchanges will affect the verdict of those who must reach one on this issue. Rival versions exist on 'Figaro' and readers must (and surely will) deliver their verdict on which is more consistent. That is all.

If you have a contribution that would strengthen the traditional view on this matter please, by all means, submit it. But let us not bore our audience to tears. I frankly care nothing for your methods (mine having already been described at some length) and far more for what you may be able to prove on the actual issue. You may pick up golden nuggets with your hand, with a vacuum cleaner, or with a bulldozer. The method you choose is of course entirely up to you. But be sure what you collect and present will be assayed and a verdict given on its value. The same is true for me.

Dear Robert,

It was Chaszz who pointed out your methods of argument. I feel I have a right to respond to Chaszz's comments, as I have long experience of similar methods used by others.

I'm sorry, but method is important. Someone may tell me that angels have been seen in Westminster Abbey, or that aliens have visited the earth. As I don't have personal experience of these matters, I have to rely to a large extent on the method with which the person tries to persuade me of the truth his or her assertions. And I will be more likely to listen if they provide real evidence in a reasoned scientific manner.

As for boring our audience, I apologise. But you are also less likely to do your share if you cease endless repetitions of similar style "arguments" and produce some REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Thousands of words - if not millions - since you started on all this, and you still have come nowhere near doing so.

And for the boring n-hundredth time, I have to repeat - if you, I, or anyone else, wishes to propose a startling new theory, it is up to the proponent to provide the evidence, not up to the proponents of the "traditional" theory (which at least has the advantage of being filtered through a number of different minds) to first provide the evidence for the opposite.

If I speak a bit heatedly, it is because I have seen the harm that conspiracy delusions can do. The best I can say for yours is that it is at least "harmless", unlike for example those who believe in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the like.

Regards (to yourself as a person)

Frank

Incidentally, I have never claimed "superiority" over yourself in education! On the contrary, I am very impressed with the breadth of your reading and interests.
[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 04-05-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 04-05-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Cetto von Cronstorff,

You ask why Mozart was paid for 'Le Nozze di Figaro' if he was not its true composer.

I know I've written at some length but if I'm not mistaken it has been indicated here that Joseph 2nd believed that Mozart WAS the true composer of that piece. This is why Mozart was paid.

(By the way, let me ask you a simiar question in return. Correct me if I am wrong but there is no record of Mozart being paid for 'Idomeneo' - does this persuade you that he was NOT its composer ?).

Best wishes


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-05-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Cetto von Cronstorff,

You ask why Mozart was paid for 'Le Nozze di Figaro' if he was not its true composer.

I know I've written at some length but if I'm not mistaken it has been indicated here that Joseph 2nd believed that Mozart WAS the true composer of that piece. This is why Mozart was paid.

(By the way, let me ask you a simiar question in return. Correct me if I am wrong but there is no record of Mozart being paid for 'Idomeneo' - does this persuade you that he was NOT its composer ?).

Best wishes


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-05-2006).]

Joseph ll was correct.

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

[robert newman]

Dear Frank,

Honestly, I say this constructively. In a situation where rival versions both claim to be more soundly based than the other that which is more consistent with the known facts is the one more worthy of belief.

You say you really must have discussion on the methods I am using. Really, a jury sits to consider nothing but evidence. It does not care for methods.

If a pianist has learned a certain method of playing and is in competition with another, what has method to do with me ? I judge his results. Now, you may obtain a certain status by surrendering your talents, your individual insights, your own thoughts, to a method that is not your own - one predetermined by your employer, or by the society/environment in which you work. I would not hold that against you. Please do not hold it against me if my method in this matter excludes discussions on methods and focuses instead on the key issue of whose version is found to be the more consistent.

So, in the same way I respect you, if not your method.

[Frank H]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Frank,
You say you really must have discussion on the methods I am using. Really, a jury sits to consider nothing but evidence. It does not care for methods.

If a pianist has learned a certain method of playing and is in competition with another, what has method to do with me ? I judge his results. Now, you may obtain a certain status by surrendering your talents, your individual insights, your own thoughts, to a method that is not your own - one predetermined by your employer, or by the society/environment in which you work. I would not hold that against you. Please do not hold it against me if my method in this matter excludes discussions on methods and focuses instead on the key issue of whose version is found to be the more consistent.

So, in the same way I respect you, if not your method.

Dear Robert,

Well, it seems that it is you who wants to continue on this line.

Despite your constant insinuations, I do think for myself, and I don't follow methods predetermined by my employer or anyone else. I have used my intelligence, which, if undoubtedly inferior to yours, is not negligible. I have concluded that your methods are inappropriate to the subject at hand, and I feel I have a right to say so. That is, unless you are the one who determines what can and cannot be said on this forum.

And I repeat, I was originally replying to Chaszz on "method". If you don't want to talk about it, that's alright by me - you don't have to respond when I post about it, but you always do!

So yes, let's get back to the "key issue"! For the nth time, PROVIDE REAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for your assertions.

Believe me, if you do that, "method" would become an unimportant matter.

For the judge of a pianist in a competition, the method of the pianist's playing is irrelevant - but whether or not his/her playing bears any relevance to the score clearly is relevant. So - start playing, and stop playing around.

Regards,

Frank

[Frank H]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Cetto von Cronstorff,

You ask why Mozart was paid for 'Le Nozze di Figaro' if he was not its true composer.

I know I've written at some length but if I'm not mistaken it has been indicated here that Joseph 2nd believed that Mozart WAS the true composer of that piece. This is why Mozart was paid.

(By the way, let me ask you a simiar question in return. Correct me if I am wrong but there is no record of Mozart being paid for 'Idomeneo' - does this persuade you that he was NOT its composer ?).

Was anyone else paid for "Idomeneo"?



[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 04-05-2006).]