For Robert.

[HaydnFan]

Robert, you and I both know that Agnes is asking for evidence that The Marriage of Figaro was written by Kraus.

You and I also both know, as was stated, that there is a clear explanation for the forged signature on the Requiem...Mozart was dead! We already know that Mozart did not write most of the Requiem.

This one case is NOT infinite proof that ALL other Mozart pieces were written by somebody else as well. Why would you believe this is so?

[robert newman]

HaydnFan,

I've never said 'ALL other Mozart pieces were written by someone else'. Please don't say this of me. It's not my view at all.

To me, Mozart is like a beautiful woman. I should know better but have often stood in admiration of her. She will not change but I must and must move on. That's not so easy. And if I move on I can learn more than if I stay. What urges me to move on ? What urges me to stay ? These are things I must resolve for myself.

No smart answers really. To me, one must simply listen, and listen more. I'm sure (for myself at least) that the music of our time is written by those who listen as hard as men in former times played, or read books.

I'll finish the thread on Figaro and that will be it as far as internet posts on Mozart is concerned.

Regards

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:



HaydnFan,

I've never said 'ALL other Mozart pieces were written by someone else'. Please don't say this of me. It's not my view at all.

You have stated quite clearly that Mozart's greatest operas and symphonies are not by Mozart. You have stated the Violin concertos are not by Mozart and you have also suggested the piano quartets and possibly the piano concertos (your next target no doubt) - please do not try to misrepresent your claims.

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

[robert newman]

That's not ALL. But it seems there's an urge for people to quote wrongly here. Fine.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

That's not ALL. But it seems there's an urge for people to quote wrongly here. Fine.

No - it's just everything that Mozart's reputation is built on as you well know!

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

[LizR]

Originally posted by robert newman:

The relevance is that it's a forged signature with a text in the same hand which says the work was written by 'me' - the me being Mozart. It's an indisputable case of forgery. It's a clear example (one Agnes Selby says I have shown no example of). She is wrong. That's its relevance. Whether she admits this remains to be seen.

In the Orwellian world of 'Mozart expertise' that doesn't count, of course ! God help us !

Cheers

Dear Robert

If this is an "indisputable case of forgery" surely this "Mozart Year" is the perfect time to take your findings to the world's press. NOW is the time that they would listen.

As a writer, knowing how windows of opportunity don't open very often, I can't understand your reluctance to take your theories to a wider audience. A simple call to the Independent would do it.

[robert newman]

Dear Liz,

The question of how Mozart fits within the musical world has occupied my mind, my heart, for a very long time - almost as long as I have loved music itself. Such is the real importance of Mozart and his life/career. As someone who has a little talent myself in this field it really mattered (and still matters) how I resolved this issue of Mozart - of my real relationship to that body of music. Believe me, this was far from easy.

To others this will read like nonsense. But not to me. Can beauty be so beguiling that it stops us creatively ? I did not feel any crisis in, say, Bach.

Perhaps its just me maturing late. The thing is now resolved, at least in my own life.

Thank you for your suggestion about newspaper articles etc. etc. If I eventually had a column inch as a composer that would be nice. But not some long crusade against the Mozart industry.

These informal exchanges amongst music lovers have been fine. I really hope they've sometimes been interesting for everyone. Perhaps you've been a nurse, and if not that, a gentle friend. In any event I feel happy to see things now in perspective - though I agree that this may not be relevant to others.

Yours sincerely




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-06-2006).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Selby A:

I shall be delighted to receive same, Madam. I trust you have retained my email address?
Cheers,
Gurn

[robert newman]

What a complete nonsense ! The 'Mozart' Requiem has a signature (not a name) written that says Mozart and a also a text written by the same writer saying that the piece is by 'me' Mozart. Such facts are indisputable whether they were written during Mozart's lifetime, after his lifetime, or in some other parallel universe where time stands still. What was the motive of the writer to write as he did - Please engage your brain, ponder upon it and ask yourself whether or not this is a blatant example of that forger trying to pass off that manuscript as having been written by Mozart.

If this is not the case, I should take up truck driving or should go in to brain surgery. Either way, the absurdity would not be greater.

[Frank H]

Dear All

A few weeks ago, I found compelling evidence that the poster posting as “Droell” was (at least) two people, not one.

I now believe I have found overwhelming evidence that “Robert Newman” is a composite.

In the thread "'Le Nozze di Figaro' and the 'Mozart' Violin Concertos" I pointed out that “Robert Newman” was very keen on the model of an adversarial law court, with himself as an advocate, i.e. a lawyer on behalf of what he regards as the “right” side. I pointed out that this is an inappropriate way of acting in a field of (supposedly) scholarly research. The reply from “Robert Newman” was, as expected, forthright – he clearly thinks that a disputative lawyer is a good way for a scholar to behave.

However, in this thread “For Robert”, a poster called “Robert Newman” writes this in response to a post by Agnes Selby.: “Your track record on this forum for answering straight questions is not good. Had you not told me you were a lawyer would it ever have occurred to me?”

Note firstly the insulting tone of the post, so at odds with the cultured tone of some of the posts of “Robert Newman”. Note also the accusation of bad track record on answering questions, when of course “Robert Newman” is actually by far the worst culprit, in not answering the real questions, such as “Where is your real, scientific evidence?”.

But note especially that this version of “Robert Newman” has so low an opinion of lawyers that he uses the fact that Agnes is a lawyer as an insult!

The massive inconsistencies here immediately suggest that we are dealing with (at least) two persons.

Then further down this thread, “Robert Newman” writes “I'll finish the thread on Figaro and that will be it as far as internet posts on Mozart is concerned.”

Yet more posts by “Robert Newman” have appeared on THIS thread, including another insulting (to Agnes) one.

What these inconsistencies in the official version of the existence of “Robert Newman” suggest, is that there are at least two individuals involved. One approves of scholars behaving like lawyers, the other uses lawyer as a term of insult. One promises that there will be no more internet posts on Mozart except on the Figaro thread. The other immediately breaks the promise. One is a gentleman. The other trades in ad hominem insults. And so on.

However the situation may be even more complex!!!

In a post in the Figaro thread in reply to Chaszz posted 04-04-2006 01:37 PM, “Robert Newman” first writes: “I mean, you don't say I'm guilty of prejudging the very case I'm trying to present. For this you deserve thanks …”

It is clear that here “Robert Newman” thanks Chaszz for not saying that “Robert” is guilty of prejudging the case. Thus, here, prejudging a case is a “Bad” thing.

Or is it? Only a few sentences later, “Robert” writes: “I openly confess I've prejudged this issue as much as you yourself and am glad of it.” Here apparently, prejudging is a “Good” thing of which “Robert” is proud!!!

Inconsistencies between posts can easily be explained by multiple persona. Inconsistencies within posts are much harder to explain in this way.

Of course, it might be that the particular powerful conspiracy which is covering up the existence of multiple “Robert Newman”s, has a way of combining the contributions of the two in one post. I’m sure that is not beyond their power.

But, using “Occam’s Razor”, perhaps a simpler explanation is that this version of “Robert Newman” is actually a computer, programmed to, among other things, react somewhat negatively whenever it comes across the word “Mozart”. The fact that it comes up with inconsistencies within posts suggests that the programmer may not be entirely competent. Alternatively, a random malfunction may have developed in the hard drive, as with the computer “Hal” in the film "2001".

I think it unlikely that the computer version of “Robert Newman” is responsible for all the posts. My argument for this is that some of the posts clearly come from a highly intelligent, well read, person. Also, the conspirators responsible for all this might sometimes need to produce a flesh-and-blood “Robert” as part of the subterfuge – although it is far from certain that the one they produce will be any of the various posting “Robert Newman”s.

I am aware of the appearance of a “RE Newman”, purportedly the same as “Robert Newman” – but to fit this into the pattern would take up too much time. Suffice to say that I have my theories on this, for which I have evidence.

But who are the conspirators responsible for the “Robert Newman”s? For the “Droell”s I suggested Wal-Mart as a possibility. I won’t do so for the “Robert”s. Occam’s Razor does not apply when conspiracies are involved. Instead of “Let us not multiply conspiracies unnecessarily”, let us have conspiracies here, there, and everywhere. So I have three suggestions, in ascending order of probability.

(1) Opus Dei. Not being a Catholic, I don’t know of the precise relationship between Opus Dei and the Jesuits, but would not be surprised if these two powerful groups were deadly rivals.

(2) The Jesuits. That might seem perverse, but think of it. What better way of getting some sympathy for your organization than by disseminating unproven and unsupported accusations of wrong-doing?

(3) This Beethoven Reference Forum. Yes, my prime suspect for the guilty parties are none other than Peter and Chris!!! Or perhaps Peter by himself. After all, I have seen no evidence that Chris exists. Unless he is masquerading as one of the “Robert Newman”s.

Why would this Forum behave in this way? There are only too many possibilities. Perhaps there is a competition between the various music forums as to who can produce the greatest amount of verbiage? Well, I’m sure this has got the Mozartforum, the Completely Berlioz forum, the Classical Music Guides Forum, the We Love Andrew Lloyd-Webber forum, etc.etc.etc. well and truly stuffed!

But perhaps there is another agenda? Perhaps this is all a cover-up for much more sinister goings on, connected with Al-Qaeda, Bird Flu, the World Cup etc.?

Peter, you have been unmasked! Steyning, West Sussex, will no longer be a safe hideaway for you – although of course the strong possibility is that you were never there in the first place.

[This message has been edited by Frank H (edited 04-06-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

What a complete nonsense ! The 'Mozart' Requiem has a signature (not a name) written that says Mozart and a also a text written by the same writer saying that the piece is by 'me' Mozart. Such facts are indisputable whether they were written during Mozart's lifetime, after his lifetime, or in some other parallel universe where time stands still. What was the motive of the writer to write as he did - Please engage your brain, ponder upon it and ask yourself whether or not this is a blatant example of that forger trying to pass off that manuscript as having been written by Mozart.

If this is not the case, I should take up truck driving or should go in to brain surgery. Either way, the absurdity would not be greater.

My understanding without bothering to recheck sources is simply that Constance in pecuniary difficulties following the death of her husband had the work completed and passed off as entirely by Mozart so as to receive the fee - is this not the 'official' version?

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Frank H:
Peter, you have been unmasked! Steyning, West Sussex, will no longer be a safe hideaway for you – although of course the strong possibility is that you were never there in the first place.

My goodness - a brilliant post that has convinced me that I don't exist!
In fact I am really none other than Luchesi - I faked my death, have somehow survived a few hundred years and now I'm up to get Mozart!

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

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by Frank H:

I now believe I have found overwhelming evidence that “Robert Newman” is a composite.

He seems to be a schizophrenic who has misplaced his medicine. The much more astonishing phenomenon in my opinion is that so many members of this board take him serious and actually enter a discussion about his symptoms with him.

[robert newman]

Dear Frank,

For you to have first noted on this board an unusual ability in a person to duplicate himself and to bring to our attention a case where one moment a man can post as, say, 'Robert Newman' and the next as 'RE Newman' and, at the same time, to have observed contradictions in the opinions of these two entities in such things as attitudes to lawyers may represent the first glimmer of a major breakthrough in science for which you deserve credit. You may (though we must of course have it confirmed by independent people) be on the verge of naming such a thing, since you have grounds for claiming to be its discoverer. Are we by chance discussing here the previously unsuspected cost to a man who has written lengthy, often tiresome, irritating, controversial and repetitive posts - the toll for which is that repetition has caused the muliplication of entities ?.

Not being well versed in metaphysics puts me at a disadvantage in forming an opinion on your observations. I'm certainly aware of cases of 'split personality', and even of the views theologians have of a one being three- but I have not known a case where this has occurred with two different logging in names to a Beethoven website.

I was offline for a month and logged back in using a new internet company - one who gave me a number of services my first does not offer. Having foolishly forgotten in the meantime all my passwords and membership names to various sites (and having deleted an entire address book - this as evidence of my incompetence in computing) I typed 'RE Newman' as my logging in name though I remain and am on file here also as Robert Newman. Could this, perhaps, be the cause of the thing ?

I promise you in the name of Robert Newman and in the name of RE Newman that my attitudes to lawyers (who everyone knows are an essential part of, a non-disposable part of, well, a necessary evil in matters of law, and whose sole aim is not the making of money or of making reputation, but, of course justice) is that of an ordinary man.

It is of course an absurdity that a lawyer can be paid to argue in one way regardless of whether he believes in what he is arguing or not. Better by far that we remove lawyers from our courts than juries. Or, retain them as mere administrators, these paid at nationally fixed wages. And why not ?

All of which begs the question of how this relates to Mozart and duplication of opinions. Well, I think a jury (being composed of not one or two but many people) is the best way to determine the outcome in a case given the fact that we are all, from time to time, guilty of duplication and even of contradiction.

Robert



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 04-06-2006).]

[robert newman]

Cetto von Cronstorff is beyond medication with such attitudes and none is known to me that would change this.