For Robert.

[Selby A]

Dear Robert.

The theme is part of a sonata -like work.

You did not reply to my question. Are you going to supply references to the long articles you are publishing on this site?

You cannot in all fairness accuse Mozart of theft and not supply documentations and references in order to make your accusations credible.

You see, Mozart scholars have been working
on Mozart's biography, his compositions for the past 100 years and all have supplied notes to verify their statements. You are dismissing them all without documented evidence.


Selby A

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

It may not go down well with cucumber sandwiches but.....

The subject of Mozart has of course been studied by thousands of people. Leopold Mozart was so keen to make an image of his son that he considered a biography as you know up until the year of his death in 1787. Fortunately he never did so.

According to the people you believe, Mozart died while trying to complete a Requiem, K626. I refer to this because (as you well know) its the last work, chronologically, in the Koechel list of Mozart's works. I could refer to dozens of others but, really, you only need to refer to various posts made here and elsewhere over the last several years. Since I am not in to lengthy posts today but you deny examples of fraud/deception let's go there for just a moment.

The score of K626. Whose signature is written on it please ? Unless I'm mistaken its a forgery. Do you agree ?

Thanks


P.S. As to your statement that I do not produce references, please select any statement I have made on any point here on this forum within, say, the last week or so for which you require references and I will do my best to give it/them to you immediately.


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

[Selby A]

Dear Robert,

I do not believe the Requiem to be a forgery. We have covered that subject 5 years ago.
Nor were there two Requiems as you have so ardently proclaimed.

I am sorry, Robert, I am not looking for references from your own writings, I am looking for references from archival documents. You know perfectly well what I am looking for and what other readers of your postings are also looking for.

I know that Mozart has been occupying your mind for at least as long as I remember "meeting" you on Open Mozart. Was it 5 years ago?
I also know that you have a hate/love relationship with Mozart and without this your life would certainly not be the same anymore. I am sorry, therefore, to disagree
with you as I know how much your theory means to you.

However, as a Mozartean writer I feel that after these many years you owe me and other readers a lot of explanations. To accuse Mozart and Haydn and even Beethoven of plagiarism is very serious. Neither can defend himself in a Court of Law for defamation nor would I, as a lawyer, undertake your case without evidence.

Also, there is another matter that bothers me. With due respect to Luchesi, Kraus and
Myslevischek, are there comparable masterly works composed by these composers that bear scrutiny when compared to the works of the above mentioned Masters? Is there an opera composed by Kraus which could be favourably compared with The Marriage of Figaro?
As there is The Marriage of Figaro available
in manuscript form at the Mozarteum, did Mozart copy Kraus's work?

How is it possible that these great masters, Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven managed to get all the great works from these composers while they themselves published inferior works?

How could this possibly be?

Were these composers imprisoned by Jesuits, perhaps, and their works taken away from them by force? And then post haste delivered to Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven?

This will all make sense when you produce
documentations in support of your postings.

Regards,
Selby A.

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes Selby,

My question about the Requiem K626 remains unanswered by you. Few on this board will be surpised. In fact the word 'jesuitical' springs to mind in noting that yet again you avoid answering so simple a question. You asked for evidence in support of what I said. You have evidence. And your answer would greatly help here.

The good news is that if you can answer the question I will happily answer all other matters you raise in your post. So here it is yet again -

'The (music) score of K626. Whose signature is written on it please ? Unless I'm mistaken it's a forgery. Do you agree ? '

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes Selby,

I repeat that I am more than happy to provide you with the source/s of anything I have posted here within the last few weeks. Would you please be so kind as to answer the repeated question asked of you regarding the signature that is found on the score of 'Mozart's' Requiem, K626 ?

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 ?

[Selby A]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Agnes,

It may not go down well with cucumber sandwiches but.....

The subject of Mozart has of course been studied by thousands of people. Leopold Mozart was so keen to make an image of his son that he considered a biography as you know up until the year of his death in 1787. Fortunately he never did so.

According to the people you believe, Mozart died while trying to complete a Requiem, K626. I refer to this because (as you well know) its the last work, chronologically, in the Koechel list of Mozart's works. I could refer to dozens of others but, really, you only need to refer to various posts made here and elsewhere over the last several years. Since I am not in to lengthy posts today but you deny examples of fraud/deception let's go there for just a moment.

The score of K626. Whose signature is written on it please ? Unless I'm mistaken its a forgery. Do you agree ?

Thanks


P.S. As to your statement that I do not produce references, please select any statement I have made on any point here on this forum within, say, the last week or so for which you require references and I will do my best to give it/them to you immediately.


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

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

Dear Robert,

You must be joking. Do you really want me to go with a fine toothcomb through all your postings and ask you for references. What is normally done in research, is for you to provide references at the end of your article. Until such time that you adhere to this custom, I will not be able to take your assertions seriously.

As for the Requiem, we have discussed this at length on Open Mozart 5 years ago. You did not accept my replies to you and argued yourself blue in the face, not only with me but a number of Mozartean scholars. I was very naive 5 years ago but I will not be drawn into an argument about the Requiem with you. Besides, 5 years on, I am still waiting for references on your assertions about the Requiem.

Any person who feels cheated for not being able to read my answers to you about the Requiem can request my article on the subject either from "Quadrant", an Australian publication, or the Mozarteum in Salzburg. Better still, all about the Requiem can be read in my book, "Constanze Mozart's Beloved".

This is NOT about the Requiem, Robert. This is about "The Marriage of Figaro" and Kraus's role in it. The question was, did Kraus produce any other operas comparable to The Marriage of Figaro?

This is also about Luchesi, the sick Myslevischek who according to you did not only compose Wolfgang's music but Leopold's music as well. Where on earth do you get all this from?

I simply asked for references.

Selby A.

[robert newman]

And, I, as everyone can now clearly see have, in response to your claim that I cannot produce any examples of fraud in the works of Mozart, have asked if you can tell us whose name is written on K626 and whether you believe that name has been forged or not.

May we, without further wriggling, have a straight answer to a straight question ?

Thank you

Robert Newman

[Selby A]

Originally posted by robert newman:

And, I, as everyone can now clearly see have, in response to your claim that I cannot produce any examples of fraud in the works of Mozart, have asked if you can tell us whose name is written on K626 and whether you believe that name has been forged or not.
-----------

Well, Robert, you are trying to draw me into an argument about the Requiem which is a futal exercise. As I said, you can obtain the information from "Quadrant", which I believe is available at the British Library.
It can be obtained from the Mozarteum or read in my book, obtainable on Amazon.

I do not wish to revive an old, 5 year old discussion which lead to "nowhereland". I am still waiting for you to provide credible references about the "second" Requiem.

The question at hand is Luchesi, Kraus, Mysliveschek, second rate composers all who suddenly produced the works of GREAT MASTERS wrongly attributed to Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.

Selby A.

May we, without further wriggling, have a straight answer to a straight question ?

Thank you

Robert Newman

[Selby A]

Originally posted by Selby A:

----------

Robert, It is straight answers I have been asking you to provide.

The court is in session and now we require evidence against the "gangsters", Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. You are to provide evidence that the above mentioned composers
stole great masterly works from Luchesi, Kraus and Myslevischek, who poor man is sitting in court huddled in a blanket suffering from syphilitic tremors.

The judge brought down his gavel. Let the
proceedings begin...

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

[Nightklavier]

I hope I'm not butting in here, but as much as I enjoy reading posts like this, I have to say the replies you guys are making to each other are at a stalemate. Don't you two see that your posts will continue in an endless cycle? Unless one of you realizes the arguments will go no where, the thread will continue like so, starting with Robert:

Robert - "Answer my question"

Selby - "Provide evidence"

Robert - "Answer Requiem question"

Selby - "Provide evidence"

etc etc...

I'm not complaining about this, I'm just noticing a pattern that none of you are trying to remedy by appeasing each other.

Agnes, if you answer Robert's question, he might provide evidence. And Robert, if you provide evidence, Agnes might answer your question. This is my point. Someone do something =)

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

This court has been in session since the time this thread was first begun whether you now appreciate it or not.

At the fifth time of asking, will you confirm or otherwise that the signature written on Mozart's (supposed) Requiem is a forgery or not ?

Thank You

[robert newman]

Dear Nightklavier,

This forum can judge whether I have ever described Beethoven as a 'gangster'. Ms Selby adds slander to her long list of diversions. I have not. This forum can also see that I have repeatedly promised to provide Agnes Selby sources for my posts here on any specific issue of the many touched on that she may request on which I have written over these past several weeks. My offer remains.

Ms Selby has also stated repeatedly that I have produced no evidence whatsoever that forgery and fraud featured in the making of Mozart's reputation, this despite what she calls her repeated and fruitless requests. I have therefore produced just such evidence - a specific example that everyone can agree is highly specific - the signature found on the score of Mozart's (supposed) Requiem, K626.

I too wish to make progress on this very specific issue. It will settle this issue and I have a wish to be no longer accused of presenting no evidence. My assumption is that fair-minded readers can reach their own conclusions as to who is worthy of support on this issue and who is not.

[Gurn Blanston]

Good Lord, Robert, such a simple question to which the answer is even known by me.

Mozart's name is written on the Requiem, in Süßmayer's handwriting. Since the Requiem was not complete, why would it have been signed by Mozart in any case? What is the relevance, please?

Cheers,
Gurn

[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

[Selby A]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Good Lord, Robert, such a simple question to which the answer is even known by me.

Mozart's name is written on the Requiem, in Süßmayer's handwriting. Since the Requiem was not complete, why would it have been signed by Mozart in any case? What is the relevance, please?
----------

Hi Gurn!

This is going in circles. I have sent you my article on the Requiem originally published by "Quadrant".

I will leave the subject right here.
Regards,
Agnes.


Cheers,
Gurn