"What would it take to surpass The Great Beethoven?"

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

Thanks for repeating the question on the body of music today attributed to Mozart. Yes, I do agree much of this music is beautiful and I do understand that it remains beautiful for many people in their adulthood. I listen to it myself. I am no more against it than I am against chocolate bars or candy floss.

Regards

Robert

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

Thanks for repeating the question on the body of music today attributed to Mozart. Yes, I do agree much of this music is beautiful and I do understand that it remains beautiful for many people in their adulthood. I listen to it myself. I am no more against it than I am against chocolate bars or candy floss. But if there are such things as 'musical dentists' I think parents should warn their children not to eat too much of these things. Better to get their teeth in to Beethoven, or Bach.

Regards

Robert

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-22-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Euan,

Thanks for repeating the question on the body of music today attributed to Mozart. Yes, I do agree much of this music is beautiful and I do understand that it remains beautiful for many people in their adulthood. I listen to it myself. I am no more against it than I am against chocolate bars or candy floss. But if there are such things as 'musical dentists' I think parents should warn their children not to eat too much of these things. Better to get their teeth in to Beethoven, or Bach.

Regards

Robert

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-22-2006).]

Children do not be warned against listening to too much Mozart - that is nonsense! They need to be warned against reading too many ludicrous theories which are not based on fact intent on totally discrediting great composers, and whatever you may say, that is what you and Taboga are about.

Thomas Beecham, a greater musician than you or I stated the world would be a far better place if everyone listened to 15 minutes of Mozart daily - he might have added that 30 minutes of Beethoven wouldn't go amiss either!

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Children do not be warned against listening to too much Mozart - that is nonsense! They need to be warned against reading too many ludicrous theories which are not based on fact intent on totally discrediting great composers, and whatever you may say, that is what you and Taboga are about.

Thomas Beecham, a greater musician than you or I stated the world would be a far better place if everyone listened to 15 minutes of Mozart daily - he might have added that 30 minutes of Beethoven wouldn't go amiss either!

I think that was a Robert Newman style joke about Mozart and children. However Peter you should take note that Mr Beecham recommended Mozart and not Beethoven for 15 mins listening - believe me I think there are not so many people in the 'Establishment' who rate Beethoven so highly as Mozart or Bach, at least this is my experience. They are wrong of course, but that is the nature of any artistic Establishment.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 05-22-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

How interesting that we can be talking one minute of whether Mozart's music is musical chocolate or musical candy floss (against which there would surely need to be musical dentists), only to say that the real health warning should be against those who 'make' children read theories which suggest that Mozart was up to his eyeballs in obtaining the music of other composers. Surely these are two quite separate issues. Again, nobody makes children read theories. But many people feed them myths on Mozart. Does this not count ??

[Agnes Selby]

Dear Robert,

You should not keep us in suspense.

You should give details of your studies
which reveal to you that Mozart was "up to his eye-balls" stealing music from other composers. Also, perhaps you can explain why these composers did not publish their own works and are virtually unknown. Any composer who could compose like Mozart would today be as well-known and venerated as is Mozart himself.

Why did these great composers allow Mozart to steal their masterpieces?

It is, I am afraid, of no use repeating your
theory without it being substantiated by
solid data. I suggest you return to Mozart's letters to his father. These letters were not part of a conspiracy but
family letters from son to father and from father to son.

At the time of writing, Mozart and his family did not know that someone would be reading their private correspondence 200 years after the letters were written.

Most are published in Emily Anderson's "The Letters of Mozart and his Family". This is an English publication. More letters with
accompanying explanatory text appear in the German edition of Bauer & Deutch.

As for children listening to Mozart - I cannot imagine a better musical education.

Agnes.
-----------

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

But many people feed them myths on Mozart. Does this not count ??

The biggest myth on Mozart and Haydn is from you and Taboga, but please let's not use this thread to reopen that one! Do you consider that any composers have surpassed Beethoven? I know you greatly admire Berlioz, but although I recognise his genius and originality, his achievement to my mind does not equal Beethoven's.



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

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

Like Peter, I want to get back to the topic of the thread. I’m not in the slightest interested in chocolate or dentists or candy floss, whether musical or not. I am interested in your answer to my very simple question which I repeat here (with added emphasis) for the third time.

“ …now that we have separated the person of Mozart from the works generally assigned to him, do you still feel X (as defined earlier in the thread) is merely a composer where one ‘begins’?”


It would appear that the answer to that simple question is ‘Yes’ since part of your response to Agnes is:

I compare [Mozart’s music] to a politician blessed with great eloquence but who, at the end of the day, has melted my heart without actually succeeding in changing the world.

So, am I right? Your answer to my question is ‘Yes’?

Euan


[This message has been edited by Euan Mackinnon (edited 05-23-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

I believe that the body of works that we call Mozart are largely products of an assembly line of which Mozart himself was the figurehead. The musically distinctive 'Mozart' style (which really only emerges from about 1783/4 - the time when he begins his thematic catalogue in Vienna) is itself not so difficult to make as an arrangement of works by other composers. A study of the symphonies proves this beyond all reasonable doubt. (How many of them began as serenades, for example and were later reworked/re-arranged by Mozart before becoming 'Mozart symphonies'). The same is true of piano concertos - nowhere more so than with many sonatas, and so on. One could provide versions of anything that was, for example, syncopated, 'in a jazz-like style' and say, 'Here is Joplin'. Mozart was a genius arranger with a flawless ability to exploit the best form of a piece. His productions are beautiful. But, as a composer (and this is really what we are discussing) I do not think that he is in the same league as Bach, Beethoven or many other composers. His works are crammed with ideas that are not developed but which, all the same, are beautiful.

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

It's really funny how one can spend time pointing out the extent to which the 'official' version of Mozart is so riddled with holes only to be told that one is 'corrupting the youth' by saying so. On which specific claim are the theories of Taboga or myself lacking in documentary evidence ? The moment that documentary (and other) evidence becomes the issue we will celebrate recognition of the fact that the same fair criticism should be extended to studies of Mozart as we would expect of any other composer. But this simply does not happen despite pointing out example after example of discrepancies in the Mozart myth.

The story we have of Mozart is little more than a fairy tale for grown ups - foisted sincerely on youngsters but defective in virtually every respect.

To love this music (as I do) is an entirely different thing from appreciating the actual truth of its genesis.

Regards

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

You write -

'You should not keep us in suspense.You should give details of your studies
which reveal to you that Mozart was "up to his eye-balls" stealing music from other composers'.

Well, I'm hardly guilty of keeping you in any suspense Agnes. Have I not instead been outspoken ? I tell you plainly the compositions of 'Mozart' from his childhood consist more of works by his father and by others than by Mozart. Are you still in suspense on that ? I tell you plainly that of 'his' first 25 or so symphonies hardly one of them is his by documentary or any other sort of evidence. And that there exists musical and other evidence that Mozart was being provided with works by other composers in Vienna also, despite them often being attributed to him, even during his lifetime. And that this same icon ended his career being attributed a piece which bears the fraudulent signature of 'Mozart' - this simply putting the seal on a career that has been virtually hidden from appreciation.

You refer to the Mozart correspondence. Fine. Let me remind you Agnes that letter writing in the late 18th century was a quite expensive affair. Has anyone ever estimated the postal charges for such fortuitous correspondence ? How amazing that we have in this mountain of letters so coherent a picture of Mozart that it simply takes our breath away. It does not occur to you that what is being manufactured before our very eyes is 'Mozart' himself - the icon on which his reputation and stature would be constructed (at least superficially).

It does not suprise me in the least that Anton Eberl (a composer whose works were being published repeatedly in Vienna in the name of Mozart) should twice have publicly complained at such practices and should, the second time, have specifically blamed such fraudulent behaviour on one Constanze Mozart. But here too facts are inconvenient. One could give a dozen cases.

It does not matter, of course, that 9 symphonies are today at Modena which strongly indicate that 'Mozart's' mature symphonies were, in fact, created by others years before they 'became' his own. Nor does it matter, of course, that till this very day the Koechel catalogue is stubbornly stuffed with works which, by any fair description are not by Mozart.

No, you must (since you have no other choice due to your concern with the education of the young) describe such attacks as 'detracting from the great legacy of Mozart'. And so, despite not addressing these and many other related issues it's easy for you to say that what I and Taboga point out are fantasies, inventions, baseless ramblings etc. Well, I know they're not and have even given a few of the many examples here, as elsewhere.

As to why men wrote for others, the chief reason was of course money. But those who paid such money had in mind the glory of Vienna, of Austria, of the notion that Mozart was theirs and that the society in which they held power (that of the Holy Roman Empire) would prevail. The iconic status of Mozart and its preservation was/is precisely why these things occurred the way they did. And why they still do.

Robert




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-23-2006).]

[Peter]

Robert, yet again you've hijacked this thread for your theories - this subject has been debated ad infinitum on this forum. I respectfully remind you, this is primarily a Beethoven forum so publish your ideas in the proper place - you know full well that the arguments you present as fact are NOT accepted in academic circles.

This thread can still be salvaged from your digression if you deal with the several questions asked of you relating to the topic.

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

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

I will write no more on this here. You will note please that I was simply responding to comments made against me here on this thread.
These I have now answered.

Regards

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

I have asked my simple question three times; you have still failed to answer it.

It is clear that, on this topic at least, you have no interest in conducting any form of genuine dialogue. So, for my part, I will bow out of the discussion.

Euan

[robert newman]

Euan,

You have asked me a 'simple' question three times, each time in a form less simple than the first. I've answered you each time.

Sorry you wish to withdraw - let me ask you one. I am not a philosopher. Is it possible that you can frame your questions in a way that does not make you withdraw when the answers you receive are not as clinical as you might need ? Contrast my atttitude, if you will, with those who simply refuse to answer anything of real substance, or whose attitudes have effectively predetermined the acceptable response.

Robert


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-23-2006).]