-On the Origins of the Vienna Classical Period and other Matters –

[Agnes Selby]

Just a thought. I have expressed it before on Open Mozart and on a private site Robert had by now graciously and thankfully left.

How is it possible that Luchesi and his
kind thought so little of their masterpieces to give them, sell them or whatever to Mozart and Haydn? What prompted such a great composer like Luchesi not to benefit from his own compositions but instead, prostitute himself by selling his wares? Does it say much about Luchesi or are you saying, Robert, that some evil gunmen stood over Luchesi's head and forced him to give up the rights to his own intellectual property? What is this obssession you suffer from when you know quite well that all your blah is unsubstantiated, well - blah.

Makes no sense at all. Please do not bother to reply unless you have some startling evidence to support your claims.

You may also consider finding an obliging
composer in Italy who would be willing to supply me with his compositions in order that I, a mere Australian housewife, could
achieve everlasting fame.

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

[robert newman]

Dear Steve,

The day you or any other 'Mozart scholar' get off your backsides and actually study the manuscript evidence at Regensburg, Estense Library in Modena and various other locations, of musical documents, watermarks and various other evidence (all suggestive of these 'Haydn' and 'Mozart' works existing long before they were supposedly composed by those two men) then, and only then, will I and others start to be impressed by your 'expertise' and your claim that you wish to see justice fairly and openly done. But, as so recently stated by truly neutral and wholly impartial editors of the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia not a single Mozart scholar that holds your conservative view has yet bothered to confirm or examine the evidence that Taboga has amassed and that I too have concurred with. It is therefore time to stop smearing Taboga and I with claims of not having evidence. It is evidence which separates us - one of us is urging its immediate study and appreciation and the other arguing that 'Mozart claimed these works as his, therefore they must be his'. Such arguments have worked for you and your supporters in the past but they simply cannot hold water any more. Mozart was (and Haydn too) supplied with works by others at each and every stage of their grossly inflated careers. The evidence in support of this view is not imaginary or fiction - it is real and it can be verified. And it is in scale very large. Were it not for the fact that this is not principally a Mozart or Haydn forum I would take you personally piece by piece through, for example, each and every 'Mozart' symphony, or each and every item in the Koechel catalogue, or each and every 'Haydn' symphony and even every one of his masses, to show just how absurd your views are in defence of the 'status quo' - this not in the light of some obsession but as a service to get to the actual, indisputable, documentary and other evidence.

Go if you will to Modena. Or read what has actually been written on these matters. Many, many lines of evidence indicate that the career of Mozart, invented and perpetuated from childhood to the year of his death, and described as a 'glory of Austria and Vienna' was, in fact, the product of fakery, forgery, misattribution and downright falsehood on a scale matched only by 'Papa' Haydn. That great and talented men contributed to this myth is indisputable.

If there existed a forum where we really could debate/discuss these issues fairly in the light of watermarks, textual and many other sorts of evidence with you bravely defending the 'status quo' you would see that 'Mozart's symphonies (nearly half in number to those once claimed of him, of course) and those of 'Haydn' (also less than half those once claimed of him) are in the same category - products of musical manipulation without equal in the history of western music. The same applies to literally dozens and dozens of other works.

I stand by my considered view on these issues as does Taboga. We worked in parallel for years before we discovered we were both doing so.

It is not for you or Neil Zaslaw or any other person to use their talents to defend the 'staus quo' that was invented by the Mozart family, by Andre, Otto Jahn, the early sanitised biographers etc. May I dare to suggest it IS for you, Neil Zaslaw, myself, Taboga and anyone else interested in fairness to see and to appreciate documentary and other evidence so as to provide fair and truly considered judgements on issues which, till now, have only provoked you to conservatism. Until this is done your claim that I and Taboga have 'no evidence' serves no-one.

Regards

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-31-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

Though I differ with you on many things I, like you, love the music that is today attributed to that Salzburg composer. It includes some of the finest ever written. I would also defend your right to believe of it as you please. And I would not, personally, attack you though I may and often have strongly argued against your views.

In this sense - that of respect for other views - (perhaps the most important sense of all) I will remain, always yours respectfully

Robert Newman

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Agnes Selby:
Just a thought. I have expressed it before on Open Mozart and on a private site Robert had by now graciously and thankfully left.

How is it possible that Luchesi and his
kind thought so little of their masterpieces to give them, sell them or whatever to Mozart and Haydn? What prompted such a great composer like Luchesi not to benefit from his own compositions but instead, prostitute himself by selling his wares? Does it say much about Luchesi or are you saying, Robert, that some evil gunmen stood over Luchesi's head and forced him to give up the rights to his own intellectual property? What is this obssession you suffer from when you know quite well that all your blah is unsubstantiated, well - blah.

Makes no sense at all. Please do not bother to reply unless you have some startling evidence to support your claims.

You may also consider finding an obliging
composer in Italy who would be willing to supply me with his compositions in order that I, a mere Australian housewife, could
achieve everlasting fame.

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

It also makes absolutely NO SENSE to me that a composer as versatile as Luchesi, that can vary his styles uniquely to that of late Mozart, late Haydn, and early Beethoven and yet his "known" compositions are not of particularly note (pun not intended, sorry). I have never heard or seen his name listed in any radio playlist or on any classical music station that I have ever listened to. The stylistic issues for me negate completely the theory proposed.

[Nightklavier]

Originally posted by Rod:
I have without effort successfully wrote off all of Roberts theories about Beethoven with just a couple of paragraphs of musical assessment of the most basic level.

Would you mind repeating your analysis? Or if you remember which thread you posted such assessments, can you provide a link or the subject name of the thread. I'd actually be curious to read what you have to say because I think you've taken the ultimate short-cut to ending this debate once and for all. Instead of dissecting and researching primary sources and archives, the answer lies within the music.

I'm not nearly musically educated enough to come to a conclusion myself. But I think this constant "bouncing" of quotations, what documents say, and opinions of the facts is not getting anyone anywhere. Why not take an alternate route and actually study the music?

[robert newman]

How unfortunate for you to have done so Rod, since you (unless you have turned 180 degrees in the last few weeks) believe Beethoven wrote chamber music while at Bonn that is in the style of Mozart and which even quotes Mozart.

Now, if that is your view, and the teenager was able to do this, why do you doubt that others far more experienced in music, at Bonn, could do the same ? Since the manuscripts in question came from, Bonn. And not from Mozart.

You may see, I hope, the weakness in your position here. But never mind - let it remain if it never features in your thinking.

To write music in the style of Mozart is a relatively easy thing. To write music in the style of, say, the mature Beethoven, is far, far more difficult. Is that not a fact ? And how many works once attributed to Mozart have subsequently been found to be works by others ? Dozens ? Many dozens. So many, in fact, that even in Mozart's lifetime there were complaints that works were being published in Mozart's name he never composed - and even some published by Artaria, one of Mozart's own publishers. To say the least, all this merely demonstrates that on stylistic grounds, we are dealing with a far more easy thing for a skilled musician to create than you might suppose. Ask the teenage Beethoven, as you already say yourself. Need I say more ? Perhaps not.



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-31-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by robert newman:
How unfortunate for you to have done so Rod, since you (unless you have turned 180 degrees in the last few weeks) believe Beethoven wrote chamber music while at Bonn that is in the style of Mozart and which even quotes Mozart.

That wasn't my view, it is the view of music scholars I was quoting, I haven't even heard the Mozart music they were refering to (we are talking about B's early piano quartets here). I just presumed the writers knew what they were talking about.

My own assessment is really based purely on the music, which to be honest I prefer to any chamber piece I've heard by Mozart. The Beethoven style is omnipresent in these pieces regardless of any other composer's alleged connection.

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:


It is therefore time to stop smearing Taboga and I with claims of not having evidence.

In this very thread you state "As for the ‘Marriage of Figaro’, I have with me the poster for the actual first performance on 11th April 1785 at Frankfurt on Main. This antedates by more than one year the first performance of Da Ponte and Mozart’s work (1st May 1786)."

Then provide the information for the Frankfurt playbill which you have claimed as evidence that Mozart's Marriage of Figaro was performed a year earlier than its supposed premier. Answer the questions I asked about it - was it a play? an opera? who was the composer and librettist?

If you won't answer these questions then do not demand of us that we blindly accept your 'evidence'. Members of this forum will see all too clearly the reality of your claims.

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-31-2006).]

[Rod]

At the end of the day you will always have to return to the music. Being amateur historians on its own will provide only circumstantial evidence. I notice Robert has not isolated any specific part of any Beethoven piece or Figaro as an example of another's style or a 'borrowing'.

The 'historians' have really taken presidence over this site and I for one find it utterly tedious. This is pseudo-intelligence at work and I'm not fooled by any of it. I wouldn't mind so much if they were as enthusiastic about the music, which at the end of the day is why we (or at least some of us) are all here. This seems to have been forgotten, why Peter indulges it all I don't know.

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


[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 08-31-2006).]

[Euan Mackinnon]

Peter

You are clearly exasperated with Robert Newman for failing time after time to provide clear evidence for his many claims. Many other members here are equally exasperated and frustrated for the same reason.

However, you continue to allow Robert to post his ‘arguments’, some of which have only a tenuous connection with the subject matter of this Forum. Recently you have been criticised for your continued tolerance of Robert Newman of which more in a moment.

May I for one strongly support your tolerance and urge you to continue that policy. Here are my reasons:

Recently you wrote:

Honestly Robert why you persist with this on this forum I don't know.

SR (Steve Ralston, a MozartForum moderator) replied:

He persists because you allow it. He doesn't go away unless forced. He fills other peoples websites with Taboga. Sometimes giving full credit to Taboga, sometimes sounding as though he and Taboga have made these "great" discoveries independantly, therefore corroborating each other.

Ralston then added:

Peter, you have MORE patience than a saint.

Just so! And long may it remain so!

Indeed, the history of the MozartForum and its owners/moderators is an ‘interesting’ and highly instructive one for any similar Forum, including this one.

Speaking from memory and as someone who never posted on any of the (Mozart) forums, it went (briefly) like this:

OpenMozart was a forum where any opinion however abusive was allowed to be posted.

A few of members there felt increasingly unhappy about the mixture of abuse (which became a dominant feature for some time) and the increasingly rare postings about Mozart and his music. They left to form their own forum – the MozartForum – where such abuse was not allowed.

At first this forum prospered and was a delight to read. It had a widely diverse membership (from the extremely knowledgeable to those who were completely new to Mozart) and many interesting and, again, widely diverse threads (from the erudite, even arcane, to the light-hearted). It was a harmonious place to be.

Trouble started and became an issue over the views of one member (also a member here) who seemingly (a full explanations was never given) irritated one or two of the most influential members of the forum. After a series of spats, she was banned (without explanation to members in general).

There was uproar, with members demanding to know the reason(s) she had been banned. The MozartForum closed.

Some months later, it re-opened but, now, with a huge list of Terms designed, one assumes, to prevent a recurrence of the problems that had caused closure. Some former members, including some with a great deal to offer the forum, refused to re-join as they simply refused to believe these Terms were remotely necessary and were certainly ones that they personally had no intention of following.

Worse, as the new MozartForum developed and membership numbers slowly recovered, the Moderators – one in particular – began to exhibit that they meant business and to enforce the Terms with increasing intolerance.

More members left (including one or two who are members here). And, before long, Robert Newman was banned under this regime of intolerance for expressing the sort of views he expresses here. (Indeed, it is worth following and closely studying the thread on the MozartForum that led up to his banishment. It is an object lesson in blinkered and biased so-called argument.)

The MozartForum has now been entirely gutted and emasculated by these Moderators of whom Mr Ralsten is one. It is a pale shadow of its former self where sycophantic and anodyne postings prosper and real debate is rapidly stifled. If you don’t believe me, go there for a few months.

So Peter, thank heaven for your tolerance. Ignore the criticisms and blandishments of Mr Ralsten and his kind. He and they have materially diminished what was once a fine, robust, intelligent and highly instructive Forum. Don’t let him or anyone else do the same here.

Robert Newman may irritate, even enrage, a lot of people but he is entirely harmless when set aside the far greater dangers of the sort of censorship and climate of wariness that Ralsten and his colleagues have wrapped round the MozartForum.

Either ignore Robert Newman’s postings or continue (as you do) to press him for evidence. But – please – no repetition of the MozartForum debacle.

Euan


[This message has been edited by Euan Mackinnon (edited 08-31-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
At the end of the day you will always have to return to the music. Being amateur historians on its own will provide only circumstantial evidence. I notice Robert has not isolated any specific part of any Beethoven piece or Figaro as an example of another's style or a 'borrowing'.

The 'historians' have really taken presidence over this site and I for one find it utterly tedious. This is pseudo-intelligence at work and I'm not fooled by any of it. I wouldn't mind so much if they were as enthusiastic about the music, which at the end of the day is why we (or at least some of us) are all here. This seems to have been forgotten, why Peter indulges it all I don't know.

Of course the music is the most fundanemtal issue of importance, but I am only countering like arguments with like. I have used musical arguments before with Robert, for example Haydn's extensive use of Croatian folk tunes. He simply claims Haydn sent them to Luchesi!

The music of Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven is very distinct in style, despite the sameness claimed by many and the mutual influences which are often quite apparent (Perhaps Robert would like to comment on the link between the finales of Haydn's La Fedelta Premiata and Figaro?)

That of course should be enough to damn any Luchesi authorship claim for all 3 composers - but when you're countered by how easy it is to imitate these styles, it gets us nowhere (one wonders where they originated from if these composers weren't themselves involved? How can a symphony sound Haydnesque if as Taboga claims he never wrote any?).

I indulge this debate simply because I believe Robert is passionately convinced by his case - though we disagree I respect his position. These issues need to be addressed and not ignored.

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-31-2006).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Euan Mackinnon:
Peter

Either ignore Robert Newman’s postings or continue (as you do) to press him for evidence. But – please – no repetition of the MozartForum debacle.

Euan

Thank you Euan for your message of support. Because Robert is genuinely passionate about his case he has my respect and I do not see why he should be banned or silenced simply because I disagree! I will again use the opportunity to press Robert to produce the information contained in the Frankfurt playbill out of respect for the tolerance and indulgence that this forum has shown at least!

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Peter:
Of course the music is the most fundanemtal issue of importance, but I am only countering like arguments with like. I have used musical arguments before with Robert, for example Haydn's extensive use of Croatian folk tunes. He simply claims Haydn sent them to Luchesi!

The music of Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven is very distinct in style, despite the sameness claimed by many. That of course should be enough to damn any Luchesi authorship claim for all 3 composers - but when you're countered by how easy it is to imitate these styles, it gets us nowhere (one wonders where they originated from if these composers weren't themselves involved? How can a symphony sound Haydnesque if as Taboga claims he never wrote any?).

I indulge this debate simply because I believe Robert is passionately convinced by his case - though we disagree I respect his position. These issues need to be addressed and not ignored.

I think it would be very difficult indeed to replicate the Beethoven style to the degree that it would fool anyone with any amount of Beethoven experience, though of course this excludes music professors...

Concerning the others that is obviously of more interest to you, but the huge essays on these matters are not relevant to this forum. For the record with Mozart I suggest it may be possible to replicate a small piece in his style, but a whole opera like Figaro? I suggest whoever is fooled by that deserves it! I've never heard most of this piece, but if someone sends me a recording I'll tell you if Mozart wrote it and it will be an end to the self-indulgent mutterings of the historians.

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

[Peter]

Originally posted by Rod:
I think it would be very difficult indeed to replicate the Beethoven style to the degree that it would fool anyone with any amount of Beethoven experience, though of course this excludes music professors...

Concerning the others that is obviously of more interest to you, but the huge essays on these matters are not relevant to this forum. For the record with Mozart I suggest it may be possible to replicate a small piece in his style, but a whole opera like Figaro? I suggest whoever is fooled by that deserves it! I've never heard most of this piece, but if someone sends me a recording I'll tell you if Mozart wrote it and it will be an end to the self-indulgent mutterings of the historians.

You are quite right Rod. A letter from Beethoven to the Abbe Stadler is very apt here. It was in response to claims by Gottfried Weber that Mozart was not the author of the requiem (yes nothing new in this debate!). Stadler successfully countered his claims. Beethoven used the music as the basis for his opinions.

Feb 6th 1826

"Honoured Reverend sir!
You have really acted well in rendering justice to the manes of Mozart by your truly admirable and profound essay, and learned as well as unlearned, in fact all who are musical, or are only counted as such, owe you thanks for it.
Either no knowledge or a great deal is required to talk on the subject as Herr.W has done. If one further considers that, so far as I know, a man of that sort has actually written a treatise on composition, and yet writes such passages as .........
(an example of poor music) and wants to ascribe them to Mozart, and if to that one adds W's patchwork such as ...(another example of bad music) W's astounding knowledge of harmony and melody reminds one of the late imperial composers, Sterkel, Naumann, Andre, etc.. requiescant in pace. let me thank you specially my worthy friend, for the joy you give me by sending your article. I have always counted myself among the greatest admirers of Mozart, and shall remain so until my last breath."

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

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

Despite you thinking I am hiding evidence on The Marriage of Figaro I am in fact doing the opposite. In the absence of the playbill (which I repeat I do not have, even as a copy, and which I know does not specify the sort of performance there at Frankfurt in 1785) let me list the things you now know about this matter (or can reasonably deduce from it) as the direct result of my four times refering to this Frankfurt bill - none of which you formerly knew and of which nothing whatsoever has yet been discussed on any Mozart forum, nor on any site that deals with the history/genesis of the opera of that name -

1. That a performance of just such a work WAS advertised for Frankfurt am Main fully 1 year before it was first performed in Vienna as an opera by Mozart/da Ponte.

2. That the theatre group involved in this Frankfurt event of 1785 was not that of the Met in New York, nor that of Madrid, or of the Comedie Francaise in Paris, but none other than that of the court of the Elector of Cologne whose music centre was Bonn. And ultimate head of that same theatre group was, as we all know, Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi.

3. That therefore, beyond reasonable doubt, the piece advertised in that Frankfurt playbill (the one never discussed by 'Mozart scholarship') was received and rehearsed first at Bonn by that same theatre group, before that playbill was ever created and printed.

4. That therefore, beyond reasonable doubt, that same piece/production was known to and sanctioned by Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi - head of music there and also head of the theatre group of that same principality of Cologne.

5. That on any fair and reasonable grounds the very existence of such a playbill (regardless of the actual nature of the performance that it related to) is an important and relevant piece of information for discussion/understanding of the genesis of the opera of that name performed on 1st May 1786, more than 1 year later, in Vienna.

6. That at this time, despite the said bill having been first discussed on the internet here, on Beethoven Reference site, there is no evidence that its existence has even been acknowledged by the wider Mozart studying audience in connection with Figaro, let alone discussed or appreciated.

7. That virtually a century has passed since the said playbill was first rediscovered (1910) despite the same being true - with no discussion or even acknowledgement from Mozart scholarship of the existence of this playbill or of the importance of such a discovery. I can only conclude (as we see in the case of Bonn music archives at Estense Library, Modena) that no such discussion is deemed to be relevant or even welcomed within 'Mozart scholarship'.

8. Bonn/Frankfurt/Luchesi - this triangle (as in the case of two cantatas from the 1790's whose performance at Frankfurt is not accepted within mainstream Beethoven research) again indicates that attempts are being made to suppress the obvious relationship between all three by default, when such a relationship existed beyond reasonable doubt.

9. I confirm that I have personally read (though briefly) two footnotes refering to this Frankfurt playbill during the years I have been writing notes on music of the late 18th century, though I have not, myself, ever physically seen the said playbill. The Taboga reference to this playbill (this the third time its existence came to my attention) and the reference Taboga makes to having it available to show to musicologists in Italy constitutes (to me at least) a body of evidence in favour of its existence that is extremely strong and that evidence includes a named individual from 1910 as having discovered it.

Having said all this, and despite a mountain of other things that have diverted my attention since that post of April, I agree that, on your pressing this issue as to its real existence and as to what it says or does not say, I personally can do more to make it (the playbill) available to you - by writing personally to Professor Taboga with a request that it be copied. Just yesterday I suggested you can request this thing yourself and suggested to whom you could write, but, in view of your patience in my posts, I concede that your request is not unreasonable. I will keep your posted on the progress of my letter and of any reply I receive from Italy. (You will also receive copies of my letter and of any information received that is relevant to your request).

Best regards




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-31-2006).]