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

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Euan Mackinnon:
May I make a suggestion, Robert? Underpinning this suggestion is my acceptance that you are personally convinced of your case and, further, wish to argue that case to others.

With that assumption in mind, why don’t you do the following:

1. Take one – just one - carefully chosen example that supports your case, e.g. a symphony attributed to (say) Mozart that you feel you can ‘prove’ was written by someone else.

2. Choose your example so that it has maximum supporting evidence of the sort Sorrano asks for (see quotes above) and minimum reliance on what for want of a single word I will call ‘speculation’.

3. Present that evidence in a simple, concise clear way with a complete absence of expressions such as "everyone knows that..." or "it was obvious...." (as Sorrano puts it).

I suggest that if you can do this you will progress your case one important step forward. You can then repeat the argument with a second example, then a third, and so on.

I, for one, would be interested to read each of these (concise, cumulative) postings one by one and, through doing so, be able to form my own opinion of the merits of your case. However, in the absence for such a structured argument, I have to admit Robert that I am totally sceptical about your claims. Sceptical, but willing to listen.

Dear Euan;

I second that!! It is the best proposal I have heard on this forum regarding these issues!!


Hofrat

[Sorrano]

Mr. Newman, I would like to echo Peter's question, have you been to Modena and examined the scores yourself? Or are you simply relying on Taboga's research? Does he have images of these scores that are accessible? Or is he making claims based on the idea that very few if any will actually research those claims? I am not contradicting you. I am being skeptical because of lack of evidence. I do not have ready access to the Modena library. Do you? If I did have access I would certainly check these things out.

?

[Rod]

Originally posted by Agnes Selby:


I congratulate you on your musical ability
and of knowing it all without having to refer to your library. Not all of us are thus blessed.

Thanks Agnes.

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

[robert newman]

In reply to various recent emails -

There are times when microscopic study of a thing is not appropriate and where a more macroscopic study is more appropriate. The cases in point - the careers of Haydn and Mozart - are two examples.

Haydn and Mozart's reputation (both living and posthumous) were built on not one, two, a dozen or even a hundred musical works. It was built on many, many hundreds of works, these supposedly composed by them and certainly attributed to them (though in many cases not even attributed to them during their own lifetimes). So the study of any single manuscript, interesting and relevant though it may be in specific cases (e.g. 'Mozart's Requiem' or, say, 'Haydn's ''7 Last Words'') is not and never has been the central issue. It may illustrate an example. But, in itself, it does not prove the case.

Not even the Bonn material at Modena is macroscopic enough (since only part of the manuscripts supposedly written by Haydn and Mozart are still there). No - we are discussing (as just said) the possibility that the compositional careers of both these men were manipulated, exaggerated and falsified, so as to give the impression (both during their life and even more so after they had both died) that they achieved for music (and for the prestige of themselves, the Austrian Empire and for music as a whole) a status that is, in fact, largely false.

I have no problem discussing individual manuscripts. But no manuscript, in itself, can resolve such an issue. That you must surely appreciate. It is only when we, looking at these manuscripts and on facts related to them, regard them as pieces of a mosaic spread out before us and can climb the stairs, as it were, to look down on the mosaic as a whole that we see the picture they really provide us with. So too in matters related to the actual (or supposed) achievements of Haydn and Mozart.

If it is said that this post is 'ducking the issue', fine. Let us then select two works - one alleged to be Haydn - let us say, 'The Seven Last Words' and also one alleged to have been composed by Mozart - 'The Requiem', KV626. Such a discussion on two works alone will not, as just said, prove the overall issue. But if any person wishes to defend the consensus view (the traditional view) on these two specific works let them present it here to prove the value of such studies, and I agree to present a contrary view about the real origins of these two same specific works. Then the neutral reader can fairly judge - at least wjether the traditional attribution of those two works is sound or not.

More than this is neither reasonable nor relevant to this debate. I trust you agree. Only by appreciating every perspective (both microscopic and also macrosopic) may we arrive at a fair and considered verdict on this issue. It is clear too that every attempt was made to hide such activities from discovery.

Just as it would be ridiculous to prove there was a second world war by the autopsy of one of its victims, so too is it would be ridiculous to suppose that study of one or two musical manuscripts, even in detail, can ever do justice to the actual issue or its scale now being considered.

Regards


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-05-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

Since you wish to lecture us on how academic research is conducted I will burden you with only one question. Just one.

Question - Dear Agnes Selby, can you please confirm or otherwise that the signature and writing found on 'Mozart's' Requiem, KV 626 is actually a forgery, one written by another person - a person who was NOT Mozart.

If you, 5 years later, can finally give us your answer to this most straightforward question you will, at last, have the respect of me - you who say that all you believe MUST find the support of 'documentary evidence' Thank you in advance of your reply and now looking forward to your answer to this documentary question at the one hundredth time of asking.


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-04-2006).]

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

When you write (4th September) that:

In reply to various recent emails –

I assume that one of the recent emails to which you refer is mine where I make a suggestion about how you might be able to pursue your case more effectively. This suggestion was that you:

Take one – just one - carefully chosen example that supports your case

to which your first response was:

There are times when microscopic study of a thing is not appropriate and where a more macroscopic study is more appropriate. The cases in point - the careers of Haydn and Mozart - are two examples. […]the study of any single manuscript, interesting and relevant though it may be in specific cases (e.g. 'Mozart's Requiem' or, say, 'Haydn's ''7 Last Words'') is not and never has been the central issue. It may illustrate an example. But, in itself, it does not prove the case (my emphasis)

I would argue that the central issue for you (at least at this stage) can be summarised in three simple statements:

1. You make (or quote others who make) sweeping claims that, if justified, would complete overturn the work and conclusions of literally hundreds of scholars in the field.

2. You offer no hard verifiable evidence for any of these claims either from your own researches or from the researches of others.

3. (Virtually) the whole thrust of your case is a set of general assertions that are usually prefaced by phrases such as those cited by Sorrano ("everyone knows that..." or "it was obvious...."). Furthermore, when challenged (for example, as Peter has done over the Frankfurt playbill), you shift your ground.

In short, Robert (and in my view), the central issue is one of your credibility.

My intention (in my earlier posting as in this one) is to suggest to you a stepwise and cumulative method of gaining that credibility. In this way, and to use your own terms, the ‘macroscopic’ case can be given a fair and open-minded hearing because of the prior presentation of watertight examples at the ‘microscopic’ level.

Incidentally, with that objective in mind, I would have thought K626 was not a wise first choice since it is not a work that any reputable scholar attributes solely to Mozart. A better case (from your point of view) would be a work by (say) Mozart that you feel you can ‘prove’ was not written by him but is ‘universally’ accepted as being by Mozart (Peter suggests K550 - the G Minor Symphony No.40)

I was therefore encouraged to read that you:

…have no problem discussing individual manuscripts.

while accepting your overall argument that:

… no manuscript, in itself, can resolve [the ‘macroscopic’] issue (my insertion).

But, as I say Robert, your case will get nowhere until you have established credibility so my advice is to nail the microscopic first, then, and only then, try the ‘macroscopic’ argument.

I look forward to your detailed presentation of the first ‘microscopic’ example. K550 perhaps?

Euan

[Sorrano]

If I understand you correctly you want the burden of proof to be upon us and not upon you? You want us to prove that Mozart and Haydn composed the works that you claim they did not? Be mindful that it is you that introduced the contrary viewpoint, not us. The burden rests with you. That is if you want to convince us that we are in error. Whether or not you believe that Mozart did or did not compose the Requiem doesn't matter to me. I believe he did, minus the last part. However, if you want me and the rest of the people on this forum to believe that someone else composed it the burden of proof lies with you.

Personally I do not think you can adecuately demonstrate that Haydn did not compose "The Seven Last Words" nor that Mozart did not compose his K626 Requiem. But I am interested in what you can verify in regards to your position on these works.

[robert newman]

Dear Sorrano,

How much more flexibility can I demonstrate than this ? I am saying that the entire careers of Haydn and Mozart are suspect. I have in many, many posts, shared the fact that the whole history of when they wrote and for whom needs to be appreciated. It is one side of this debate/disussion who has provided this forum and many others with evidence after evidence why many, many works are not by Mozart or by Haydn.

And, since the onus is definitely on me and others to sustain this view the answer, to date, is pitifully small. It is not, for exaple, even disputed that dozens of works by 'early' Mozart are in the catalogue on grounds that are, at best, highly dubious. It is not disputed that there are today, still, dozens of works in the Koechel catalogue which are not, in fact, compositions of Mozart. It becomes ridiculous if, in the light of these indisputable facts, they do not become part of a fair minded persons understanding on claims that, in fact, the entire career of Mozart (i.e. at each and every stage of is life) is dogged by facts which permit such a fair minded person no other logical conclusion that exaggeration, falsehood and fakery are a factor in the supposed career of that composer. The scale of this is truly huge. And it is therefore not a suprise (or should not be) that it extends even in to the works of his maturity that are supposedly his from Vienna in the period 1781 till the year of his death in 1791. The track record already gives credibility to such a view without even needing to pursue the matter further. But if we do pursue it further - lo and behold ! - we find, yet again, the same sorts of anomalies. Now, if these things do not constitute serious grounds for credibility then, I say, language becomes meaningless. We are in a position to say that, in fact, question marks exist over the vast majority of works today attributed to Mozart, despite this being at odds with his own thematic catalogue (begun only in 1784) and on all parts of his career prior to that time.

In spite of all this I am still willing to show, item by item, why the two works of the hundreds that could be discussed (the Mozart Requiem and the 'Last 7 words' of Haydn) were not, in fact, the compositions of either of those two composers). The very fact that such a challenge can be made and can even be accepted must surely be grounds for sober reflection hy those whose only argument is that tradition must be the same thing as truth.

I agree to produce evidence against the traditional attribution of both pieces and would also point out that this forum has already received postings on both those works, even in recent days.

The moment that it is agreed by this forum that the signature on KV626 is forged then, at that time, I will start my case. (I have already asked Agnes Selby, a person who shares the same views as yourself, to answer that question. Hopefully she will do so quickly so that we can all start from an agreed starting point.

Regards

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

First, I am not interested in knowing how many scholars would have their works overturned if these claims are justified. It is of no consequence to me. That's their problem. Let them start studying the things they claim expertise in. Let them study the things being said instead of sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing. Far better that I am kept ignorant of the number of those who claim 'expertise'. Such expertise does not exist in my book if it is not actively demonstrated. Nor does reputation mean anything unless it is actively justified. My business on these issues is to pursue reality in areas that are controversial and is not to look down at how high we must climb to fairly survey the whole landscape. Yet me must. I do not care who chooses to remain in the valley. That too is their business.

You say once again that I offer no hard/ verifiable evidence. Let me ask you a simple question Euan. On what hard evidence do you base your assumption that Mozart wrote, let us say, the first 20 symphonies of the 47 or so today attributed to him ? So simple a question, is it not ? I could give you 40 more of the same sort. You believe those 20 symphonies are his. But I guarantee you never once, ever, at any time, looked in to why you believe as you do on those works. It's just the way that it has always been.

When challenged I shift my ground ? Euan, if I did not shift my ground when there was need to do so I would be a willing fool. And a dogmatist. May I suggest you shift your own ground where there is fair and reasonable justification for doing so ? What then of your first test - the symphonies 1-20 of Mozart ? What hard evidence have you or any of your collegeagues that justifies your assumptions on those twenty works ?

Let us assume the vast majority of people prefer to remain ignorant - since we see evidence of it every day in real life. Let us assume not only that a minority are always right (rather than the majority) and that people in general choose to believe what is spoon fed to them by media corporations and by supposed'experts'. If you agree to this (and I see no harm in believing it to be so) then we lack only one thing - an agreed method by which we can resolve these issues.

If you agree that 'experts' have good reason to call in to question the automatic attribution to Haydn and Mozart of many works traditionaly theirs but under criticism here then, at that time, you begin to see the fairness of my position and that of others who argue in the same way. Your 'experts' have gone very silent. And it's here, in just this situation, where the silence speaks volumes.

Regards




[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-04-2006).]

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Sorrano,

How much more flexibility can I demonstrate than this ? I am saying that the entire careers of Haydn and Mozart are suspect. I have in many, many posts, shared the fact that the whole history of when they wrote and for whom needs to be appreciated. It is one side of this debate/disussion who has provided this forum and many others with evidence after evidence why many, many works are not by Mozart or by Haydn.

And, since the onus is definitely on me and others to sustain this view the answer, to date, is pitifully small. It is not, for exaple, even disputed that dozens of works by 'early' Mozart are in the catalogue on grounds that are, at best, highly dubious. It is not disputed that there are today, still, dozens of works in the Koechel catalogue which are not, in fact, compositions of Mozart. It becomes ridiculous if, in the light of these indisputable facts, they do not become part of a fair minded persons understanding on claims that, in fact, the entire career of Mozart (i.e. at each and every stage of is life) is dogged by facts which permit such a fair minded person no other logical conclusion that exaggeration, falsehood and fakery are a factor in the supposed career of that composer. The scale of this is truly huge. And it is therefore not a suprise (or should not be) that it extends even in to the works of his maturity that are supposedly his from Vienna in the period 1781 till the year of his death in 1791. The track record already gives credibility to such a view without even needing to pursue the matter further. But if we do pursue it further - lo and behold ! - we find, yet again, the same sorts of anomalies. Now, if these things do not constitute serious grounds for credibility then, I say, language becomes meaningless. We are in a position to say that, in fact, question marks exist over the vast majority of works today attributed to Mozart, despite this being at odds with his own thematic catalogue (begun only in 1784) and on all parts of his career prior to that time.

In spite of all this I am still willing to show, item by item, why the two works of the hundreds that could be discussed (the Mozart Requiem and the 'Last 7 words' of Haydn) were not, in fact, the compositions of either of those two composers). The very fact that such a challenge can be made and can even be accepted must surely be grounds for sober reflection hy those whose only argument is that tradition must be the same thing as truth.

I agree to produce evidence against the traditional attribution of both pieces and would also point out that this forum has already received postings on both those works, even in recent days.

The moment that it is agreed by this forum that the signature on KV626 is forged then, at that time, I will start my case. (I have already asked Agnes Selby, a person who shares the same views as yourself, to answer that question. Hopefully she will do so quickly so that we can all start from an agreed starting point.

Regards

I am waiting, then, for your first witness. Remember that the number of scholars that oppose your viewpoint or have no knowledge of inclination of your viewpoint outnumbers you. That the majority is agreeance with this thing is a fact. But I am willing to cede the "fact" that this majority has taught in regards to the authorship of Mozart and Haydn if you can prove or give even reasonable doubt. But I am particular on sources and research.

[robert newman]

Dear Sorrano,

Let us (for the sake of being fair) ignore what is popularly believed. What is popularly believed is (we both agree) not the issue.

Now, I hope Agnes Selby will confirm the fraudulent signature and writing in 'Mozart's Requiem' (a signature and writing that were written to deceive us and which, in all fairness is a blatant example of forgery) and then, on receipt of her confirmation that this is the case, I will, as promised, post on the two works we agreed.

Regards

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Agnes,

Since you wish to lecture us on how academic research is conducted I will burden you with only one question. Just one.
--------------

** First of all, I do not wish to lecture anyone how to do research but if, for instance, one spends pages upon pages speaking of Luchesi as the composer of the works of Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven, all I would like to see is proof provided by your research in order to back up such statements.

As for the signature on the Requiem, you know quite well that Sussmayr completed the Requiem (and not a dozen or so others) and
may have signed the document in Mozart's name.
Was this something Walsegg asked for?
Possibly, we will never know.

As Walsegg himself claimed that his hadwriting was the "same" as Mozart's
and that he was in fact the composer of the Requiem (after all he copied it and signed
the copy with his own name as the composer), the original
copy which was in Walsegg's possession, could have been signed in Mozart's name by Walsegg himself.

I don't know, Robert and neither do you.
If I had X-ray eyes into the past, just think how wealthy I would be by now.

Let me just say on the onset that I will
not debate with you how many people had a
hand in completing the Requiem. We have travelled that road before.

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

Dear Agnes Selby, can you please confirm or otherwise that the signature and writing found on 'Mozart's' Requiem, KV 626 is actually a forgery, one written by another person - a person who was NOT Mozart.

If you, 5 years later, can finally give us your answer to this most straightforward question you will, at last, have the respect of me - you who say that all you believe MUST find the support of 'documentary evidence' Thank you in advance of your reply and now looking forward to your answer to this documentary question at the one hundredth time of asking.


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-04-2006).]

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

Thank you for your reply.

You wrote:

Let me ask you a simple question Euan. On what hard evidence do you base your assumption that Mozart wrote, let us say, the first 20 symphonies of the 47 or so today attributed to him ?

And then, later:

May I suggest you shift your own ground where there is fair and reasonable justification for doing so? What then of your first test - the symphonies 1-20 of Mozart ? What hard evidence have you or any of your collegeagues that justifies your assumptions on those twenty works ? (my emphases)

As others have already pointed out, and in the context of the discussion we are having here, this is an entirely specious argument/question Robert. Sorrano puts it succinctly:

Be mindful that it is you that introduced the contrary viewpoint, not us. The burden [of proof] rests with you.

I (and I suspect Sorrano) would certainly shift our ground if indeed there was fair and reasonable justification for doing so. But to date no such ‘justification’ that is by any stretch of the imagination ‘fair and reasonable’ has been laid before us. That’s the nub of the whole argument; that’s precisely the reason I suggested that you started with something far more ‘realistic’ (‘microscopic’, to use your own word) and presented a ‘fair and reasonable justification’ for your claims on that simple and specific example.

But the counter-argument to what you are saying goes much deeper.

In every walk of life – be it intellectual or practical – all of us, you included, accept almost everything we are conscious of without further questioning it. We have to: life would be literally impossible without doing so. We have to believe that our acceptance is well-founded.

Thus, to respond to the reduction of that requirement down to your selected case of the first 20 symphonies of the 47 or so today attributed to [Mozart] then I would simply say: yes, of course I accept that unless and until someone – you perhaps – provides me with a convincing argument to the contrary. This, in my opinion, you have not done for reasons that I have set out in earlier postings.

Finally, you write:

Let us assume the vast majority of people prefer to remain ignorant - since we see evidence of it every day in real life. Let us assume not only that a minority are always right (rather than the majority) and that people in general choose to believe what is spoon fed to them by media corporations and by supposed'experts'. If you agree to this (and I see no harm in believing it to be so) then we lack only one thing - an agreed method by which we can resolve these issues. (my emphasis)

No we don’t, Robert! We have a completely agreed, well-tested, and robust method of resolving the issues to which you refer. That method has been set out before you time after time by several people on this forum. It is you who refuses to use that method.

So let me reiterate my suggestion to you – take one, just one, simple example etc etc (see earlier posting)- and urge you to follow that suggestion by applying to it the method that has been set out so clearly in this (and other) threads.

Only then, I would venture to suggest, will we all progress: on your part by making far clearer than hitherto the basis of - the evidence for - your claims; on my (our?) part, perhaps, the onset of doubts about the authenticity of various attributions to which you refer.

Euan

[Rod]

In Robert's defence, I have heard music in the past attributed to Mozart and Haydn that so failed to meet my expectiation that it occured to me that no men of alleged genuis could have composed such second rate material.

One piece that immediately springs to mind, which I discussed this with Robert during our last 'coffee morning' and which has a Beethoven connection of sorts is his famous quintet for piano and winds K452. This piece is always bundled with Beethoven Op16 on CD, I have two recordings of it, one authentic too.

Writers have always placed Op16 in the shadow of the piece that Mozart described at the time as his best. However when I first heard it for myself I was truely shocked, what a bad and clumsy composition! I think Beethoven's effort is not only superior but vastly superior, in vision and execution! Yet I have never read a comment remotely critical of K452. Is this really the same piece Mozart was describing as his best? What is the conspiracy here?!


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



[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 09-05-2006).]

[Euan Mackinnon]

In Robert's defence, I have heard music in the past attributed to Mozart and Haydn that so failed to meet my expectiation that it occured to me that no men of alleged genuis could have composed such second rate material.

Yes, Rod, but the key difference lies in the words failed to meet my expectiation.

I would contend that no-one can argue with that simply because it was and is your expectation. You, I, anyone else, can hold whatever expectation we like and that expectation is entirely our own business.

If, however, you went further and argued that ‘we’ should subscribe to your own view (that no men of alleged genuis could have composed such second rate material) you would need to explain why we should also hold this view – i.e. provide a rational argument, evidence, and the like – otherwise it would remain your view versus our view and thus no rational argument could by definition exist.

Robert is not talking about his expectations; he is talking about what he regards as a ‘fact’ – that Mozart, Haydn, (and others) did not compose many of the pieces that are almost universally attributed to them.

Euan