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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Euan Mackinnon:
...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

Robert has a number of things to say about K452 not being quite what it seems, but I'll leave that to him. But I mention K452 because if this had been a Beethoven piece and it had 'not met my expectation' then for sure my first thought would be that it is NOT Beethoven at all. I have been in that situation before with certain pieces that have been attributed to Beethoven but are in fact not his. This is apparent solely from listening to the music in question, no need to check the history books or letters or whatever. But there seems to me something odd about K452, though it's difficult to put my finger on it. Robert agrees with me the music as it stands is not very good.

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

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

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

Thank you for your post. I did not really ask you WHO committed this act of fraud. I asked if you agreed that the signature and also (secondly) the writing next to it in the same pen (which speaks of the piece having been written by 'me' - with a signature pretending to be that of Mozart) is, indeed, a clear and indisputable evidence of forgery/fakery.

I assume you agree and if you do not reply further on this point will take this as fact.

Regards

p.s. Thanks Agnes ! Really.


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-06-2006).]

[Sorrano]

Is it not recorded that Walsegg commissioned the Requiem with the purpose of attaching his name to it? Is it not logical that Sussmayer would "sign" Mozart's name to the manuscript so that Constance could be paid the full amount of the commission? It is difficult for a dead man to sign his own name to a manuscript completed after his demise.

[robert newman]

Dear Sorrano,

But on what factual basis do you believe Mozart was commissioned to write KV626 ? There is not a shred of evidence he ever was. If such a commission exists we should surely have documentary proof of its existence. You, Sorrano, believe such a commission was given to Mozart only because, of course, that is what you and every other music lover has been told for as long as they've known about the 'Mozart Requiem'. But, to date, there has never yet been proof shown of such a commission ever having been made. Its existence is part of folklore. It is almost the first assumption that is made on the piece. But it lacks a shred of evidence.

And yet, of course, it cannot be denied that a story of a commission begins after Mozart's death - not before. That story (made ever more elaborate by a series of lies, contradictions, changed statements and false claims by those involved in the affair) cannot obscure the fact that no such commission has ever been seen, by anyone. Nor is a commission refered to by Constanze Mozart or anyone else before the story begins to unfold. What happened to this supposed document ? A commission of that kind would have been a business transaction. It would have involved responsibilities, the transfer of money, of receipts etc. of a specification, etc etc. For, after Mozart's death, lawyers definitely got involved to give the impression that such a commission existed. Strange that the 'commission' (supposed) is never once quoted from, refered to, or actually claimed to be in anyone's possession. It was from then onwards that a smokescreen was invented - talk of legal action between Walsegg and Constanze Mozart. But all of this presupposes the existence of a commission for a Requiem Mass, which nobody, ever, has shown.

Nor has the date of this supposed commission ever been agreed about by biographers or Mozart scholars. When was this supposed commission made ? One can easily find a wide range of dates. Again, no answer.

Now, Agnes says she believes things for which there is documentary evidence. One must ask here, right at the start, what documentary evidence is there that Mozart was ever commissioned to write KV626 for Count Walsegg ? None whatsoever. Just a small point but one we will see later is fairly typical of this whole affair.

(By the way I will be fairly busy over the next 5 days or so on some work that I must focus on and therefore cannot post immediately on these two works - the Requiem and the 7 last words. But I will of course submit as promised once I have time to condense notes on those two particular works).

Regards


Regards

[Rod]

Robert have you noticed my comments regarding K452?


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

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Sorrano,

But on what factual basis do you believe Mozart was commissioned to write KV626 ? There is not a shred of evidence he ever was. If such a commission exists we should surely have documentary proof of its existence. You, Sorrano, believe such a commission was given to Mozart only because, of course, that is what you and every other music lover has been told for as long as they've known about the 'Mozart Requiem'. But, to date, there has never yet been proof shown of such a commission ever having been made. Its existence is part of folklore. It is almost the first assumption that is made on the piece. But it lacks a shred of evidence.

And yet, of course, it cannot be denied that a story of a commission begins after Mozart's death - not before. That story (made ever more elaborate by a series of lies, contradictions, changed statements and false claims by those involved in the affair) cannot obscure the fact that no such commission has ever been seen, by anyone. Nor is a commission refered to by Constanze Mozart or anyone else before the story begins to unfold. What happened to this supposed document ? A commission of that kind would have been a business transaction. It would have involved responsibilities, the transfer of money, of receipts etc. of a specification, etc etc. For, after Mozart's death, lawyers definitely got involved to give the impression that such a commission existed. Strange that the 'commission' (supposed) is never once quoted from, refered to, or actually claimed to be in anyone's possession. It was from then onwards that a smokescreen was invented - talk of legal action between Walsegg and Constanze Mozart. But all of this presupposes the existence of a commission for a Requiem Mass, which nobody, ever, has shown.

Nor has the date of this supposed commission ever been agreed about by biographers or Mozart scholars. When was this supposed commission made ? One can easily find a wide range of dates. Again, no answer.

Now, Agnes says she believes things for which there is documentary evidence. One must ask here, right at the start, what documentary evidence is there that Mozart was ever commissioned to write KV626 for Count Walsegg ? None whatsoever. Just a small point but one we will see later is fairly typical of this whole affair.

(By the way I will be fairly busy over the next 5 days or so on some work that I must focus on and therefore cannot post immediately on these two works - the Requiem and the 7 last words. But I will of course submit as promised once I have time to condense notes on those two particular works).

Regards


Regards

Why should I believe what you have just posted? You show no references, yet allude that it is common knowledge/belief that Mozart was commissioned by Walsegg. Yet I have no word other than your own that this is not the case. Do you have references that substantiate your position? On the other hand when I get a little more time I will list some websites that cite my viewpoint. I realize that websites do not make good references, but it is a starting point and it demonstrates the position of the majority.

[Agnes Selby]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Dear Agnes,

Thank you for your post. I did not really ask you WHO committed this act of fraud. asked if you agreed that the signature and also (secondly) the writing next to it in the same pen (which speaks of the piece having been written by 'me' - with a signature pretending to be that of Mozart) is, indeed, a clear and indisputable evidence of forgery/fakery.

I assume you agree and if you do not reply further on this point will take this as fact.

Regards

p.s. Thanks Agnes ! Really.

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

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

-----------

Dear Robert,

I only agree on one point. Mozart did not sign the document AFTER DEATH. That would be indeed a mirracle.

What I merely said is that I do not know the circfumstances under which this signature occured. There are many things
which have to be taken into consideration before a fraud on a major scale can even be contemplated.

First of all, this was not the first time Walsegg commissioned compositions
from Viennese composers, paid them handsomely and then copied the works and signed them with his own name.

For years prior to the Requiem, he conducted his private orchestra within the 4 walls of his castle. The Requiem was something else. He ventured out, this time conducting the Requiem twice in honour of his wife's death outside the walls of his castle.

Did Walsegg covet the title "composer" so much that his entire library consisted of
works which he had not composed but which bore his name?

Did Walsegg sign Mozart's name to the
Requiem, to prove that he had a genuine product?

Did Sussamyr sign the work at the instructions of Walsegg's representative?

Did Mozart sign the Requiem with the date by which time the Requiem had to be in the hands of the Commissioner? We do not know.

As this was at the time a small potato affair, just another commission from Walsegg to a composer in Vienna, to be
performed in private in a castle where only Walsegg reigned supreme, there certainly
was no MAFIA conspiracy to show the world that Mozart wrote another composition.

I am sorry, I cannot put it any other way.
Please do not under any circumstances
twist my words or quote me out of context.
The truth of the matter is, Robert that at the time of Mozart's death the world knew nothing of a Requiem, the world did not as yet know that Mozart would one day be famous. The world did not know that the
Austrian Empire would simply disappear. People went about their own business
of survival. The Requiem was a composition, completed and delivered to the Commissioner and that is where the affair ended --- at least for a time.

Agnes.

[robert newman]

'A mass of twisted metal in such a shape that it would take 20 iron workers to untangle it'. That's how I would describe your last post on this thread in answer to the simple question of whether the 'Mozart' signature and inscription on KV626 ('Mozart's Requiem') is a blatant example of fraud.

Dear Agnes,

The words of one of my countrymen (Sir Walter Scott) also come to mind in this matter of the fraudulent signature and inscription found on 'Mozart's Requiem'.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!'

I respect that you seem to prefer the idea of hedging your bets. You do not rule out the possibility that Sussmayr forged this signature and inscription. Nor do you rule out the possibility that Count Walsegg, the supposed 'commissioner' of the piece, was the forger. You don't even rule out the possibility that Mozart wrote both the signature and the inscription ! For you write (and I really must quote you) -

'Did Mozart sign the Requiem with the date by which time the Requiem had to be in the hands of the Commissioner? We do not know'.

Well Agnes, let me bring a welding arc to this twisted pile of metal. If Mozart wrote his own name and inscription on the piece and dated it 1792 (a year he never lived to see) then, indisputably, Mozart is a liar, since, even you agree and the entire Mozart establishment does that entire sections of this work were simply NOT composed by Mozart. Therefore, indisputably, on such obvious grounds if Mozart really wrote those words and really dated them '1792' he is, by your own admission, indisputably, a liar. Since he by your own argument did not write entire sections of this work - a work which, you say, he may well have claimed as his own in this very signature and inscription - he is found guilty of fraud and of deception, though he died shortly afterwards.

Since you will never entertain the idea of Mozart being a liar (not even if this stares you in the face) I suggest you would be well advised to drop this idea of Mozart signing this document in this way and also of him claiming authorship of it fully a month and more before its supposed submission date.

But it's entirely up to you. It's your choice to hedge your bets. The simple truth is this 'Mozart' signature is not in the hand of Mozart - as various researchers have pointed out. (For example, Leeson).

However, the point of my post is not so much to show the weakness of you holding such a fudged opinion, (weakness I think you will surely agree exists) but is to show that the supposed commission of the piece from Walsegg (never actually seen by anyone and never once mentioned by anyone prior to the death of Mozart) plus this now this signature and inscription are only two of dozens of anomalies that face us in any fair examination of this true history of this piece. Virtually before we start.

Best regards



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-06-2006).]

[Agnes Selby]

Dear Robert,

I have nothing to add to my previous
statements.

It could be anyone who signed Mozart's name.
It could have been Walsegg himself. I do not know and neither does anyone else.

So, please do not ask me to confirm your
ideas as I do not believe in them. In fact, Robert, I object to you calling Mozart a liar. Why do you do this? What is there in in it for you? You cannot suddenly spring onto the Mozartean stage of research without providing evidence. If the Italian
gentleman, I forget his name, is trying to place Luchesi on the stage of supreme
geniuses, well he may have patriotic reasons. But you do not.

Where I do not know the answer, I say so.
I don't go of on a tangent of speculations.
I would much rather resort to evidential writings. As for the Requiem, there is more
to the tangled web created by writers than there is in its actual fact.

The Requiem was commissioned by Walsegg.
Walsegg met with Nissen and Silverthorpe, the Swedish Consul, in his lawyer's office and allowed the Requiem to be
published by Breitkopf & Hartel for a sum of 50 ducats and extra copies of the published work.There is documentation available to this fact and can be found in the Mozarteum archives which is a wealth of Mozart related information. It would serve you well to do some reasearch there.

The Requiem was published
and ever since there has been a dispute
about it - created not by the Requiem itself but by writers seeking center stage.

In my book, "Constanze Mozart's Beloved" I have fully outlined the "life" of the Requiem. The book is available on Amazon.

Also my article on the Requiem is available on the Mozarteum web-site.

I am sorry, but I have my own views and I do not wish to argue with you for we will never come to an agreement even if we argue
for ever. I am sorry, Robert, I have nothing more to say. This is my last word on this subject.

Regards,
Agnes.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by robert newman:
'A mass of twisted metal in such a shape that it would take 20 iron workers to untangle it'. That's how I would describe your last post on this thread in answer to the simple question of whether the 'Mozart' signature and inscription on KV626 ('Mozart's Requiem') is a blatant example of fraud.

Dear Agnes,

The words of one of my countrymen (Sir Walter Scott) also come to mind in this matter of the fraudulent signature and inscription found on 'Mozart's Requiem'.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!'

I respect that you seem to prefer the idea of hedging your bets. You do not rule out the possibility that Sussmayr forged this signature and inscription. Nor do you rule out the possibility that Count Walseggm, the supposed commissioner of the piece, was the forger. You even do not rule out the possibility that Mozart himself wrote both the signature and the inscription ! For you write (and I really must quote you) -

'Did Mozart sign the Requiem with the date by which time the Requiem had to be in the hands of the Commissioner? We do not know'.

Well Agnes, let me bring a welding arc to this twisted pile of metal. If Mozart wrote his own name and inscription on the piece and dated it 1792 (a year he never lived to see) then, indisputably, Mozart is a liar, since, even you agree and the entire Mozart establishment does that entire sections of this work were simply NOT composed by Mozart. Therefore, indisputably, on such obvious grounds if Mozart really wrote those words and really dated them '1792' he is, by your own admission, indisputably, a liar. Since he by your own argument did not write entire sections of this work - a work which, you say, he may well have claimed as his own in this very signature and inscription - he is found guilty of fraud and of deception, though he died shortly afterwards.

Since you will never entertain the idea of Mozart being a liar (not even if this stares you in the face) I suggest you would be well advised to drop this idea of Mozart signing this document in this way and also of him claiming authorship of it fully a month and more before its supposed submission date.

But it's entirely up to you. It's your choice to hedge your bets. The simple truth is this 'Mozart' signature is not in the hand of Mozart - as various researchers have pointed out. (For example, Leeson).

However, the point of my post is not so much to show the weakness of you holding such a fudged opinion, (weakness I think you will surely agree exists) but is to show that the supposed commission of the piece from Walsegg (never actually seen by anyone and never once mentioned by anyone prior to the death of Mozart) plus this now this signature and inscription are only two of dozens of anomalies that face us in any fair examination of this true history of this piece. Virtually before we start.

Best regards


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

How can Mozart be a liar in these circumstances? You are suggesting, then that he predicted his own death to be prior to the date signed. But all that is suggestive, too, depending upon whether or not he actually signed it.

I have to agree with Agnes assessment of the signed score; it makes sense to me. If Sussmayer signed it he might have done so at Constance's request so that the commission would appear to be completed by Mozart and thus Constance could claim the other half of the payment. If Walsegg signed it it could be that it was, indeed, his composition, or that he robbed it from Mozart and those others who completed it. History leans on Mozart's side in this affair, which you claim is in error.

But other than your sophistry arguments there is no evidence to the contrary from you. Do you have sources, references to indicate that Walsegg was the composer?

[Sorrano]

The following site documents the commissioning of the Requiem by Walsegg. The author makes the assumption that Sussmayer forged the signature.
http://www.carringbush.net/~pml/musi...art.html#note1

The next site denotes chronology of the Requiem and attempts to establish authorship of the Requiem.

From a statement by one of Walsegg's musicians, 1829, not published until 1964:

"So that we would not lack for new quartets . . . Herr Count . . . was in touch with many composers, yet without ever revealing his identity; and they delivered to him works of which he retained the sole ownership, and for which he paid well. [The part for the Count was often easy to play, with the other parts more difficult] and that made the Herr Count laugh. . . .

[The Count] generally copied [the scores] in his own hand . . . . The quartets were then played, and we had to guess who the composer was. Usually we suggested it was the Count himself, because from time to time he actually composed some small things; he smiled and was pleased that we (as he thought) had been mystified; but we were amused that he took us for such simpletons. We were all young, and thought this an innocent pleasure which we gave to our lord. . . . "
http://www.music.princeton.edu/~jeffery/MOZART.HTML

This site demonstrates how common it was for composers to borrow musical excerpts:
http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu/borrowing/browsekl.html

Finally, this contains an outline of who composed which sections of the Requiem.
http://requiemonline.tripod.com/notes/mozart.htm

[robert newman]

Somebody forged the signature and inscription on KV626. That is, by definition, forgery.

The ONLY other alternative was that Mozart did it himself. But, if so, that would make Mozart a liar. For entire sections of this manuscript are NOT by Mozart.

Simple really.

I do not say Mozart wrote this signature. It's Agnes Selby who says this is a possibility. She wants to keep this as an option. Fine - in that case she keeps open the option that Mozart lied. That's up to her. B

[robert newman]

Yes Rod,

Regarding KV452, the 'Mozart' Quintet for Piano, Oboe, Clarinet, Horn and Bassoon. You asked for some information on the strange and highly suspicious origin of this piece.

Well, of course, KV 452 is claimed by Mozart in his thematic catalogue and was entered there on 30th March 1784. But even a brief examination of the available evidence opens a whole 'can of worms'.

This Quintet (K452) was first published nearly 3 years after Mozart's death (i.e. it first appears in print in 1794). Some 4 years later (1798) the piece is also refered to in a series of Mozart anecdotes that appeared in the 'Allgemeine musikalische' (1798) - 10 of which are expressly said to have been made 'with approval of Constanze Mozart'. The first of these deals with this very quintet.

We are told in that publication that Mozart arranged performance of this piece in Vienna shortly after its composition 'in 1784' and that the audience were thrilled by it, so much so that one listener, a Polish Count, gave a sum of money to Mozart in gratitude -

Then, according to the same anecdote, 'Mozart sent him the original score - of this quintet - something he never otherwise did'.

It's also said the Count 'kept the original and a short while later, without Mozart having a hand in the matter, had it published by Artaria as a Piano Quartet with accompaniment for Violin, Viola and Cello'.

That's what the published anecdote says.

But there are big problems. First is that if a 'Polish buyer' had it published without Mozart's knowledge why did he choose Artaria - the main publisher for Mozart himself at this time !!!!)

And things get more complicated. For, as we've already seen, K452 was first published 3 years after Mozart's death and not 'a short while' after it left Mozart's possession.

This matter might have been relegated to the footnotes of Mozart ephemera was it not the fact that other facts force us to return to this piece. (All of them deeply suggestive of manipulation).

As is well known, after Mozart's death the music publisher Andre acquired by negotiated purchase many of Mozart's manuscripts from Constanze Mozart, saw in his thematic catalogue reference to this quintet and, naturally, being the new owner of many of these pieces but not finding it in Mozart's manuscripts before him naturally asked Constanze about its whereabouts. She, Constanze, replied/explained/confessed in reply that its owner was NOT (as she had said previously) a 'Polish Count', but was one Nikolaus Zmeskall von Domanovecz and Lestine, a Secretary to the Hungarian Court Chancellery. Constanze also mentions in her reply to Andre (1800) that the quintet exists in its original score with two different versions of its 3rd movement. (These she describes as being a 'duplicate ending').

In fact the original score (which had several owners before it was retrieved for posterity) shows ONLY the final 11 bars of the 3rd movement are in Mozart's own hand (bars 228-238). Folio 16 recto (which contains only 4 bars of a final musical cadence) was written out by someone so skilled in duplicating the handwriting of Mozart that they are noticeable as a forgery only by close examination. What is THIS but a forgery ?

A further point - folios 9 to 16 of this manuscript can be shown to have originally been separate sheets before later being glued together.

But it's now that problems begin to multiply (and with them the seriousness of the implications). For this fraudulent ending to KV452 just happens to be virtually identical to the ending found in the spurious version of the piece that appeared in the first Artaria version of 1794 and in all other versions derived from that same Artaria version of 1794.

These facts compel us to conclude that a forger with ability to create and pass off music as having been written by Mozart had access to Mozart's musical legacy shortly after the composer's death and (obviously) before 1794. This same forger, skilled enough to have worked on KV452 was also skilled enough to have worked on other scores said to be by Mozart or actually by him - with all the implications this has on Mozart's manuscripts (real or supposed).

KV452, claimed by Mozart, was not his in the first place. It was falsely entered in to his thematic catalogue. It was the source of lies. And it was published in a version that only confirms the existence of a forger working to promote Mozart and his music - a forger active before Mozart's death and for years after his death - at the time, in fact, when 'Mozart's Requiem' was being 'manufactured' - that Requiem finally appearing for publication fully 9 years after the death of Mozart and only after a catalogue of contradictions, exaggerations and downright falsehoods, including the forged signature of KV626.

Once again the career and reputation of Mozart was being stage managed.



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-06-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Agnes,

All Mozart scholars agree the 'Mozart signature and inscription' 'di me W. A. Mozart mppa. / 1792” is a forgery. It's not even a good forgery. I can find dozens of such admissions.

1. 'Dispatched to Count Walsegg, complete with a counterfeited signature of Mozart, and dated 1792'. Source – Wikipedia

2. “di me W. A. Mozart mppa. / 1792” – is a forgery (A History of the Requiem – source - www.carringbush.net/~pml/music/mozart/requiem/mozart.html.

3. ‘Mozart’s forged signature is added’ (Source – ‘Mozart 2006 – Official Austrian Site – ‘Mozart Requiem – The Facts’ - /www.mozart2006.net/eng/tid_the_facts_16211/direktlink.php

Regards

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Agnes,

All Mozart scholars agree the 'Mozart signature and inscription' 'di me W. A. Mozart mppa. / 1792” is a forgery. It's not even a good forgery. I can find dozens of such admissions.

1. 'Dispatched to Count Walsegg, complete with a counterfeited signature of Mozart, and dated 1792'. Source – Wikipedia

2. “di me W. A. Mozart mppa. / 1792” – is a forgery (A History of the Requiem – source - www.carringbush.net/~pml/music/mozart/requiem/mozart.html.

3. ‘Mozart’s forged signature is added’ (Source – ‘Mozart 2006 – Official Austrian Site – ‘Mozart Requiem – The Facts’ - /www.mozart2006.net/eng/tid_the_facts_16211/direktlink.php

Regards

A forged signature does not mean that Mozart was dishonest. Nor does it mean he did not compose the Requiem--or least parts of it. Mozart was dead. He had nothing to gain or lose by any signature on the work, forged or genuine. Walsegg had nothing to gain by forging the signature. Sussmayer had nothing to gain by forging the signature. Only Constanza could gain and that financially. And she could only gain from it IF there was a commission for Mozart to compose the Requiem. If there were no commission there would be no interest in forging a signature since there would be no money involved.

Simple, isn't it?