Page 10 of 27 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131420 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 392
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: The Controversy over the true musical achievements of Haydn and Mozart

  1. #136
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Dear Marc Harwood,

    Thank you for your help here. Yes, I am very willing to quote sources that any fair minded person can check for themselves.

    May I suggest (just for the sake of fairness and to avoid confusion) that we all agree to use for our discussion (when refering to any particular 'Mozart' work) the references given to it by the Koechel catalogue - i.e. that list of 'Mozart' works which has always been consulted as an authority in such matters. A copy of this list can be found on most Mozart forums online including 'Mozart Forum'. (Ludwig Koechel was the person who first published - many years after Mozart's death - the first edition. The 'Koechel' catalogue has been revised from time to time since then - each time its Editor forced to dump numbers of musical works from the previously published edition as it became obvious they were NOT works composed by Mozart. (This ongoing leakage is unprecedented in scale and cannot be compared to any other composer list except perhaps that of Joseph Haydn). All Mozart researchers use Koechel and it does at least provide a reference number for each and every work under dispute. Perhaps we can agree then to use it for these discussions ?

    2. We might begin by examining the supposed works of Mozart's childhood and youth - i.e. dozens of works claimed traditionally as his from this period being, in actual fact, lacking ANY firm evidence of having been composed by W.A. Mozart. But if that would be too tedious we could just as easily begin with Mozart's Requiem, the very last work traditionally attributed to Mozart, KV626, this supposedly commissioned of him during 1791, his last year. I say and so do others (and can provide documentary evidence in support of it ) that this manuscript is not, in fact, a work by Mozart. For example (and it must come as a real embarrasment to traditionalists) the signature and the inscription on this document (although claimed to be 'by me, Mozart' in Latin) is, in point of fact, a forgery.

    Is this disputed ?

    We might therefore, here on this forum, discuss first the case for and against 'Mozart's Requiem' being a work by Mozart. And let the readers judge the case. We can then move on to the next work. And so on.

    We can consider 'Mozart's' symphonies also. Or many of 'his' operas. Once again, I and others are quite happy to present the case that these are NOT by Mozart despite them in many cases being claimed by Mozart himself. Let the Mozart 'expert' make his case for tradition and let the reader judge both arguments for himself/herself. That would surelt be a fair, open, and reasonable approach. Yes ?

    So there are dozens of ways this issue can be tackled. None needs to be a personalised attack. And if such rules are respected I think it might be very informative to readers.

    I therefore suggest that we begin with 'Mozart's Requiem', although we have touched on it already. But I leave the choice entirely up to you, as readers of this thread.

    Yes, if a 'Mozart authority' is following this, let's see what he/she has to say (if anything) and whether they agree these ground rules are really fair.


    Regards
    Last edited by robert newman; May-12-2007 at 03:31.

  2. #137
    Mango
    Guest

    Default

    I agree with the comment a few posts above that real experts on Mozart won’t waste their time on this Forum, which is mainly for amateurs.

  3. #138
    Senior Member Mark Harwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Isle of Arran, Scotland.
    Posts
    354

    Default

    Right. We're on page ten here. Let's see facsimile evidence for and against Mozart's authorship of:
    1. one Piano Concerto;
    2. one Symphony;
    3. one String Quartet; and
    4. the Requiem.
    I'll suggest an example of 1, 2 or 3 if necessary.
    "Music is a social act of communication among people, a gesture of friendship, the strongest there is."
    - Malcolm Arnold.

  4. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Córdoba. Argentina
    Posts
    1,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Newman
    Thank you for your help here. Yes, I am very willing to quote sources that any fair minded person can check for themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Harwood
    Right. We're on page ten here. Let's see facsimile evidence for and against Mozart's authorship of:
    1. one Piano Concerto;
    2. one Symphony;
    3. one String Quartet; and
    4. the Requiem.
    I'll suggest an example of 1, 2 or 3 if necessary.
    I agree with Marc. Facsimile evidence is far more reliable than quotes we can check.

  5. #140
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Hi Mango,

    You say 'real experts on Mozart won’t waste their time on this Forum, which is mainly for amateurs'.

    I think your attitude is extremely disappointing. Imagine what history would be like if this was applied generally. Nobody would ever criticise tradition, the mainstream view, etc etc on anything.

    If 'experts' exist on Mozart issues they are worthy of our respect ONLY if their expertise is available to everyone.

    And here's a case in point. If Mozart's massive iconic status is really so justified by evidence let's see 'experts' defend it. For one thing is absolutely certain - various websites have contained the same basic challenge. Where are your 'experts' ? Why can't they defend the basic version of events which we find in countless publications on the life and career of W.A. Mozart ? Pardon me for thinking that these 'experts' are leaving you naked and are nowhere to be found. Isn't this true ?

    Or is it simply that mythology is nothing but mythology ?

  6. #141
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Manuel,

    Facsimiles do NOT settle these issues. We are not talking about facsimiles. Nobody disputes that Mozart wrote, in his own hand, many works which he claims to have composed.

    Let me repeat it - a network of composers (i.e. an upublicised group of composers) were the true creators of many works which Mozart privately received and rewrote in his own hand to give the false impression that he was their true composer. In other cases there are works for which there is not even a manuscript in Mozart's hand, yet the work is STILL attributed to Mozart. In still other cases we have manuscripts written in the handwriting of people other than Mozart, which is attributed to Mozart. The issue is simple - whether the established/traditional version of events is more supported by evidence or not.

    That is why my last post is the suggestion that both sides put foward their case from ALL the available evidence on specific works. I even let you choose what works you like. Can anything be more fair and reasonable than this ? And when you have specified specific 'Mozart' works let the general reader of this thread decide which side of this argument has presented the better case. Surely you agree these are generous and reasonable ground rules ?

    If you still agree then please choose specific 'Mozazrt' works and we can compare rival versions (from both sides of this debate) to see which is more worthy of general belief.

    You believe tradition and so-called 'expertise' will preserve the generally held belief that Mozart composed these works. I and others believe he did NOT compose these works. And I/we are willing to show from many lines of evidence why we hold this view on each piece you choose if, in return, your contrary opinion is presented here also. Only then can the neutral reader judge which case is more supported by the evidence.

    So there it is. The same standards for both sides. Right here. On this thread. You can choose ANY work by 'Mozart'.

    Can't really make it more simple, can I ?
    Last edited by robert newman; May-13-2007 at 05:08.

  7. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Córdoba. Argentina
    Posts
    1,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Newman
    You say 'real experts on Mozart won’t waste their time on this Forum, which is mainly for amateurs'.

    I think your attitude is extremely disappointing. Imagine what history would be like if this was applied generally. Nobody would ever criticise tradition, the mainstream view, etc etc on anything.

    If 'experts' exist on Mozart issues they are worthy of our respect ONLY if their expertise is available to everyone.
    It seems, Mango, Robert has already had some discussions with experts and amateurs. And they are available if you run a few Google searches. Let's check what other people has to say about Newman.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agnes Selby
    Mr. Newman, I am amazed when reading your letter that for you to provide proof is unimportant. You will not solve or change history by an exchange of e-mails or postings. The secret of history is data preserved in a long distant past not in manufacturing unsubstantiated fables which are products of your own active mind.

    In my opinion it is you, dear Sir, who needs
    a driving licence for you are driving in the wrong direction without a map to guide you.

    Agnes Selby.
    Read Mr Newman very carefully you will not find any evidence of anything, just a loose net of unsubstantiated claims. He uses a prior supposition as "proof" of the next one.

    Steve
    Dear Robert,

    I have been reading your post and your efforts to destroy Mozart's reputation for
    quite a few years now. The same applies to Constanze Mozart.

    I have for many years advised you to check original data before you let your imagination run wild. I cannot in this short space ennumerate the leaps of your imagination nor am I interested in doing so.

    Suffice it to say, I would very much like to see just one example where you substantiate your findings.

    Without such a trivial thing as substantiation, your writings are of no value.

    I do not have to defend my writings because I never venture to put pen to paper, so to speak, without archival evidence pertaining to what I have to say. It is thus in writing history or a biography. Of course, you could call yourself a novelist and then you can say whatever you like. But when you write as a historian without a single reference, you must realize you are misleading your captive audience on the internet.
    I know of many missatributions. Problem is you do not speak of missatribution you speak of Mozart not having composed many pieces that he tells us in his thematic catalogue, he did compose. This is not missatribution to Mozart but would indicate fraud by Mozart. This is a claim you cannot backup.
    You can make empty accusations and slurs of me just as you do Mozart and Haydn, but accusations no matter how many, without a shred of evidence do not prove your case. BTW I have poked around MozartForum quite a bit. I helped start it. Look carefully at my initials SR,and compare them to the founders names at MozartForum.

    I've yet to see you prove a thing. I'd be happy to acknowledge your great discovery if you ever make one. I suppose you took a look around at what you might do to achieve some small moment of internet fame and decided that one more voice saying Mozart was a great composer would hardly seperate you. You choose the opposite tact. You indeed are seperating yourself.

    Steve
    Check here for more about this.

    Please supply evidence that Mozart did not compose his works. Please supply evidence that Luchesi was the author of Mozart's works, that Mozart copied Luchesi's works and presented them as his own.

    You are suggesting the greatest fraud in musical history. You have been writing about this theft by Mozart for many years now. I am asking you to finally produce evidence before your carry on any further with your crusade.

    Agnes Selby.
    But it looks Newman will never do such a thing. Instead he rejoyces in challenging us. And threatening us too, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Newman
    I wait for your request. But choose carefully because I am entitled to ask you for the very same. Isn't that fair ?

    It seems our request for proofs is quite an unoriginal thing. As we can read here people have been requesting information to backup this theories for a while. It also seems it has never been provided.

    Mango, Mark, and other TC members, I suggest we move on to some Tchaikovsky* thread, in which we can really discuss, have enjoyment and not just unsupported tales. Besides, we also know Newman will come up with one of those extense posts reversing our requests and supporting himself. But with no real evidence exposed.




    *Tchaikovsky is generic. If you can not stand the russians, we may talk about the european guys.

  8. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    359

    Default

    I think any fair minded reader can see that defenders of Mozart's reputation as a composer have an easy job. All they have to do is nominate (besides the Requiem, KV626) ANY Piano Concerto, Symphony, or String Quartet OF THEIR OWN CHOICE for fair and open discussion.


    Manuel has even written that he will -

    'suggest an example of all of these if necessary'

    OK Manuel, please suggest for this discussion a specific 'Mozart' Piano Cconcerto, Symphony and String Quartet. Then readers can judge arguments on this thread for and against Mozart having composed them.

    Now, everyone can see we will use the same methods on both sides of our debate. Fairly and openly.

    But so far you haven't nominated any Mozart work for discussion except the Requiem (a work that I myself suggested).

    Tell us here why your selections were definitely composed by Mozart. Present your evidence. And the other side will show why these works were NOT composed by Mozart. Is this not the fairest, most clear, challenge on this issue ?

    We now wait for your reply.

    You don't have to be an expert. If you want to defend Mozart you can easily find articles online that discuss specific works chosen by you of Mozart (including the Requiem). So, once again, you can choose any works you please from these categories (which you yourself selected). Can it be more easy ?

    Post here yuur argument for Mozart having composed them and I will post an article that argues he did not compose them. Readers can judge which side has made the better argument. That's only fair, yes ? Let them judge whose side is presenting evidence and whose side is not.

    But until this promised selection is done by you Manuel, we can't really get any progress on this issue.


    Let's give ourselves a week to discuss each of these pieces here on this thread. Then we can move on to the next piece. And at the end of each week we can put the case before readers to vote on.

    Isn't that fair ?

    Regards
    Last edited by robert newman; May-13-2007 at 15:57.

  9. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Córdoba. Argentina
    Posts
    1,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robert newman View Post
    I think any fair minded reader can see that defenders of Mozart's reputation as a composer have an easy job. All they have to do is nominate (besides the Requiem, KV626) ANY Piano Concerto, Symphony, or String Quartet OF THEIR OWN CHOICE for fair and open discussion.


    Manuel has even written that he will -

    'suggest an example of all of these if necessary'

    OK Manuel, please suggest for this discussion a specific 'Mozart' Piano Cconcerto, Symphony and String Quartet. Then readers can judge arguments on this thread for and against Mozart having composed them.

    Now, everyone can see we will use the same methods on both sides of our debate. Fairly and openly.

    But so far you haven't nominated any Mozart work for discussion except the Requiem (a work that I myself suggested).

    Tell us here why your selections were definitely composed by Mozart. Present your evidence. And the other side will show why these works were NOT composed by Mozart. Is this not the fairest, most clear, challenge on this issue ?

    We now wait for your reply.

    You don't have to be an expert. If you want to defend Mozart you can easily find articles online that discuss specific works chosen by you of Mozart (including the Requiem). So, once again, you can choose any works you please from these categories (which you yourself selected). Can it be more easy ?

    Post here yuur argument for Mozart having composed them and I will post an article that argues he did not compose them. Readers can judge which side has made the better argument. That's only fair, yes ? Let them judge whose side is presenting evidence and whose side is not.

    But until this promised selection is done by you Manuel, we can't really get any progress on this issue.


    Let's give ourselves a week to discuss each of these pieces here on this thread. Then we can move on to the next piece. And at the end of each week we can put the case before readers to vote on.

    Isn't that fair ?

    Regards
    You are repetitive. And I find repetitiveness boring.
    And you are predictable too. I was sure you would publish something here that twisted my request. You didn't let me down.

    I don't need to show Mozart's works are his own. That's the standard thought. If you are against it, work to prove that. You attempt to socialize the costs of such job you are supposedly doing reveals nothing but laziness from you.
    Many people here asked you to bring whatever evidence you want (and we are not the first to do this, as we can read from other forums). And you always reverse our request ranting you want us to choose the subject. We asked first, we don't have any tribulations about Mozart. Be sure I won't buy your weird elucubrations unless the next post you write provides useful information on this thread subject (not just quotes anybody can check).

    I asked first. You choose the subject and come up with the info. I'm starting to get bored with this evation game you play, so other readers.

  10. #145
    Mango
    Guest

    Default

    I'd like to ask Mark Harwood where he thinks he is going pursuing this kind of discussion. It seems very naive to think that we will learn any more from "facsimile" evidence (whatever that is; I'm not sure to be honest what you mean) than we have done before from other attempts. Mr Newman is very evasive, as people both here and elsewhere have found out over several years. Just when you think you might be getting somewhere he changes the subject or raises a smokescreen to disguise his lack of knowledge. As is clear from this thread alone, 99% of what Mr Newman says is pure assertion. I'm surprised that people here didn't know that Mr Newman has been banned from several music Forums. This is about the only place left that will have him. Confronted by real experts he falls apart.

  11. #146
    Senior Member Mark Harwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Isle of Arran, Scotland.
    Posts
    354

    Default

    Thanks for asking, Mango. What I'd like to see is copies of the documents under debate.
    Perhaps we could follow a different approach: experts debate what can be learned from certain documents with regard to chronology and geography, without initial reference to particular pieces.
    Anyway, I have seen no evidence for or against authorship claims on behalf of anyone, be they Mozart, Luchesi, Barney Rubble or Vlad the Impaler, so my interest has fizzled out and I do not intend to follow this thread any longer. Good luck to those who do.
    Best wishes to all.
    "Music is a social act of communication among people, a gesture of friendship, the strongest there is."
    - Malcolm Arnold.

  12. #147
    Mango
    Guest

    Default

    Mark Harwood

    I think you are wise to back out. Your suggestion that the matter might be resolved by setting out facsimile evidence seems most unlikely to get far. As you may have noticed, Mr Newman has already rubbished your suggestion. This is typical of his style. He merely makes bold assertions backed up by the minimum of hard evidence. His claims are utterly ludicrous. He has never published anything of any note and no-one has a clue about any musical qualifications he may have. If any of what he claims were actually true it would have been published well before now in far more important places than this Forum. His Italian sidekick (G Taboga) writes appalling English, and has only written in highly obscure journals, so there’s no point looking at any of that.

    As you may be aware, at one time Mr Newman was arguing that a very little known Kapellmeister, Andrea Luchesi, was the main author of all the works passed off as Mozart’s and Haydn’s. This man Luchesi was Beethoven’s boss whilst he was a student at the Bonn Chapel, but Beethoven never mentioned Luchesi after he (Beethoven) left Bonn. Most members of other Forums scoffed at this suggestion, if only because of the dissimilar styles of Mozart and Haydn. Now that Mr Newman realises what a load of nonsense this must sound, he has subtley shifted emphasis to assert more clearly that there were several other composers involved in the process of supplying Mozart.

    So many other things do not stack up either. If the allegations are correct what possible motive was there among the supplying composers to forfeit their own reputations for the sake of promoting Mozart’s? If the motive was financial, why sell their superlative works to Mozart when they could have earned far more by selling direct to a music-publishing house? Another obvious question is why did all the high quality Mozart output cease after Mozart’s death? Funny that isn’t it? Yet another is why, if Mozart was such a poor composer, the authorities who were allegedly sponsoring him didn’t find somebody with much higher composing skills. Indeed why sponsor a buffoon? Also, who was pulling the strings? Was it the Jesuits or Austrian Emperor? Who knows as the story shifts around and is most unclear. Lastly, if Mozart was such a bad a composer as alleged why was he the favoured composer to take the Kapellmeister post at Bonn in preference to Luchesi?

    Dozens of people on various Forums have been asking these and other questions for several years now and have been getting very unconvincing answers. When it was clear that he was getting nowhere he still persisted in boring the hell out of his audience, and in the end the Admins had no choice but to ban him as he was quite disruptive. Here he has been been on better behaviour, no doubt because he realises it's his last refuge.

    I regret to say that Mr Newman has been taking the piss out of you all, to see how many gullible idiots he can persuade to accept his weird views. It’s quite amazing to me how this Forum has been so tolerant of this man’s nonsense. Can’t you see it’s like having a “flat-earther” among you. I’ve been watching this Forum for some time and you all mostly seem to be struggling to deal with him, with most of you offering at best half-baked apologetic nonsense while Mr Newman continues to spew out more and more rubbish and not answering your questions. This Forum does seem to attract a lot of kiddies and morons. Manuel seems the only one who has said the right things in condemnation of these stupid rantings from Mr Newman.
    Last edited by Mango; May-13-2007 at 21:45.

  13. #148
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Hi Manuel,

    1. Yes, I am repetitive. Let's use fair and open discussion of these issues.

    2 Yes, I am predictable. You are not.

    I won't twist your posts. In fact, Manuel, It was you yourself who offered this forum to chose specific Mozart works. You have hundreds of choices. Yes ? Have you forgotten what you wrote so quickly. It was none other than you who suggested that we can discuss a symphony, a piano concerto and a string quartet. Yes ? BUT READERS OF THIS THREAD MUST BE SURPRISED WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ANY SPECIFIC SYMPHONY, PIANO CONCERTO OR STRING QUARTET TO BE SELECTED, BY YOU !!!

    You say you don't need to show that 'Mozart's' works are really his own !!! But isn't this the whole point of this debate ? You are saying that the evidence in favour of Mozart is so strong that it's absurd to challenge it. Aren't you ?


    You now say 'YOU CHOOSE THE SUBJECT'. But Manuel, YOU are the person who has refused to name a specific symphony, concerto, or string quartet. IT'S YOU WHO ARE REFUSING TO CHOOSE ANY !!!


    A fair, open debate. That's what I am asking for. And I think I've given you lots of chances to at least make your selections.

    Well, Manuel, if you don't want to live up to your offers let's forget this.

  14. #149
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Mango,

    I have not 'rubbished' any suggestion made by Mark Harwood.

    He suggested that facsimiles of 'Mozart' works prove that Mozart was their true composer. I have replied that these do not prove any such thing. That's not rubbishing anything. I've suggested that many other lines of evidence are more vital. The existence of a work in the hand of Mozart does NOT prove that Mozart was its true composer.

    G. Taboga is Italian. As such, you really can't expect his English to be as good as his native language, can you ? And there is nothing 'obscure' about his publications - they are well known in Italy - a country whose musical achievements even you may have heard abiout. Let's stop rubbishing people. Taboga is a person who has studied more of, for example, the 'Mozart' works at Estense Library in Modena (as have Professors Luca Bianchini and Professor Anna Trombetta) than any 'Mozart expert' - and this over years.
    So please stop talking nonsense. Bianchini and Trombetta are both qualified musicologists. Taboga is a published author on Mozart.

    Please, stop rubbishing personalities. Will you please address yourself to having a fair, open debate on specific works by 'Mozart' ? Or will be keep going round in circles forever ?


    You say I argued that 'Luchesi was the MAIN AUTHOR of ALL THE WORKS PASSED OFF AS MOZART' AND HAYDN'S'

    This is completely false. In fact, I have always said that composers such as Sammartini were responsible for Haydn's reputation, this even before Luchesi. So why do you tell such blatant untruths ?

    In the case of Mozart I have said repeatedly that many composers were involved, these including Mozart's father, his sister Nannerl, Michael Haydn, Niemetscheck, JM Kraus, Andrea Luchesi and various other composers. This has been stated so often that I've even tried to explain that his career was fabricated by such a network, this administered by the Abbe Georg Vogler. If you want me to repeat this I will be happy to do so.

    Yes, Beethoven never mentioned Luchesi after he left Bonn. Are you ignorant of the fact that many Conversation Books of Beethoven were destroyed ? Are you ignorant of the fact that Luchesi WAS the Kapellmeister of Bonn Chapel from 1771-1794 - and that he was, in point of fact, in charge of music for virtually 10 years there while Beethoven was a student ? Are you ignorant of the fact that one of the chief responsibilities of a Kepellmeister is to teach music pupils ? Are you ignorant of the fact that the first piece of music (now lost) said to have been composed by Beethoven was a cantata on the death of the English Ambassador to Bonn, Georg Cressner - which is said to have been 'corrected' by the very same Luchesi ? Or are you ignorant of the fact that Luchesi was the man who prevented Mozart from becoming Kapellmeister to Bonn in 1784 ?

    You describe 'Luchesi' as 'very little known as a Kapellmeister'. This is totally untrue. In actual fact (rather than fiction) Luchesi is refered to as a leading composer of symphonies all over Germany by the multi volumed work on contemporary composers published in Paris by J. de La Bordes - a work which NEVER so much as mentions EITHER HAYDN OR MOZART as composers of symphonies. Does this fact escape you also ?

    Has it escaped you that in the early 1780's Mozart was totally unknown as a composer of symphonies ? And yet you want him to be acknowledged as a composer by that time of dozens ? Really, how sleepy you must be to accept such things without questioning their reliability.

    You ask what motive was there for other composers to 'forfeit their reputations' for the sake of promoting Mozart. I think I've explained this over and over again. But here we go again -

    The careers of Haydn and Mozart were falsified to create the illusion that Vienna (and therefore the Empire) had two German geniuses great enough to be indigenous talents. When, in reality, fakery, deception, and downright deception feature in the careers of both composers at each and every stage. I have repeatedly said that these careers can be shown by documentary and other evidence to have been grossly exaggerated and virtually hidden by propagandists. Almost till this day. I have also pointed out that no other two composers have been so hugely exaggerated as these two - a fact which any student can clearly see if they read Koechel in its various editions. The discoveries at Modena and elsewhere are simply yet another development in debunking the Mozart and Haydn myths.

    So please don't insult people. We really deserve to have you defence of these musical icons.

    Well, so much for 'experts'. You see they refuse to show up.

    Yes, dozens of people on various forums have read specific posts on works by 'Mozart'. They have seen some evidence of the scale of such fakery. In the Requiem and in many other pieces. Read these posts and repeat that no evidence has been presented. The truth is that none of your experts dares to defend the 'status quo'.

    Let things rest here if you like. But please don't bother replying if you have no intention of having a fair, open, equal and respectful debate on the actual issues.

    You speak of 'gullible idiots' and of 'rantings'.

    Well, here's my last request. Can you agree to put your case for the works you choose ? If not, this thread will speak for itself as an opportunity repeatedly given and refused by those who have 'educated' you.

    What is more foolish than a man who, being blind, claims to see ? If you are sure of your position, defend it. Otherwise, withdraw. That seems to be the most sensible thing you should do - you and your mythical 'experts'.

  15. #150
    Senior Member Handel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Québec City, Québec
    Posts
    423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robert newman View Post

    The careers of Haydn and Mozart were falsified to create the illusion that Vienna (and therefore the Empire) had two German geniuses great enough to be indigenous talents.
    I still have problem with that motive. Why Maria Theresa and Joseph II, who didn't specifically liked the musical style of Haydn and Mozart, would have supported those two composers? Why not supporting instead their court composer, Antonio Salieri? Because we was not german? And what about Gluck?
    "Handel understands effect better than any of us -- when he chooses, he strikes like a thunderbolt... though he often saunters, in the manner of his time, this is always something there."

    Mozart

Page 10 of 27 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131420 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •