Classical Music Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
61 - 80 of 90 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
All twelve?

But what about the previous symphonies who were composed before 1790 and who sounds exactly like London symphonies?
I guess those could've been delivered...gee, I don't know. I still very much count myself amongst the skeptics here -- though I will be honest, I feel less badly about Haydn being a fake than Mozart. (Sorry, Handel!)

I guess we'll see what Robert's ideas are on this. If I remember correctly, all or most of the "Haydn" symphonies in the Modena file are before No. 82?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
I guess those could've been delivered...gee, I don't know. I still very much count myself amongst the skeptics here -- though I will be honest, I feel less badly about Haydn being a fake than Mozart. (Sorry, Handel!)

I guess we'll see what Robert's ideas are on this. If I remember correctly, all or most of the "Haydn" symphonies in the Modena file are before No. 82?
I forgot those before # 82 (before the great commissions to comte d'Ogny 82-87 and 90-92, the 2 sold to a Paris editor 88-89 and the London symphonies). They were composed for Esterhazy court (except 76-77-78 intended for british market). More than 60 of hs 104 symphonies were composed between 1757 and 1774. I'm sure a few of them are not from him, especially the early ones. But I doubt there is a fraud about his later one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hpowders

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
Although there are obviously some similarities (to be expected since Mozart and Haydn were close friends), to my ear, late Haydn sounds completely different from late Mozart -- in general, certainly, but even terms of just the symphonies. Lately, I've been listening quite a bit to both composers' symphonies, trying to hear if it makes sense as written by one composer. I have to admit, I haven't gotten far with that so far.
 
G

·
Before this latest theme denegerates into an even bigger farce, let it be known that:

1. Mr Newman has not an ounce of credibility because he has never published anything on this subject in his life. In other words, he has never once applied the market test to any of his wild theories. He could, in priniciple, so easily have focused on a single issue which he thought was a good one and attempted to write a proper article. If he had gained even a tiny reputation in this manner I would have been far more inclined to listen to him. In fact, I bet that I wouldn't have been alone, as there would have been a demand from the market for him to supply more such revelations. OK, it may have been a daunting task for one amateur individual to meet this demand, but other interested researchers would have probably joined in. After a while, if the allegations contained any perceived validity, then a further airing of the issues in places like this might have been useful.

2. Yes, it's true that one or two others have published the odd allegation or two about Mozart, but they have generally been in very obscure, off topic, journals. Take the Taboga article. I think you will find it appeared in some mathematical conference paper, and in order to get it published it was necessaary to waffle on initially about something completely different from the main allegation concerning fakery by Mozart.

3. It's also true that none of these other papers has stimulated wider interest. As Mr Newman confesses, they have largely remained stuck in dusty journals collecting cobwebs. This shows that the opinions have no marketable value. In my estimation, that means they are rubbish, which indeed they are.

4. This latest twist about Haydn has been discussed here before. Another former member (Sinfonia Espansiva, I recall) asked various questions about the allegations, got a series of typically unsatisfactory and unconvincing answers, and then cleared off. This kind of thing has happened a lot here, namely sensible people being so astonished at the vulgar audacity of these allegations that eventually they clear off completely, leaving for far more sophisticated musical discussion elsewhere, where rubbish like this is banned because of its manifest nonsensical nature.

5. Mr Newman relies on newcomers who haven't bothered to read all, or even any, of the previous material. This is quite apparent from some of the recent questioning. There isn't one worthwhile aspect of these ludicrous claims that hasn't been discussed and debated in some depth before.

6. Personally, I would find it far more acceptable - and much less an object of derision - if Mr Newman made his claims a lot more modest, and tailored to the highly limited evidence he thinks he has. But he hasn't. He has gone to the other extreme and claims that virtually the whole of Mozart's and Haydn's careers were fakes. It's this which is patently absurd.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
348 Posts
Discussion Starter · #65 ·
But Mango, you are currently running a thread that aims to debunk Luchesi's 'reputation' are you not ?

It seems to me little short of hypocrisy that you are guility of the very thing I am accused of.

First, there was no composer called 'Moxy' and nor has Luchesi had any compositional reputation to overthrow during all of your lifetime. The things you write are plain silly and various people have already pointed this out to you.

Regarding your claim that I have published nothing on Mozart - I have taken my time (many years) before writing at length on Mozart on various online forums. Freely and openly. Accountability matters to me. So does fact.

Sinfonia espansiva was a respectful music lover who asked for, and received, details of various 'Haydn' manuscripts at Modena. And other information. His attitude was respectful throughout. But he can speak for himself. Nothing said to him was wrong and he was very interested to learn about these issues. At no time did he insult me nor I him.

The only' patent absurdity' is the huge scale of myth that surrounds Mozart's career and status - myth that was used to elevate him and keep him at a status that is bogus.
 
G

·
Regarding your claim that I have published nothing on Mozart - I have taken my time (many years) before writing at length on Mozart on various online forums. Freely and openly. Accountability matters to me. So does fact.

..........

The only' patent absurdity' is the huge scale of myth that surrounds Mozart's career and status - myth that was used to elevate him and keep him at a status that is bogus.
Here you go again. More half-truths and pure assertion. The only material you have written on online forums has always been the subject of huge derision. And this in the very short term timescales before you were unceremoniously dumped for peddling nonsense and providing insulting comments to known experts. For example, you turned up here last October, as a pariah, after being banned by CMG days before that after only a few weeks posting.

You've had so much time here that it must have exceeded your wildest dreams. I can see why you are trying to hang on, since there is no place else to go to. And yet all you've done here is give us a string of devious replies, or rubbish ones like Maria von Paradis (for whom virtually no musical records remain) being the composer of all or most of Mozart's Piano Concertos. How you have the sheer audacity to come to a place like this and utter such total nonsense defies belief. And yet there are odd people here who seem prepared to listen to you.

Why don't you take the advice given by several here to "put up or shut up", i.e try to get your views published. If it's too big a task for you to present all, then just pick on one bit you feel happy with. We'll then see what happens.

I have already asked you a string of questions that are far more intelligent than all the babbling nonsense, or puerile one-liners, of many (not all) other members here, and you haven't answered any to my satisfaction. They are all entirly vacuous or devious.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
348 Posts
Discussion Starter · #67 · (Edited)
The 'insulting comments' made to 'experts' was to challenge one person to produce evidence for his fairy story that Mozart was commissioned to write a Requiem in 1791. The 'expert' failed to produce any evidence whatsoever. It was laughable. For ruffling the feathers of such an 'expert' I was banned.

Show me please a single example of insulting any expert on Mozart. I have never done so. It is only when stupid comments are made of me that I will respond angrily. But I do not insult experts. I applaud them. An expert is a person who knows his subject and who admits that he does not know nearly as much as he./she should.

i will happily focus on the 'Mozart' piano concertos. A story that begins with Concertos 1,2, 3 and 4 still today regarded as 'Mozart' concertos, though, in fact, they are nothing but pastiches of music by other composers - a fact never admitted by Mozart or his father at any time during their entire careers. In fact, the true composer of some of the music contained within these concertos is recorded as being very angry with the Mozart plagiarism.

There is a track record of sleeze, exaggeration and deception in each and every category of music attributed today to W.A. Mozart. The piano concertos are no exception.

As for Von Paradis, I am seriously considering focusing on the 'Mozart' concertos later this year. May I suggest you do your homework on them if you want to defend the reputation of Mozart ? I say this because I have recently received some extraordinary information about the career of von Paradis and have been made aware of evidence of many of the 'Mozart' piano concertos that will show, beyond reasonable doubt, that Theresia von Paradis was their true composer. But I am not currently able to put all this information together. I repeat that this newly obtained information is completely consistent with von Paradis being the true composer of most of the 23 'Mozart' piano concertos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
328 Posts
Has anyone besides Mr Newman read Taboga's paper? This man is truly mad. His only objective is to promote an "Italian agenda" in the history of music... His assertions are wild. Let me quote his conclusion :

Therefore we should consider the Wiener Klassik as a whole italian phenomenon. The famous idiot Haydn28 didn't compose any symphony, and those which are still registered in his name are Sammartini's and Luchesi's; the high masses and the oratori aren't his as well. We have discovered seventy works which aren't his and this witnesses that Mozart is still a common name29. His best symphonies have to be ascribed to Luchesi; Beethoven could become a genius of music thanks to the long and accurate teaching he received in Bonn from the Kapellmeister Andrea Luchesi.
The full text can be found HERE .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
Morigan, yes, that paper is certainly not very good. It definitely seems like a biased rant from an Italian against all German music, not to mention the ridiculous "theorems" which are articulated. (As someone with mathematical training, I take particular offense to Taboga's use of that word!) The translation also does not seem that felicitous. In that paper, it does seem like scholarship takes a second place to just putting forth a "mad" theory for the sake of it, and providing only scant evidence.

However, it is supposedly the case that this paper you've linked is not actually the sum total of Taboga's argument and research. There is another (much longer) paper by Taboga which, as I understand it, goes into full detail into analyzing these manuscripts, and it's in that paper where the substance of this argument truly lies. The "damnatio personae" paper seems to be more of a vengeful summary than a real paper.

I've actually been in short correspondence with Taboga, and he has agreed to mail me a translation of his longer paper. As I understand it, this paper is the crux of whatever evidence Taboga claims to have, and for me at least, this paper will probably make or break the deal.
 
G

·
I split your last post into two sections:

The 'insulting comments' made to 'experts' was to challenge one person to produce evidence for his fairy story that Mozart was commissioned to write a Requiem in 1791. The 'expert' failed to produce any evidence whatsoever. It was laughable. For ruffling the feathers of such an 'expert' I was banned. Show me please a single example of insulting any expert on Mozart. I have never done so. It is only when stupid comments are made of me that I will respond angrily. But I do not insult experts. I applaud them. An expert is a person who knows his subject and who admits that he does not know nearly as much as he./she should.
As you well know, all or most of your postings on CMG last Summer were scrapped upon your banning in September. Thus, it is more than a little difficult for me to reply to your request. But you know very well what I mean. There, you met a real expert or two and you were in your element trying to get some kudos from the association, until Admin rumbled you and you got banned for arguing the toss without sufficient evidence.

I will happily focus on the 'Mozart' piano concertos. A story that begins with Concertos 1,2, 3 and 4 still today regarded as 'Mozart' concertos, though, in fact, they are nothing but pastiches of music by other composers - a fact never admitted by Mozart or his father at any time during their entire careers. In fact, the true composer of some of the music contained within these concertos is recorded as being very angry with the Mozart plagiarism.

There is a track record of sleeze, exaggeration and deception in each and every category of music attributed today to W.A. Mozart. The piano concertos are no exception.

As for Von Paradis, I am seriously considering focusing on the 'Mozart' concertos later this year. May I suggest you do your homework on them if you want to defend the reputation of Mozart ? I say this because I have recently received some extraordinary information about the career of von Paradis and have been made aware of evidence of many of the 'Mozart' piano concertos that will show, beyond reasonable doubt, that Theresia von Paradis was their true composer. But I am not currently able to put all this information together. I repeat that this newly obtained information is completely consistent with von Paradis being the true composer of most of the 23 'Mozart'piano concertos.
See the penultimate sentence in particular. What a laugh. You now admit you have no evidence. This is exactly what I have been saying all along, exactly that, no more and no less. The same applies to all your other crazy allegations.

You operate on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence and hunch merely because it fits your warped views on the situation. And you make strong assertions because that's the only way you know how to operate. Thanks for the admission at last. I suggest you are now a completely spent force as a result of this admission.

I further suggest it's time for you to pack your bags, go off and do some decent research, try to get it published and come back in due course to tell us all about it. If you can get any of this stuff about Maria von Paradis (being the true composer of many famous Mozart PCs) published in a reputable journal - and assuming it's not rubbished by proper experts - I promise I will apologise for everything I've said here and repent a thousand times over. That's a real promise. I'm 100% sure you won't get anywhere at all.
 
G

·
Morigan said:
Has anyone besides Mr Newman read Taboga's paper? This man is truly mad. His only objective is to promote an "Italian agenda" in the history of music... His assertions are wild.
Thankyou, Morigan. I certainly had read this paper. It is jibberish. It's a crude attempt to promote Italian composing. This is the kind of rubbish that Mr Newman relies upon. There are some other papers by a few other colleagues of Mr Newman, which are equally jibberish. Incidentally, have you seen the "Italian Opera" website where the so-called evidence from Modena material is set out. It's a nut-house. Watch out you don't get a virus.

Everything I have written in the Moxy thread thus far has a direct counterpart in the Newman story. For example, guess who the mad N Korean Professor of Nuclear Fission equates to? And note the seeming irrelevancies about how to assemble a piece of flat-pack furniture with badly translated Korean gobble-de-**** English. Note how Beethoven's diary in relation to his knowledge of Moxy has gone missing. Note too how much other vital evidence has all disappeared. More will be revealed soon on the "Moxy" thread. Keep watching.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
348 Posts
Discussion Starter · #72 · (Edited)
Mango,

I find your attitude tiring and frankly boring. You have contributed absolutely nothing in your 'defence' of Mozart other than to remind us that you are a typical 'Mozartean'.

Today I posted to say that I have received new (and remarkable) information about the 'Mozart' piano concertos and also about the career of Theresia von Paradis. This information is consistent with my assertion that she, von Paradis, is the true composer of MANY (though by no means all) the piano concertos of the mature Mozart. This you instantly rubbish. As usual.

Let me remind you (once again) that up until now I have NOT studied the 'Mozart' concertos in real detail. I have said this (twice) here on this forum. I now say it for a third time. Hopefully this time you will actually digest what I am saying.

I repeat that I have had no time to study this information in detail. But I say again (also for the 3rd time) that if you want to defend the attribution of these works to Mozart I will be in a position to do this by the end of this year. I've also suggested that you do your homework before that time. How about accepting the challenge ? Right here on this forum ?

For those who wonder why it takes so long to write of this subject if the evidence is so interesting/relevant let me briefly describe its nature. You will then see the sense in me taking my time. I offer the following -

1. I have obtained details from a 19th century published source on blind musicians in which the career of von Paradis is discussed. Not in great depth. But in sufficient detail to be of real significance. Amongst the information it provides is a brief description of how von Paradis developed a unique system of recording her own musical works by embossing certain symbols on paper. We know for certain von Paradis DID record her own many compositions in this way (though virtually all of them are today lost). And this new source of information also speaks in general terms about HOW her system of musical notation actually worked. That information was never before available to me. It can be shown to apply to what we know of the manuscripts of the mature 'Mozart' concertos.

2. The fact that specific works by von Paradis are 'lost' (in some cases giving the key of the lost work etc) we can be certain that a record exists somewhere. How else can we know its key ? So I wish to find the source for the list of her acknowledged works. That list may of course be very incomplete. Again, I suspect that the list we see today of her compositions is very incomplete.

3. Von Paradis was for some time the greatest musical attraction in Paris. She also performed concertos in England and was the first person to develop a system of music able to be read by blind people. We know also who helped to design and build the device that she used to record her works. And we now know the outline of her method.

All of this (and more) needs to be closely studied. But there IS a vital new discovery. I now understand the principle of the von Paradis system. I am surprised it's a system we find evidence for in the case of a certain composer from Salzburg whom she met and had professional association with - W.A. Mozart. We know that only 7 Mozart concertos were published during his lifetime. These I will give special attention to. We also know that after Mozart's death (at Offenbach and other places) Nannerl Mozart was involved in other concertos arriving at their published form with Andre and others.

So there you are. Please do not accuse me of running from anything.

As to your comments on Prof. Taboga - you have read very little of what he has written or what Prof Bianchini or Prof Trombetta or what anyone associated with them has written. Italian Opera is NOT a nationalistic website. In fact, it has sections on composers of vritually every nationality. Sp why do you spread such falsehoods ? The website certainly emphasises the Italian legacy in music which is, after all, greater than any other. But that too is completely fair.

Please learn to read things more carefully. Otherwise we will think you are nothing more than the average Mozart fan - grossly misinformed and drowning in the most silly myths.
 
G

·
Please learn to read things more carefully. Otherwise we will think you are nothing more than the average Mozart fan - grossly misinformed and drowning in the most silly myths.
After your pointless rant above, let me give you a bit of advice.

I have absolutely nothing against you doing your research on Mozart and coming up with whatever conclusions you may reach. You can conclude whatever you like. But don't ask me to engage with you in a detailed debate on the minutiae of your allegations and findings. This is not the way things are done.

What you have to do is to present your analysis and conclusions to proper experts on the subject. Let them examine it and give a verdict. I am not an expert on Mozart, and have never pretended to be. I probably know far more about Mozart's life and works than a typical classical music fan, but that is as far as it goes. In particular, I have no wish to delve into the same highly obscure documents as you do, as I probably would not understand a lot of it. And in any case, I have far more interesting useful things to do with my time over the next 6 months

Let me further explain that my philosophy - in most areas areas of my knowledge - is to base my opinions on the accepted wisdom of respectable, qualified experts. I do not take much if any notice of people like you. This is simply because you have absolutely no street cred. You are nothing more than a mysterious, unqualified internet chatter who babbles on a lot about Mozart. Why should I, or anyone else, believe a word of what you say? What are your qualifications? You are 99% pure assertion, and you have caved in several times when under real pressure.

So this is the deal. You do your research. Then try to get it published. Expose it to proper experts. Then, in the light of your allegations and their response, we will all come back in 6 months time and discuss how you got on. This is the approach I proposed earlier, but you obviously find this to be extremely difficult because you know very well that you will not be able to get your views published. Isnt that the case?

Let me be specific: Are you prepared to submit your analysis of the von Paradis files , which you say you have or will have, for publication later this year? Do please tell us.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
348 Posts
Discussion Starter · #74 ·
Mango,

I must laugh where you write -

'I do not take much if any notice of people like you'.

Will you forgive this forum for thinking that you take a great deal of notice of me ? That you post repeatedly in reply to me ?

But you are right in one sense since you clearly do not digest what you read.

Now, in answer to your specific request -

Are you prepared to submit your analysis of the von Paradis files , which you say you have or will have, for publication later this year? Do please tell us.

Absolutely, and right here on this forum.

But no, I will not submit it to any journal. Let your 'experts' read what others read. Then things will be done in broad daylight.
 
G

·
Mango,

Now, in answer to your specific request -

Are you prepared to submit your analysis of the von Paradis files , which you say you have or will have, for publication later this year? Do please tell us.

Absolutely, and right here on this forum.

But no, I will not submit it to any journal. Let your 'experts' read what others read. Then things will be done in broad daylight.
You say: I will not submit it to any journal.

You must be joking if you think you can get away with this.

Why not? Please tell us exactly what you are afraid of, apart from being scared out of your wits as you are fully exposed.

I, for one, won't be here to discuss anything with you unless you have at least tried to submit your results for publication. This is what any normal person would expect, although I accept there are few here who apparently are prepared to accept far less.

It sounds like a neat, self-contained topic, so your earlier excuses - of there being too much ground to cover - don't apply. You must be really lacking in confidence.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
348 Posts
Discussion Starter · #76 · (Edited)
'Scared out of my wits' - LOL !

How about this idea. I choose to read and write as I please rather than have it chosen for me.

Does that make sense to you ?

I have a suggestion for you. Why can't you avoid writing here and send your posts to a journal yourself ? Do as you please Mango. Either way you're arleady a public figure who is rescuing the reputation of W.A. Mozart from criticism. Isn't that your role ? I just happen to prefer writing things on Mozart and his fake career that are available to those who don't nornally have access to academic journals. You don't have to read them or make any comment on them. Sounds reasonable to me. What do you say ?
 
G

·
Mango, doesn't this post belong in the "Controversy over the true musical achievements of Andrea Luchesi" thread, rather than this thread?
'Scared out of my wits' - LOL !

How about this idea. I choose to read and write as I please rather than have it chosen for me.

Does that make sense to you ?

I have a suggestion for you. Why can't you avoid writing here and send your posts to a journal yourself ? Do as you please Mango. Either way you're arleady a public figure who is rescuing the reputation of W.A. Mozart from criticism. Isn't that your role ? I just happen to prefer writing things on Mozart and his fake career that are available to those who don't nornally have access to academic journals. You don't have to read them or make any comment on them. Sounds reasonable to me. What do you say ?
I wonder why?

If you like to write for those who don't normally read journals, why do you criticise experts for not engaging you in proper debate? Surely you don't really expect experts to come to places like this and debate with the likes of you, a complete unknown with no credentials of any description.

The normal way to debate such issues is through publication of some sort in a respectable journal, or book. Otherwise you are just blabbering on, talking largely to a bunch of amateurs, who can't possibly match your knowledge, however screwed up it may be.

Sorry but your position is completely hopeless.
 
61 - 80 of 90 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top