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

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:
1.There is no dispute Schubert wrote the symphonies attributed to him. But there IS dispute that Mozart wrote many, many symphonies (from all periods of his supposed career) listed in Koechel. In respect of 'his' mature symphonies (i.e. those supposedly written from the time of the 'Paris' onwards we even have documentary and other evidence indicating he did NOT write these works.

We have documentary evidence that he did write these works - that to you is irrelevant as is the musical style issue which you dismiss quite frankly in a very amateurish way. As for your claims being 'undisputed', since no one in the musical establishment, no serious Mozart scholar accepts what either you or Taboga say I think yet again we have a demonstration of this fantasy world.

We have been privy here to some of your 'evidence' - for example the Frankfurt playbill which you deliberately twisted to strengthen your claims about Figaro. Under pressure you altered your position on this. Your claim for Luchesi authorship of Beethoven's Imperial cantatas again presented as fact - yet not one piece of documentary proof to back this up - yet in Beethoven's favour there is plenty. Your claims that Beethoven did not write music before 1785/6 again shown to be ridiculous - again you altered your position on this. In fact if anyone read through your posts of a year ago they would find your arguments full of inconsistencies.
How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously with such 'evidence' as this? I'm no musicologist but it isn't difficult to see why Taboga is ignored with such fundamental flaws.

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-02-2006).]

[robert newman]

Hi Sorrano,

I respect your view there is no concrete evidence to question the official compositions of Joseph Haydn. Especially since you’ve not been offered any. But your post puts me in a difficult position – at least in hardly knowing where to start a reply – so much evidence being available. So I will provide only a few samples.

At Modena (in the manuscript material still there today that came from the Bonn chapel) are many works attributed to Joseph Haydn including symphonies and masses. Four well known ‘Haydn’ works can be briefly discussed here (though we could easily discuss dozens more) – 3 of these are famous masses and the fourth is a work normally called (in English anyway) ‘The Seven Last Words on the Cross’ - these catalogued today at Estense Library in Modena as Mus-D-163 (‘Schoepfungsmesse’). Mus-D-164 (‘Paukenmesse’), Mus-D-165 (‘Nelsonmesse), and, lastly, the instrumental and original version of ‘Seven Last Words on the Cross’. (Mus-D-167). All 3 masses just mentioned are in a version scored for an orchestra that used ‘Bach trumpets’, these known to have been used at Bonn (from which these scores indisputably came) but for which Joseph Haydn never actually wrote a note in his entire life. Furthermore, watermarks for the 3 masses just mentioned are of Dutch or Swabian origin and are of a kind that guarantees they were produced before 1794 and in a Rhine area where, it has been clearly established such paper was in common usage at Bonn chapel prior to its closure in 1792. These same three masses also have a special and unusual treatment for organ parts in all three cases - indicated within them as ‘basso pour la mesure’, a typical trait found in works known to be by Luchesi but not at all typical otherwise. It is certain Mus-D-164 ‘Paukenmesse’ was at Bonn during the inventory of 8th May 1784. And yet Hayn claimed to have written this very mass in 1796 – fully 4 years after the Bonn chapel had closed. It actually enters Haydn lists of supposed compositions only in the so-called ‘Entwurf Catalogue’ – i.e. in 1798/9 (It has also been acknowledged by C. Valder-Knechtes in ‘Die Kirchenmusik A Luchesis’ (1983) pp.126 – e.133 that the reference numbers at Modena in ink written on this work prove this manuscript was in Bonn even before the 1784 inventory). In the case of the ‘Harmonienmesse’ (traditionally claimed as having been written in 1802, that dated is contradicted by the fact that from around 1797 Haydn, already aging was in no physical state to write that work. Detailed study of Haydn’s handwriting for letters after 1797 make this perfectly clear. In addition, we have a detailed study of Haydn’s medical/mental state by a Professor Sante Bidoli which concludes from written records that Haydn, by 1802, was simply not able to write anything.

As regards the ‘Nelsonmesse’ there is, at the British Library in London, a set of parts of that same work that, according to Carl Maria Brand, ‘Die Messen von J. Haydn’ (1941) p.320 n.47 state are in the handwriting of Joseph Elssler (senior) a copyist who actually died in 1782. To compound problems even more, the ‘official’ Hoboken catalogue of Haydn’s works (issued with approval of the Haydn Institute) admits that attribution of the Nelson Mass ‘cannot even with certainty given to Haydn. And, as for the ‘7 Last Words’ this work is specifically mentioned in the Bonn 1784 Inventory, thus ruling out Haydn’s claim to have composed in 1786/7.

I could focus on the ‘Haydn’ symphonies but let’s just stay with these 4 works in this post.

We know for sure the ‘7 Last Words’ were published first in 1787 by Sieber in Paris and by Forster in London with a title of ‘Instrumental Passion’. And yet, as stated, the same work is already existing in Bonn, where it was in 1784 when the inventory of that year was made. Thus though Haydn claims to have written it in 1786/7 the inventory at Bonn, attributing it to him in 1784, already shows a fracture in the accepted history of this piece.

This work, in its orchestral version, clearly existing in Bonn in May 1784 (as already stated) and, as stated, still at Modena. And yet, of course, this contradiction has meant that, to date even Haydn scholars have not even been able in their writings to admit to the existence of these parts of the piece now at Modena – since their very existence contradicts (or tends to call in to question) their assumptions of when the work was written (let alone who really wrote it). That is why this version at Modena is not mentioned in discussions of the piece by Haydn scholars such as Robbins Landon or Vignal. And yet, these parts are without a doubt the same ones used in a known performance at Bonn, conducted by Joseph Reicha on 30th March 1787, only 4 days after its Vienna premiere at the residence of the Prince Auersperg – i.e. 26th March 1787. (The actual commission was for Cadiz in Spain).

This work, ‘The 7 Last Words’, was most probably composed in 1782 at Bonn, by Luchesi. After 5 years (according to the nature of the ‘deal’ with Haydn) it became Haydn’s to claim as his own (i.e.1787), but not before. That is why it officially appears that year and is published in Haydn’s name. In addition, it was Michael Hadyn (Joseph’s brother) and not Joseph who turned it later in to an oratorio in co-operation with the Passau Kapellmeister Karl Friberth. In truth, Joseph Haydn had virtually nothing to do with this piece, limiting himself to produce a much later quartet version from the original orchestral version.

Sorry this post is so brief – wish I could write more but have other engagements in the next few days.

Best regards

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

You are right to say that I have shifted my position on the Frankfurt performance of Figaro in 1785 - this fully 1 year before the premiere of the 'Mozart/da Ponte' opera in Vienna on 1st May 1786. I have done so because (and I think entirely reasonably) the known facts of the case make it necessary for me to do so. I am not a dogmatist. Nor am I infallible. Still, we have have a quite clear indication that a work with music was performed at Frankfurt am Main that year of 1785 which was, (you may appreciate) the reason why its linkage with 1786 is clear. But the exact nature of that linkage, I entirely agree, is not yet clear.

But this fair and reasonable shift in my position (and I am willing to shift more if facts are presented to justify it) is proof of my flexibility, of my willingness to learn. Nobody (as I have previously stated) yet has the solution, least of all myself. I nevertheless still maintain that the work performed at Vienna in May of 1786 was not one by Mozart or da Ponte, for reasons I have stated here, at length, before.

Now, regarding the last paragraph your wrote, I am amazed you, Peter, can have written so many errors in so short a space. Let me first quote what you wrote there in full before showing the poverty of your arguments -

'(a) We have been privy here to some of your 'evidence' - for example the Frankfurt playbill which you deliberately twisted to strengthen your claims about Figaro. Under pressure you altered your position on this.

(b) Your claim for Luchesi authorship of Beethoven's Imperial cantatas again presented as fact - yet not one piece of documentary proof to back this up - yet in Beethoven's favour there is plenty.

(c) Your claims that Beethoven did not write music before 1785/6 again shown to be ridiculous - again you altered your position on this.

(d) In fact if anyone read through your posts of a year ago they would find your arguments full of inconsistencies.

(e) How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously with such 'evidence' as this? I'm no musicologist but it isn't difficult to see why Taboga is ignored with such fundamental flaws.

Peter, in reply -

(a) Contrary to your view, the piece performed at Frankfurt am Main in 1785 in no way affects my assertion that the true composer of the opera perormed in Vienna in the name of Mozart/da Ponte was not written by Mozart. And it is disingenous of you to say that the Kraus theory rests solely on what was performed at Frankfurt. You know for sure that it does not. The issue of the Frankfurt piece is hugely interesting but it does not, in any way, affect my posts suggesting the opera in Vienna was by Kraus. I have clarified this already several times, most recently here to Hofrat.

The Frankfurt issue was introduced because it exists, not because I, you, or anyone else can explain it. We cannot. It is just another unsolved puzzle but one that we can, if we are honest, at least discuss - since this must surely increase the possibility of us finding, by good-natured exchanges, a solution. That is my position and it always has been. To suggest that this Frankfurt piece is crucial for the Kraus theory is, as stated, simply untrue.

(b) What is the 'documentary evidence' that Beethoven wrote the two imperial cantatas known as WoO87 and WoO88 ??? I look forward to this 'documentary evidence' by return post Peter. Shall I be waiting a long time ?

(c) I never claimed that Beethoven wrote no music prior to 1785/6. Again, this is a very sloppy interpretation of what I actually said. Let me repeat it. I said that, as far as the records of Bonn chapel are concerned he, Beethoven, wrote 3 works during his 10 years there - a fact confirmed by the catalogue C.53.1 and further confirmed by the response of the Cologne Elector, Max Franz to the letter from Joseph Haydn. I have further agreed (many times) that works other than church works were written by Beethoven including several written and published externally including the Dressler Variations.
Again, I have no difficulty in accepting this. And have said so several times.

(d) Peter, if anyone read through Beethoven's musical studies at the age of, say, 11 years old, would they find more or less errors than when he was, say, 12 ? I wish I could provide you with categorical proof. But I think we are all more informed, and not less so, today, than we were a year ago. Isn't this the fruits of respectful exchange ? It is for me, certainly. And I think I more than hold my own in our conversations.

(e) I really do not care if I or Prof. Taboga are taken 'seriously' by the mainstream Mozart/Haydn establishment. If I feel that what I have read is worthy of being believed by me then it features in my understanding of it, especially if critics have only 200 year old myths or unfounded assertions as their arguments. We are pointing to specific manuscripts, specific dates, places, times, watermarks, statements, sources, etc.etc. - and all of this fairly and openly. Is such a sustained viewpoint totally without support from all those angles ? Really Peter, you surely cannot be serious. Until the 'experts' have looked at the same things this is a very poor argument.

(f) Taboga is far from being 'ignored'. I think you might change your view on that in the not too distant future. If a person refuses to believe the sun is shining, and locks himself away in a room, closing the curtains, well, that is his choice. But here we are, still talking. Still asking for fair and reasonable discussion, openly.

Regards

[robert newman]

Dear Sorrano,

You do not believe Sammartini was supplying symphonies to Joseph Haydn. Fine. Read Carpani who speaks of hundreds of works being written for German princes by him. Or, better still, find the name of the 18th century composer who, on hearing a symphony of Sammartini said 'Here is where Joseph Haydn's symphonies have their origin'. That Sammartini is all over various early pieces of Mozart is, also, indisputable. And finally, if you will, read any reference book on Sammartini to see his vital significance in the whole history of the symphony. That will, at least, give you a balanced picture.

Honest, he was selling his works as fast as he could produce them. Selling them by the dozen to Esterhazy etc. And (by the 19th century) these at Esterhazy labelled 'Haydn' though they actually came from at least 3 Italian sources. It became ridiculous. Even in his late career Haydn was close to being exposed time after time. Certainly in England. He also had published in his name works by others. Really, this is a no-win argument. The question is only that of scale. Luchesi himself supplied Esterhazy. So too Boccherini.

(I have already given you some Luchesi works from Bonn in my previous post). If you need more just ask.

Regards

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Sorrano,

You do not believe Sammartini was supplying symphonies to Joseph Haydn. Fine. Read Carpani who speaks of hundreds of works being written for German princes by him. Or, better still, find the name of the 18th century composer who, on hearing a symphony of Sammartini said 'Here is where Joseph Haydn's symphonies have their origin'. That Sammartini is all over various early pieces of Mozart is, also, indisputable. And finally, if you will, read any reference book on Sammartini to see his vital significance in the whole history of the symphony. That will, at least, give you a balanced picture.

Honest, he was selling his works as fast as he could produce them. Selling them by the dozen to Esterhazy etc. And (by the 19th century) these at Esterhazy labelled 'Haydn' though they actually came from at least 3 Italian sources. It became ridiculous. Even in his late career Haydn was close to being exposed time after time. Certainly in England. He also had published in his name works by others. Really, this is a no-win argument. The question is only that of scale. Luchesi himself supplied Esterhazy. So too Boccherini.

(I have already given you some Luchesi works from Bonn in my previous post). If you need more just ask.

Regards

Can you give me references--specific references--NO ALLUSIONS!!!--without citing Taboga? I don't want to hear "everyone knows that..." or "it was obvious...."--that is not scholarship. That is heresay and does not work with me. If you consider yourself a scholar then your thesis MUST have valid references.

[robert newman]

Dear Sorrano,

I do not know what you think scholarship is. If it consists of swapping quotes maybe it's time you take the lead. Since this seems to be one way traffic, with me providing you with literally dozens of specific sorts of information and you saying that you would be impressed only if you can find it in some textbook.

It's a bit like asking a criminal to leave as many fingerprints at the scene of a crime just so that you can come along, solve the crime, and go to have a cup of tea in the same morning. But it doesn't work like that - not in cases where we have over 200 years of tradition, false claims, blatant examples of works being transfered and mutilated, and dozens of other sorts of evidence that needs to be examined piece by piece (including watermarks, dates etc etc etc).

Scholarship is not a one way process. It is a process of giving and taking. I am giving and giving and all you can say is that I have not provided footnotes. It's simply not good enough.

Look, nobody has written about this in the few textbooks you seem to have read. You have to stretch yourself. You have to get off your drip feed. You have to starting thinking, for yourself. That the conventions, the mythologies are not only exaggerated and wrong, but are dogmatically exaggerated and wrong, and always have been. Accept this as a working hypothesis in the case of these two composers (since, I suggest, there are already many good reasons to do so) and you will begin to at least be a fair and impartial judge of what is being said, even though you may end your study believing what you have conventionally learned.

Have I, ever, suggested that you study the manuscripts, the evidence, for yourself ? I have done nothing BUT that. Do I write merely to entertain you, or to entertain myself ? Frankly, I have better things to do. I write because I am sure that, eventually, you and other readers will at least become aware of the scale of what is under discussion. The reputations of Haydn and, also, Mozart, being stage managed, falsely constructed, as regards many, many of the works which you assume (and have always assumed) were written by them - with every effort made to conceal the reality of it. That is the outline of the case. And much effort being made to explain how consistent that view is and how inconsistent it is to deny it.

Simply rubbishing a person achieves absolutely nothing.

One could not invent such a story. It is completely impossible. It would require us to invent people doing things for which the evidence is entirely against such a scenario. But the facts just keep stacking up. None of them will change until, unless, you check them out for yourself. Not by what somebody else says, or what I say, but what you yourself have found to be most consistent.

I am of the view that you should give serious thought to the political/religious/social and other factors involved in making the reputations of both Haydn and Mozart into the characters/icons that we have today.

But I do not care, at the end of the day, who agrees and who does not. It alters reality not one iota. The material must still be studied and appreciated. When that is finally done by those who currently disagree, we may move on further. Until then, one can only ask that these posts are treated fairly.

Regards

[Agnes Selby]

Dear Robert,

Scholarship is also providing evidence
to support your findings. Without documentation, your theories carry absolutely no weight in the academic world.
The only way, for instanze, for you to prove that Mozart did not write the
music for "The Marriage of Figaro" or that Da Ponte did not supply the libretto, you must prove it with documented evidence.

Otherwise your ideas remain just ideas born
in your head. They may impress the gullible
but that is as far as it goes.

However, even the gullible will question
why the composers who provided their masterpieces to Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven,
did not publish them themselves and why, indeed, did they publish inferior works for which they are remembered and in most cases,
entirely forgotten.

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

[Sorrano]

Mr. Newman, I am simply asking you to properly cite your assertions. You say you have studied the scores of Mozart and Haydn. Provide measure numbers, comparisons, etc. Something of this scale, which I do understand, requires a much greater scrutiny in which you are demonstrating. If you want to blow the music world apart with an amazing discovery you will be required to provide specific sources; otherwise you will labeled as nothing more than a windbag.

I do not mean these things unkindly. But if you were presenting data in this format for a master's or doctorate's thesis you would fail--not for the ideas that you present but for the lack of proper citation. If you cannot do that then no serious musical scholar can take you seriously.

Again, do not take these things unkindly; this is not an attack upon your person. It is frustrating to hear sweeping generalizations and statements that have no backing. I cannot take you seriously until you take your own propositions seriously.

[robert newman]

I find this latest post by Agnes and Sorrano quite fascinating. With respect to you both here is my short guide to improving the current situation and removing the impasse. Ten easy things you can do and (in my view) should do to be fair and reasonable.

1. Please go to a bookshop in the not too distant future and buy an atlas.
(If you are not near a bookshop please consult various maps and atlases online).

2. Search for a country by the name of Italy. It's fairly prominent and has a coastline.

3. Find the city called Modena.

4. Make enquiries of the library there. Its location and its holdings. You will discover that it is one of the greatest libraries in Europe.

5. Once you have done this, let me know. I will then give you a long list of musical manuscripts held there which (contrary to 'expertise') are from the Bonn Chapel, and were at Bonn before that chapel was closed in the year of 1792.

6. Bring with you a list of Haydn and also of Mozart's works - the most recent editions possible, together with information on watermarks (the details of which I will also provide from you prior to you leaving for Modena).

7. In the case of Mozart, study a bit more about the history of the Koechel catalogue and the way that it, decades after Mozart's death, was finally cobbled together. And study, if you will, the history of false claims about Mozart and his supposed output - things that are really beyond dispute. Simple things like, well, fraudulent signatures on important works such as the Requiem KV626, etc etc. and of works by other composers being attributed to Mozart, even during his lifetime. The same of Haydn.

8. Obtain, from sources such as Taboga and others information on music during the period 1760 to, say, 1792 in the area of Bonn.

9. Look at the musical history of the Jesuit Order and of their significance in music of the same period.

and finally -

10. Ask yourself if, realistically, so many irregularities and so many coincidences have combined to make the manufactured reputations of Haydn and Mozart not merely a fantasy but a theory far more consistent in dealing with the known facts than mere repetition of the myths surrounding the life and works of both composers. I am completely sure you will agree that such a correlation of evidence, real and circumstantial, is preposterous unless there are good grounds for accepting what I, Prof. Taboga (and several other researchers) now assert.

To date (and I really do not like to repeat myself) not a single Haydn or Mozart scholar has done anything but bluff you about their supposed 'expertise', since none of them have yet done the things listed above. That fact is already a matter of public record as you see in the editor's comments to the Luchesi controversy here on line with Wikipedia.

I can think of no case where a theory concerning music history has been so clearly stated, publicly, with the sole motive of getting readers to check these things for themselves (rather than to bring fame or success to those making it).

Best regards

Robert Newman



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 09-03-2006).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Agnes Selby:

Dear Robert,

Scholarship is also providing evidence
to support your findings. Without documentation, your theories carry absolutely no weight in the academic world.
The only way, for instanze, for you to prove that Mozart did not write the
music for "The Marriage of Figaro" or that Da Ponte did not supply the libretto, you must prove it with documented evidence.

Otherwise your ideas remain just ideas born
in your head. They may impress the gullible
but that is as far as it goes.

However, even the gullible will question
why the composers who provided their masterpieces to Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven,
did not publish them themselves and why, indeed, did they publish inferior works for which they are remembered and in most cases,
entirely forgotten.

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

I'll say one thing, though it may have no bearing on this discussion - anonymous 'alien' compositions certainly found their way into contemporary publishers collections of Handel music and are still being sold as Handel's on CDs today, whether the original composers of this music approved or were even aware of it we'll never know. Handel certainly had no say in the matter.

Agnes during all your posts here I do not recall a single moment where you have actually discussed the music itself, discussed any music in fact. I happily contradicted all of Mr Newman's ideas about Beethoven pieces purely by looking at the music, without the need to visit my personal library even once. Do you think you could do the same with Mozart Have you even heard any Mozart? I don't know looking at your posts.

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


[This message has been edited by Rod (edited 09-03-2006).]

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:


(a) The Frankfurt issue was introduced because it exists, not because I, you, or anyone else can explain it. We cannot. It is just another unsolved puzzle but one that we can, if we are honest, at least discuss - since this must surely increase the possibility of us finding, by good-natured exchanges, a solution. That is my position and it always has been. To suggest that this Frankfurt piece is crucial for the Kraus theory is, as stated, simply untrue.


Robert you know full well it was to mislead and strengthen your claims that you wrote "The Marriage of Figaro' was in existence and being peformed at Frankfurt more than a year before its 'premiere' in Vienna. Just happens to be supported by documentary evidence."


(b) What is the 'documentary evidence' that Beethoven wrote the two imperial cantatas known as WoO87 and WoO88 ??? I look forward to this 'documentary evidence' by return post Peter. Shall I be waiting a long time ?


We have recently presented this to you at length - sketches in Beethoven's hand (kafka sketchbook), contemporary references (letters) to Beethoven writing such works as well as stylistic features evident in Beethoven's later works. You are unfortunately blind to real evidence and in its place you offer us nothing on this issue. We are still waiting for your DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE that Luchesi wrote them!


(c) I never claimed that Beethoven wrote no music prior to 1785/6. Again, this is a very sloppy interpretation of what I actually said. Let me repeat it. I said that, as far as the records of Bonn chapel are concerned he, Beethoven, wrote 3 works during his 10 years there - a fact confirmed by the catalogue C.53.1 and further confirmed by the response of the Cologne Elector, Max Franz to the letter from Joseph Haydn. I have further agreed (many times) that works other than church works were written by Beethoven including several written and published externally including the Dressler Variations.
Again, I have no difficulty in accepting this. And have said so several times.


No but again you sought to mislead and strengthen your case by suggestion: You claimed "This small number of Beethoven pieces (3) are the only documented references we find from Bonn sources to confirm that Beethoven was a composer prior to the time he arrived in Vienna". Not true as you left out Beethoven's own references, Cramer's journal, Blumenlese fur klavierliebhaber plus the autograph scores of the piano quartets and the bassoon trio. You deliberately left out the evidence supporting the cantatas.
Having demonstrated such willful distortion you then conclude "And there still remains (as we all know) at least one alternative candidate for at least several of the chamber works from Bonn which have been attributed to Beethoven for well over a century. This too is plain fact. No argument." - Well I'm afraid there is plenty of argument.
[b]


(d) But I think we are all more informed, and not less so, today, than we were a year ago. Isn't this the fruits of respectful exchange ? It is for me, certainly. And I think I more than hold my own in our conversations.

This is true and I think you present a very interesting case and I've certainly learnt a lot about many issues and people - however just on the Beethoven issue alone I think I have demonstrated flaws, it seems your evidence is not fullproof. You keep quoting Modena at us and this is difficult for us to discuss because no one here is qualified to counter those arguments. This makes for an unbalanced argument and i hope you accept that point.


(f) Taboga is far from being 'ignored'.


Well clearly not by you at any rate!

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

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-03-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Peter,

a) My motive has never been to mislead anyone but to produce information relevant to the issue at hand - in this case the birth of the opera performed in 1786 and attributed to Mozart/da Ponte.

b) Contrary to your assumption the Kafka miscellany does not prove that Beethoven composed either WoO97 or WoO88. It proves that he was familiar with both and, in the case of WoO88 was working on a piece at Bonn which would have used part of the Leopold cantata in a totally different work from that of WoO88. This site was first to discuss this and other works known to have been written by Beethoven in connection with it - including the cantata he showed to Haydn etc. So your 'documentary evidence' is simply not correct in this respect.

c) You are yourself trying to mislead readers in saying that I claimed Beethoven wrote nothing till 1785/6. I made if very clear (over and over) that I was discussing the records held at Bonn, not other works.

d) I agree that quoting Modena is unfair if no critic is prepared to look at the significance of it. As is manifestly true in the case of Mozart/Haydn scholarship in respect of the Bonn archive material there and the Luchesi business.

e) Taboga has been researching in this field for some 20 years - I, in a different but complementary field for perhaps 8 years. In my case Mozart and the Holy Roman Empire. To suggest Taboga is not listened to is, frankly, wrong. He has made many efforts to share his findings including translating them in to English and having this done by others (including myself) at length.

He has also been in touch with leading research agencies and publishers, a recent example being the editorial statement made by Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, pointing out that 'Mozart and Haydn scholarsip' is conspicuous by its absence in addressing the many discrepancies and irregularities in the supposed careers of these musical icons.

Regards

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

Like others, I am following – or trying to follow – this thread and your arguments. Like others (judging from various posts) I too am having difficulty of maintaining and open mind on, and forming a rational opinion about, your claims.

For me, there are three issues:

1. What exactly are you claiming? I mean, in a nutshell, a single concise sentence or paragraph, stripped of all unnecessary and irrelevant language. At the moment I can’t see the wood for the trees.

2. What is the nature and status of the evidence you bring to bear in support of your claims (ranging, say, from ‘mere speculation’ through to ‘hard, forensically solid fact’)?

3. What are the various motives – yours included – for the claims being made?

Let me say from the outset, Robert, that I have virtually no doubt of your commitment and passion to the cause (whatever that cause is) – your sheer persistence and the lengths to which you go speak of that – but I feel time after time that you are your own worst enemy in prosecuting that cause. Here is just one recent example.

Sorrano wrote:

Can you give me references--specific references--NO ALLUSIONS!!!--without citing Taboga? I don't want to hear "everyone knows that..." or "it was obvious...."--that is not scholarship. That is heresay and does not work with me. If you consider yourself a scholar then your thesis MUST have valid references.

Or again a short time later:

Mr. Newman, I am simply asking you to properly cite your assertions. You say you have studied the scores of Mozart and Haydn. Provide measure numbers, comparisons, etc. Something of this scale, which I do understand, requires a much greater scrutiny in which you are demonstrating. If you want to blow the music world apart with an amazing discovery you will be required to provide specific sources; otherwise you will labeled as nothing more than a windbag.

I would argue that this is a perfectly reasonable request, indeed an essential requirement if your case is to gain credibility. So, when you reply:

Ten easy things you can do and (in my view) should do to be fair and reasonable.

1. Please go to a bookshop in the not too distant future and buy an atlas.
(If you are not near a bookshop please consult various maps and atlases online).

2. Search for a country by the name of Italy. It's fairly prominent and has a coastline.

etc etc

You (and, in this example, your sarcasm) are not helping your case one iota.

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.

Thank you for (at least) considering this request.

Euan


[This message has been edited by Euan Mackinnon (edited 09-03-2006).]

[Peter]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:

Dear Peter,

a) My motive has never been to mislead anyone but to produce information relevant to the issue at hand - in this case the birth of the opera performed in 1786 and attributed to Mozart/da Ponte.

I think members of the forum can see quite clearly what you meant.

b) Contrary to your assumption the Kafka miscellany does not prove that Beethoven composed either WoO97 or WoO88. It proves that he was familiar with both and, in the case of WoO88 was working on a piece at Bonn which would have used part of the Leopold cantata in a totally different work from that of WoO88. This site was first to discuss this and other works known to have been written by Beethoven in connection with it - including the cantata he showed to Haydn etc. So your 'documentary evidence' is simply not correct in this respect.

There is no evidence for 'another work' related to this material. There is no evidence that Luchesi wrote a single note of WoO87 or WoO88. There is evidence that links Beethoven to both these works.

c) You are yourself trying to mislead readers in saying that I claimed Beethoven wrote nothing till 1785/6. I made if very clear (over and over) that I was discussing the records held at Bonn, not other works.

You made it very clear that you doubt the authenticity of most attributed Beethoven Bonn works and you use the Bonn records to justify this, without reference to other Bonn sources that I have listed. You even at one time claimed the Dressler variatons dated from after 1785, but conceded this point later when I produced evidence to counter the claim.

d) I agree that quoting Modena is unfair if no critic is prepared to look at the significance of it. As is manifestly true in the case of Mozart/Haydn scholarship in respect of the Bonn archive material there and the Luchesi business.

Have you yourself been to Modena and examined the material? Are you an expert in musicology, Graphology? Can you actually read a musical score? Have you been an examined the sources that are used as evidence that Haydn and Mozart did write the works attributed to them? Have you been to the Mozarteum or Esterhazy and discussed in person your claims with eminent historians and musicologists? What are Taboga's credentials?

I make no such claims for myself and I doubt others on this forum are able to fulfil this criteria which is why I repeat it is ridiculous to constantly repeat the Modena 'evidence' on this forum.

Euan's suggestion is a good one and I'd like you to begin by substantiating your claims re. the G minor symphony:
"That in the case of, say, the G Minor Symphony (No.40) there is indisputable evidence that this material originated with a work of many decades prior written by Traetta and performed in Italy."

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



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited 09-03-2006).]

[Agnes Selby]

Agnes during all your posts here I do not recall a single moment where you have actually discussed the music itself, discussed any music in fact. I happily contradicted all of Mr Newman's ideas about Beethoven pieces purely by looking at the music, without the need to visit my personal library even once. Do you think you could do the same with Mozart Have you even heard any Mozart? I don't know looking at your posts.

[/B][/QUOTE]
---------------

I am not a musician or a musicologist.
I am a historian and a writer. Many of
my articles appear on the Mozarteum Website.

Have I heard any Mozart? The answer indeed is, yes! I consider this a most provocative
question that I certainly would not ask
an author of numerous articles, a historical
researcher and an author of a book on Constanze Mozart.

I merely asked Mr. Newman to substantiate his findings. I consider it my right if I am to read the long postings he writes.
My Master Degree in History has not been achieved by posturing but by accurate documentation of my findings.

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.

---------------

---------------