Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

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

    (an edited version of a work by Prof. G. Taboga – first presented in full to a musical workshop organised by the University of Bergamo, 10th December 2004)

    'The greatest of many still to be explained mysteries in the history of music during the second half of the 18th century is connected with the sudden and apparently heirless end of the glorious Venetian musical tradition – a tradition that, in the first half of that century, had produced such leading persons as Vivaldi, Tartini, Valloti and Galuppi – this coinciding with the fatherless appearance in Austria of the Viennese Classical Period with its three sacred and largely ‘self-taught’ prodigies of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Few scholars have conceded to the likely association of these two events and most have assumed a ‘cause and effect’ connection. Consequently, the relationship between the two phenomena has been studied only superficially.

    Although it is possible for a man to die heirless, it is of course impossible for him to be born fatherless. The few short works that have tried to describe this subject have, to date, only skimmed over the problem and its real scale, and do not provide us with any exhaustive or, at least, acceptable answers. And so, it is generally admitted only that some sort of a musical Venetian presence was in Vienna for almost 200 years. It was here, up until 1824, of course, that Antonio Salieri, a Venetian musician, worked as an Imperial Kapellmeister, holding that influential position. Salieri was not really a rival of Mozart. But nor was he the teacher of Beethoven. But at the head of Salzburg’s music chapel, from 1772 to 1782 was also the Venetian-Neopolitan Kapellmeister Domenico Fischietta - one of the principal musical collaborators with Carlo Goldoni in Venice.

    Perhaps the first man to correctly come to terms with the scale and significance of the problem of Venetian influence on the Viennese Classical Period was Fr. Leopold Kantner, an Austrian, an an expert in Italian and central European music of the 18th century. Kantner taught at Vienna University and in 1980, at Padua, attended a conference devoted to the great theoretician Fr. Francescantonio Valloti. It was there that Kantner stated in regard to Mozart –

    ‘Schmidt too can only write in a vague way about the sources of Mozart’s musical style in Italy, using terms such as ‘maybe’ or ‘perhaps’.....So we do not find any defininitive statement....Brandt , in a book about the masses of Haydn also wrote, ‘We cannot identify the Italian sources known to Haydn, which perhaps formed his style’.

    And so we find a void or uncharted territory in the musical geography of the Viennese Classic Period. It must also be confessed that musicology of the 19th century, and even in to the start of the 20th century, was very impenetrable in Germany and in Austria. Certainly, nationalism is not limited to musical questions but, to tell the truth, we have to admit nationalism is an appropriate word to describe what has occurred. Everything had to be looked for at home. It is a strange fact that Germans have been even more radical than Austrians on this particular point. The Germans (with regard to the Vienna Classical Period) did not want Italians, only Germans. So they found what they said were sources at home. But when you actually listen to this music or study the score, you inevitably ask yourself, ‘Where does this really come from ?’ The silence is then deafening. At most, a brief hint is given regarding the ‘influence of Lombardy and Venice' because, by the nationalistic route, there are only 3 main musicians to represent that style and all others are but ‘predecessors’, or ‘contemporaries’ or ‘followers’. Thus, there is no real style in the music of this period, or in its art. We are provided with these 3 men and everyone else is an imitator and is judged by reference to them. Contrast this with the fact, the real truth, that music of the Viennese Classical Period can and must be connected to sacred music being written in Lombardy and in Venice. For example, listen if you will to Mozart’s Mass KV194 and we find (almost literally) the same themes as in works published before it by Valloti. Mozart’s is a polyphonic work in the modern style, ‘a la Valloti’. And this interpolation or that is, indisputably, taken from the same Valloti.....Let us now examine if you please Haydn’s very first mass. Open the score and look no further than the section, ‘Et incarnatus est’. We find virtually the same thing as I myself found in a ‘Credo’ by Valloti.

    Now, surely, the time has arrived to discover more than what has been found only recently by a handful of musicologists only a few decades ago - although Erich Schenk has sometimes briefly stated (but without explicitly referring to church music) that Italy (Venice, Padua and the Lombardy School) were very important for the Vienna Classical Period. 'Our discoveries have just begun, but we simply must take notice of these connections’.

    At the same time, American Professor Mark Lindley, a scholar studying relations between music theory and practice in the 18th century, has drawn our attention to new theoretical ideas first put forward by Valloti himself (specifically on his theory of musical dissonance). Lindley mentions this and then added –

    ‘Valloti not only stated that his theory was scientifically valid, but also stated that scientific music is the foundation for a well regulated musical regime....Valloti is convinced that the whole consonant chord must come before any dissonance, including the note on which it must be resolved. Valloti applies this doctrine, this rule, but does so in his own way.........Then we have the privileges of the interval of the minor seventh.....which has an ambiguous nature, being neither a consonance nor a perfect or true dissonance. Many consequences can be drawn from this doctrine on the significance of the minor seventh and many chords in works such as Mozart’s ‘Ave Verum Corpus’ (KV618) progress from consonance to dissonance without resolving etc. It is an exact aesthetic, not a romantic aesthetic, which deserves our close attention and it helps us appreciate that Valotti was not another Bach, another Tartini, or another Vivaldi. He was, in fact, original and unique in his theory’.

    But decades after Kantner and Lindley pointed out these things at the Padua conference we still look in vain for other contributions from Austrian-German musicologists, by their Anglo-Saxon followers or even by Italians themselves. This despite the fact that Enrico Corbi wrote about the Paduan conference of 1980 in the Antonian magazine ‘Il Santo’ saying –

    ‘The most stimulating contribution (to that conference) has been the contribution made by Leopold Kantner, an Austrian musicologist, on the subject of Vallotti’s influence outside his native Italy. There is, in fact, a gap in German language historiography in connection with the part played by schools of northern Italy in the shaping of the first Vienna Classical period – that is to say, the so-called Viennese Classicism. In other words Kantner has shown that, in the sacred style of music, affinity between Vallotti on the one side and Mozart and the Haydn brothers on the other, is sharper than with the presumed contemporary Austrian models’.

    It is of course impossible to maintain that Mozart and Haydn were Vallotti pupils or were his followers. His theories were not known to them, perhaps even his very existence was not known. And yet a logical explanation for Vallotti’s influence on Mozart and Haydn’s music surely must be conceded. What, then, is the common element between these two composers ? How was it possible for both to adopt Vallotti’s typical stylistic features without either being his pupils, as occurred in the case of Abbe Vogler while he was at Padua ? It was Kantner’s denouncement of the removal of Italian influences on the Vienna Classical Period by German musicologists which helped me to pick out and follow the ‘Ariadne’s thread’ that connects, in actual fact, the three ‘sacred prodigies’ of the Viennese Classic period to a long forgotten Venetian musician – a musician who was a pupil of Valloti, to whom, in fact, all three are at least partially indebted for their success, albeit in different ways and for different reasons. I refer, in fact, to the last Kapellemeister of the Cologne Principality, Andrea Luchesi, born at Motta di Livenza near Treviso on 23rd May 1741 and who died in Bonn on 21st March 1801.

    It surely cannot be long now, before it's generally recognised that this obliteration of music history began in Bonn at a specific date. That date was 24th May 1784, when the new Prince Elect, Max Franz, could not help but note that 28 symphonies and 3 masses, all today attributed to Haydn and 10 other symphonies, all now attributed to Mozart, were in point of fact, productions of his very own Venetian Kapellmeister.

    I am grateful to Professor Spedicato, who has given me the opportunity to convey to the wider musical public, in this regard, the results of some 20 years research. It is now plain that Haydn and Mozart were never the great composers that many would like us to believe. Nor were they Vallotti followers. They were, instead, only mediocre imitators and feigned authors of the works of others. This is immediately evident in the case of Haydn, for, out of an initial 256 symphonies, his is today credited with 107, with not one of them his. Moreover, the same is as true for Mozart when we bear in mind that more than 70 works have already been discovered that were wrongly attributed to him, with many more still in the ‘pending’ file. It is clear that Mozart too must be fairly reappraised. //

    The above excerpts came from a work written by G. Taboga (only slightly paraphrased).

    I will end this post with a highly relevant discussion from the end of the same work, in which Taboga is describing specific works of ‘Mozart’ to a famed Italian expert on music of the 18th century, Luciano Chailly -

    ‘I should now like to refer again to Maestro Luciano Chailly, whom I have known briefly by correspondence and letter only. On Professor Emilio Spedicato’s initiative I sent him a copy of my first book, ‘Andrea Luchesi, L’Ora della verita’ along with some other material, and asked him his opinion on the reliability of the findings that I had obtained. I also informed him beforehand that I would be sending him further documents. I closed my letter with a postscript that read –

    ‘My last and most recently finished ‘labour’ has been concerned with the faked autographs of Mozart and Haydn, and has been completed only in the last few days. I was in Regensburg myself on 18th December along with a personal photographer in order to have infrared photographs of the autographs that I enclose as 28b. You can consider this study as a preview, about which I would especially appreciate your opinion’.

    (The above post script from Taboga to Chailly was concerned with the taking of photographs of a manuscript that is inscribed with the name of Mozart, a copy of the ‘Paris’ Symphony (KV297) now at Regensburg that has been written on top of the now erased name of Luchesi. Luchesi’s handwriting is found there in a familiar form that he had used for some time, and also as an alternative form of writing. Thus, the explanation that the signature was an error corrected later by the same person at Regensburg cannot possibly be correct. Furthermore, the original signature is that of Luchesi, and not that of anyone at Regensburg.

    Maestro Chailly replied to Taboga's letter with the following undated letter –

    ‘Dear Professor Taboga,

    I received your letter of 6th February 2002 and the copious material of Luchesi (books, records etc). Thanks. It’s a fascinating thing and I congratulate you on your tenacity and on your results. The choral pieces are all first rate. Among the symphonic works the concerto for harpsichord, organ and strings is the finest, and the first movement in C Major is particularly original. I will see what I can do because I’m very excited about this. .....’

    Taboga and Chailly spoke another few times by telephone. And then, on the 8th November 2002 Taboga sent Chailly further material - his findings on Mozart’s piano concertos, on the subject of Mozart’s singspiel ‘The Impressario’, and on the opera ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’ adding a note to Chailly to say –

    ‘In case you are interested I could let you have the scores of the two concertos for harpsichord/organ and orchestra. One of these was attributed to Leopold and Wolfgang Mozart in Venice in February 1771. Mozart was still playing it in October 1777 at concerts. His father and Nannerl used it regularly at Salzburg for the purposes of study and exhibition. As for the ‘Marriage of Figaro’, I have with me the poster for the actual first performance on 11th April 1785 at Frankfurt on Main. This antedates by more than one year the first performance of Da Ponte and Mozart’s work (1st May 1786). The Frankfurt performance has actually been known about since 1901 (Wolter) but nowadays no ‘Mozartean researcher’ dares to speak of it. It is questionable whether they undertake research to discover the truth, or, rather, to conceal it.’

    (I might also add that even in to the 1780's Mozart was still very much involved with this Luchesi keyboard concerto. He wrote a new cadenza for it in the early 1780's).

    The above is submitted to Beethoven Forum for the purposes of fairly sharing information to those interested in the history of music and to give credit to Professor Giorgio Taboga for his immense and often pioneering work in areas where, until now, reactions have tended to be either silence, or condemnation.

    Robert Newman


    [This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-30-2006).]

    #2
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:
    -On the Origins of the Vienna Classical Period and other Matters –

    (an edited version of a work by Prof. G. Taboga – first presented in full to a musical workshop organised by the University of Bergamo, 10th December 2004)

    'The greatest of many still to be explained mysteries in the history of music during the second half of the 18th century is connected with the sudden and apparently heirless end of the glorious Venetian musical tradition – a tradition that, in the first half of that century, had produced such leading persons as Vivaldi, Tartini, Valloti and Galuppi – this coinciding with the fatherless appearance in Austria of the Viennese Classical Period with its three sacred and largely ‘self-taught’ prodigies of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven. Few scholars have conceded to the likely association of these two events and most have assumed a ‘cause and effect’ connection. Consequently, the relationship between the two phenomena has been studied only superficially.


    This is typical nonsense - does he forget the entire Mannheim school (especially Stamitz), C.P.E.Bach, J.C.Bach? Or the Viennese composers Wagenseil and Monn?Whilst not denying the importance of the Italian composers and especially the Italian musical forms such as the Overture (which played a vital part in the development of the symphony), it is absurd to single out a few Italian composers as being solely responsible for developing the Classical style. As to Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven being 'largely self taught', that is just plain stupidity that doesn't warrant a further response. It is quite clear that Taboga is entirely nationalistic and anti-German in his whole approach.


    The above submitted to Beethoven Forum for the purposes of fairly sharing information to those interested in the history of music and to give credit to Professor Giorgio Taboga for his immense and often pioneering work in areas where, until now, reactions have tended to be either silence, or condemnation.

    Robert Newman



    For those interested in the history of music they should be aware that Taboga's theories are not accepted by the vast majority of scholars. This subject has been debated many times before Robert so I'm not quite certain why you insist on repeating yourself ad infinitum on such highly controversial claims? I suggest it is because you have become obsessed, and this obsession has quite clearly blinded your reasoning as is clearly demonstrated in the thread on Beethoven's early works.

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

    [This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-29-2006).]
    'Man know thyself'

    Comment


      #3
      Dear Peter,

      Unless I am mistaken the Mannheim school was founded on Italian models. It rose to such prominence under its Kapellmeister Carlo Luigi Grua (c. 1700 - 11 April 1773) who was (though you will not like this fact) an Italian. Mannheim adopted many of the very latest Italian ideas and it was, of course the Tonschule of Vogler (himself a pupil of the Italian school first under Martini) which further consolidated its success. It was a school (of which Bach's own son was associated) that was highly critical of Bach and of German models. So I think you really need to look again at this.

      Regarding Taboga's supposed 'nationalism', I think it is not merely the overture that we owe to Italy (or to those states which eventually made up modern Italy), but also the opera, the symphony, the quintet, the quartet and goodness knows what else. I am British and am clearly not being nationalistic, just fair with the facts of history. And you know very well that I regard Bach as the supreme composer in all ages. So, setting aside your view that this is a solely nationalistic debate (which it could be if people want to divert us from the issue), let us just try to agree that it was from Italy and Italian influences that we were able, finally, to arrive at a Vienna Classical Period in the first place.

      Nobody is saying there were only 3 composers in the Vienna classical period - on the contrary, that is precisely how it is being portrayed by those who cannot understand the Italian background to all 3 composers. It was of course Italian teachers who utterly dominated much of music in German speaking lands up until that time. But that too is not an opinion but a plain fact of musical history.

      If you would adress any of the actual points made in the article, or can find fault with them, that would certainly be most interesting.

      Regards


      [This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 08-29-2006).]

      Comment


        #4
        [QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:
        Dear Peter,

        Unless I am mistaken the Mannheim school was founded on Italian models. It rose to such prominence under its Kapellmeister Carlo Luigi Grua (c. 1700 - 11 April 1773) who was (though you will not like this fact) an Italian.



        Carlo Luigi Grua was Kapellmeister of the Hofkapelle - not 'the Mannheim school', which represents not an institution but a body of composers.

        Johann Stamitz (Czech, though you will not like this) is generally regarded as the founder and most prominent member of the so-called Mannheim School of composers. Cannabich was his pupil. Franz Xaver Richter (1709 – 1789) was a German composer, born at Holleschau in Moravia. He was one of the most important of the Mannheim symphonists.

        Your pointing out the blindingly obvious facts of Italian influence in matters musical is hardly ground breaking news. Your denial of other influences, German, French and a general lack of recognition that all sorts of factors were at work is astonishing - I repeat, to claim that Italians were solely responsible for the music of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven is ridiculous. I would not make such an absurd claim for any one group (or person in your case) and I would not deny the importance of the Italians either.

        You might as well talk about Guido of Arrezo or I might just as well talk about the revolution of Temperament under a German, J.S.Bach.


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




        [This message has been edited by Peter (edited 08-29-2006).]
        'Man know thyself'

        Comment


          #5


          Dear Peter,

          I presented a lifeline months ago in saying these things needed to be seen in their true context with JS Bach and his huge influence and his huge potential for musical influence. The Mannheim school (so-called) is said to have originated from the very year of Bach's death, 1750. JS Bach (that same German whose legacy is, without doubt, THE musical pedagogical legacy to students of music even today and yet which was specially criticised by the Italians and those who followed them). I have not wished to get involved in a useless debate along the lines of Italian nationalism versus that of Germany since, in my view, there is no possible debate. First, that Germany, as such, did not yet exist. Nor even Italy. In fact, I have specifically said it is NOT a nationalistic issue, and this many times.

          Can we agree with the Wikipedia definition of the Mannheim school ? It suggests -

          ' Mannheim school refers to both the orchestral techniques pioneered by the court orchestra of Mannheim in the latter half of the 18th century as well as the group of composers who wrote such music for the orchestra of Mannheim and others.

          The court of the Elector Carl Philipp moved from Heidelberg to Mannheim in 1720, already employing an orchestra larger than that of any of the surrounding states. The orchestra grew even further in the following decades and came to include some of the best virtuosi of the time. Under the guidance of Kapellmeister Carlo Grua, the court hired such talents as Johann Stamitz, who is generally considered to be the founder of the Mannheim school, in 1741/42, and he became its director in 1750.

          The most notable of the revolutionary techniques of the Mannheim orchestra were its more independent treatment of the wind instruments and its famous whole-orchestra crescendo, a stark contrast to the dynamics of baroque music, which allowed only for instantaneous changes from forte to piano and back.

          Members of the Mannheim school included Johann Stamitz, Franz Xaver Richter, Carl Stamitz and Christian Cannabich, and it had a very direct influence on many major symphonists of the time, including Joseph Haydn and Leopold Hofmann. Cannabich, one of the directors of the orchestra after the death of J. Stamitz, was also a good friend of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart from the latter's visit to Mannheim in 1777 onwards'.

          That the Mannheim school was one of Catholic conservatism (and therefore, inevitably, sure to be critical of Bach and his legacy) is easily shown, and from many angles. For example -

          1. Johann Stamitz - Jesuit educated
          2. FX Richter - Jesuit educated (same diocese as ancestor to Archbishop of Salzburg, Colloredo)
          3. C.Cannabich - student of Jomelli in Rome and friend of Mozart -(Cannabich himself a student of Padre Martini of Padua for some 3 years).

          It would be difficult to construct a situation more clearly devoted to the furtherance of a 'musical counter-reformation 'than the setup at Mannheim. That involved influential Italian theorists having dominance and later those Germans taught by these theorists - the very opposite of German interests.

          Beethoven breaks this mould (as had Bach long before) but only after a period of flirtation with the status quo during his early years in Vienna. And so Beethoven, like Bach before him, has no difficulty in a German music made by Germans and in a society where different influences were welcomed, German or not. In short, tolerance where, before, there had been little or none.

          Comment


            #6
            I want to know what Taboga's been smoking!

            ------------------
            'Truth and beauty joined'
            'Truth and beauty joined'

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Joy:
              I want to know what Taboga's been smoking!

              Cannabich!

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

              Comment


                #8

                Ha, Joy, I think we can and should distinguish between the views of Prof. Taboga and those of, say, myself, even though we are often very close on the same issue.

                If there is a difference it is one of emphasis. I believe that in the period in question (roughly from 1750 to around 1815) personal beliefs (these mostly on religious or dogmatic grounds) divided men far more than (later) nationalistic issues. Towards the end of the 18th century nationalism becomes more and more a factor - e.g. in the war of independence in America, and of course in the French Revolution, but, of course, for large areas of Europe, nation states were created mainly as the result of the end of those Empires such as the Holy Roman Empire.

                So the nationalistic arguments seem to me rarely appropriate when we are discussing the history of music at this time. The date of 1773 (the banning of the Jesuits) truly did throw much of European education in to turmoil. Such a view is hardly an item of dispute.

                But anyway, regarding the content of the article posted above, 'On the Origins of the Vienna Classical Period' etc. it will be interesting to see whether its actual content is the basis for comment.

                Cannabich ? Ha! Who could hold him guilty of that ?

                Comment


                  #9
                  [QUOTE]Originally posted by robert newman:


                  But anyway, regarding the content of the article posted above, 'On the Origins of the Vienna Classical Period' etc. it will be interesting to see whether its actual content is the basis for comment.



                  I have commented on it and this is nothing but a rehash of the same old Taboga argument that you have presented on this forum many times. Perhaps you have forgotten, but here is the link to your first appearance here - http://www.gyrix.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002035.html

                  Do I agree that Haydn and Mozart were mediocre composers? - NO. Do I agree Haydn wrote no symphonies? - NO. Does the mainstream agree with either you or Taboga -NO. Do I agree that the sole influence on Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven was the North Italian school? - No. Do I think this whole Jesuit issue is being used and twisted by Taboga to suit his own very suspect ends? - Yes. I suggest it is Taboga who needs investigating, his background and motives.

                  Honestly Robert why you persist with this on this forum I don't know. Perhaps, because your attempts to discredit Beethoven's early works blatantly failed?

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

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by robert newman:


                    Beethoven breaks this mould (as had Bach long before) but only after a period of flirtation with the status quo during his early years in Vienna.

                    You can't really discuss Bach and Beethoven in this same context Robert. Their respective approches to music couldn't have been more different.

                    ------------------
                    "If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
                    http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org

                    Comment


                      #11
                      [quote]Originally posted by Peter:
                      Honestly Robert why you persist with this on this forum I don't know. Perhaps, because your attempts to discredit Beethoven's early works blatantly failed?
                      He persists because you allow it. He doesn't go away unless forced. He fills other peoples websites with Taboga. Sometimes giving full credit to Taboga, sometimes sounding as though he and Taboga have made these "great" discoveries independantly, therefore corroborating each other.

                      Peter, you have MORE patience than a saint.

                      Hey Robert...
                      Why don't you spend some money on your own website ?

                      Steve


                      [This message has been edited by SR (edited 08-29-2006).]
                      www.mozartforum.com

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Joy:
                        I want to know what Taboga's been smoking!

                        Joy, I've a feeling that you're not taking this at all seriously. Now, back into your orchestra pit and pay attention.....

                        Comment


                          #13

                          Dear SR,

                          I note you have nothing to contribute in the way of criticising the content of the post that began this thread. I honestly sympathise with your obvious need to deal in absurdities or to personalise issues.

                          Honestly, the greatest discovery you are likely to make in these areas will be that of recognising your own ignorance. But yours is of a rather special kind - that which comes by you choosing to remain so.

                          Your suggestion that I 'spend some money on my own website' is a good one. You might try the same idea yourself.

                          It is not controversy that ruins a thread, it's the attitudes of those who have an opportunity to consider issues fairly but who misuse it to slur others without contributing anything positive themselves.


                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by robert newman:


                            Your suggestion that I 'spend some money on my own website' is a good one...

                            You may recall I suggested this sometime ago myself, and even offered to help you set it up. Of course it would take a long time to get the exposure you can achieve here..!

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

                            [This message has been edited by Rod (edited 08-30-2006).]
                            http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org

                            Comment


                              #15

                              Dear Rod,

                              I take your point. It would be tedious to list over and over and from many different perspectives the 'fault lines' in convention if, at the same time, people simply don't want to know of them, let alone discuss their implications. One must not publicise the fact, the actual fact, that, for example, The Marriage of Figaro' was in existence and being peformed at Frankfurt more than a year before its 'premiere' in Vienna. Such a thing is preposterous - if not for the fact that it just happens to be true. Just happens to be supported by documentary evidence. So Taboga must be crazy. This Newman too. If such a thing from hundreds happens to have been known but suppressed for over 100 years by 'Mozart experts' and if nobody wants to accept it, who is crazy and who is not ? In such an Orwellian world people (as Simon and Garfunkel said) just believe what they want to believe and 'disregard the rest'. That's their privilege.

                              Thanks for the suggestion. Thanks to others for their patience. Thanks to this site.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X