Those who Visit the Blog

Monday, April 06, 2009

Robert Newman - The Mozart Myth

Robert Newman - The Mozart Myth
March 29, 2009

Robert Newman has been researching Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart for 15 years, we talk about the Myth, PR campaign and lies surrounding Mozart life. Topics discussed: The Marriage of Figaro, How Robert first stumble upon the discrepancies, suppression of evidence, Maynard Solomon, 25 Symphonies, Enlightenment Thinkers, Voltaire, Russo, Mozart as a musical "Superman", His father Leopold Mozart, The Mozart Correspondances, Mozart as an Actor, Austria, Joseph the Second, The Illuminati, The Jesuits, Emperor in Vienna, The Holy Roman Empire, the Hapsburgs, 30 000 people in Saltsburg were thrown out, the Jesuit connection to Mozart, the 60's music scene and manipulation, Renaissance, The Wunderkint, The Marriage of Figaro, Idomeneo, Mozart's sister Maria Anna Mozart, Maria Teresa von Paradise and much more.

PART 1/2 MP3 FORMAT - DIRECT LINK

PART 2/2 MP3 FORMAT - MEDIAFIRE LINK

29 comments:

isdisasystem said...

Thanks for posting the 2nd half of the interview of Robert Newman ! Tis a little odd that Henry P. is in the "truth" business but charges for the full interviews. I kind of wonder about his highly passive, dat-mining style of interviewing. Notice he doesn't add much of himself and what he knows to what the interviewees are saying. Also it's odd that Vyzygoth was spurned after a time with no explanation by the Palmgren possee and Alan Watt was contacted to be absorbed by Red-Ice group by some mysterious British media biz group. Good disinfo is a mixture of false and true as I'm sure you know since you come from Norfolk, VA !

Anonymous said...

If anyone thinks that Robert Newman has anything useful to say about W A Mozart's alleged fakery they must be very limited in their knowledge about this man. He became very well known on the main classical music message Boards over the period 2005-09. Except possibly for the odd crank, Newman consistently failed to win over any supporters of his crazy theories. He was laughed at, reviled, and banned from every single Board on which he appeared. There are now no boards left to which he can turn. He was banned from each the Boards because his theories were universally judged to be baseless, and he proved himself to be a thorough thorough nuisance. He was even banned from a Board which was run by one of his friends, because Newman's continued flow of utter bilge was upsetting so many of the other members. Proper Mozart experts ran rings round him.

Anonymous said...

If anyone thinks that Robert Newman has anything useful to say about W A Mozart's alleged fakery they must be very limited in their knowledge about this man. He became very well known on the main classical music message Boards over the period 2005-09. Except possibly for the odd crank, Newman consistently failed to win over any supporters of his crazy theories. He was laughed at, reviled, and banned from every single Board on which he appeared. There are now no boards left to which he can turn. He was banned from each the Boards because his theories were universally judged to be baseless, and he proved himself to be a thorough thorough nuisance. He was even banned from a Board which was run by one of his friends, because Newman's continued flow of utter bilge was upsetting so many of the other members. Proper Mozart experts ran rings round him.

Robert N said...

Anonymous has come to the rescue of the Mozart myth with a string of completely unfounded statements. 'Mozart experts' - who are they ? And what, specifically, did they say on these issues. Surely, you don't believe a man can have a career for years on Mozart issues unless he has specific things to say ? But none of this features in your letter. And so we go round, and round in circles with slinging mud. Typical of the Easter Island syndrome, in which your landscape is dominated by great man-made idols which nobody, not even the Mozartean, knows how they were constructed. This is the island of icons, worshipped and given a place in the pantheon of secular gods. And when the gods of the state are challenged, for years, on issue after issue, what is the result ? Nothing but hot air. I again encourage readers to hear both sides and to discover, for themselves, from the records of history, from the manuscripts and from the sources themselves, the truth of this fable known as the multi-million dollar industry known as the Mozart industry. An industry which seeks to dominate, control and misinform us of the plain facts of music history. This at the cost of suppressing many, many composers from our appreciation. The stuff of fraternities and of blantant falsehood and wholesale fakery. As we have seen in every other area of human history - music history being no exception.

Anonymous said...

If your alternative view of Mozart is the correct one, why is it that you have completely failed to persuade anyone (except possibly the odd nutter) in the course of your escapades over the past 4-5 years on various internet classical music forums?

It should also be noted that you are not just raising doubts about the authenticity of a few works attributed to Mozart, but virtually the whole of his output you reckon was written by other composers. You believe the same in regard to Joseph Haydn.

The widespread opinion of all you came into contact with on various internet classical music forums over the past 4-5 years is that your views are extremely fanciful and lacking in evidence.

Talking of nutters, at one stage you joined forces with a complete loon who reckons that Mozart faked his death and re-surfaced later to continue his life with the same wife in some far off place. You lost any last remaining bit credibility you may have had when this happened on one of the forums you appeared on. You will recall that this partnership was formed after you had been banned from the Talk-Classical forum and kept returning under various other assumed names, but still spouting the same BS.

So, where have you got to with your book? Is it anywhere near completion yet? I gather you told the Swedish radio guy that it should be out this summer. Is that right? I am sceptical about this.

I trust that your book (if it ever materialises) will be giving a full airing of your views on how you reckon it was the Jesuit Order which was the chief architect responsible for faking and generally manipulating the career of W A Mozart, in part as a device to regain favour following the Papal suppression of the Order in 1773. From what I gather, it would seem that that you have a very low opinion of the R C Church, and Jesuits in particular.

Therefore I wonder if it is your hatred of organised religion which really lies behind your attempts to malign Mozart and Haydn, and that you are merely using their names out of convenience.

Robert N said...

Anonymous,

We really don't know why you are so hostile to a detailed examination of the life, supposed works, and grotesquely exaggerated reputation of the great musical icon, W.A. Mozart. Can you please tell us ? Is it because your musical universe has so rarely been open to fair and reasonable criticisms of every other form of study under the sun other than the 'Mozart phenomenon' ? I mean, science, and academic studies in general, welcome detailed study, new approaches, even challenges to convention. And why not ? But not the rarified world of 'Mozart studies'.

You cannot deny I and others have worked for years on this subject though you say we have never said anything that anyone has believed. Frankly, this is nonsense since we know our subject far, far more than most members of the various forums you refered to. The living proof of which is that to date you still haven't told us a single error in the Red Ice Mozart broadcast (2 hours long) which first started this thread ! At the risk of repeating myself, we still wait for a single thing said on Red Ice which you can show to be wrong. Isn't this getting tedious for others ? Please do us the great favour of replying this time to a question on that broadcast now asked three times in a row. Whose length was almost 2 hours.

With regard to the massive input of the secret fraternities of the Holy Roman Empire (who educated Mozart's father and who patronised various early 'Mozart' works in Salzburg) - who also included the Jesuit Order, The Rosicrucians, the Freemasons and various others such as the Illuminati of the Holy Roman Empire, you can hardly blame me for saying their role in Mozart's 'official' career (members of which were very major factors throughout Mozart's entire career) are a vital, important, and largely unknown part of making entire reputation. The ignorance of which is due to such facts, such close relationships, being watered down and often suppressed in Mozart biography after Mozart biography.It is a plain fact of history that Mozart was associated with the Jesuits from his earliest years and for many years afterwards, with the Rosicrucian Order, with members of the Illuminati, with Freemasons and with various other secret fraternities, and that these and their musical members had a hand in creating many, many musical works which are today attributed to him. Why, we must add this to the machinations and perversions of Anton Mesmer and others. And since we are discussing history (as opposed to sanitised mythology let me add that various other composers closely associated with 'Mozart's' music (including for example Paul Wranitsky, J.B. Vanhal and a whole string of others) were clearly associated with the career of 'Mozart' though the facts are again largely obscured, suppressed and unknown to the general public. The wholesale fakery, exaggeration and gross misattribution in the Mozart story is typical of mythology, which must continually be invented and re-invented. Wranitsky's 'Oberon' was the longest running and most successful opera in the entire history of Vienna opera. It has never yet been commmercially recorded. Why ? Well, let's suppress him too. So that he joins dozens of others.

The truth is that on issue after issue we see that Mozart was no 'musical genius' but the exploited son of a provincial Salzburg musician who just happened to have been used for the creation of a myth, the cost of which, till today, has led to the gross suppression of composers whose names are hardly known, even today.

The track record of ludicruous and repeated misattributions to Mozart is virtually unique in music history. But so too is virtually every aspect of the Mozart story.

According to many writers (e.g. Solomon and Eisen are just two examples) there is not a shred of evidence to attribute the symphonies of Mozart to him for the years prior to 1771. And that's just for starters. This outrage continues even in to the 20th century with symphonies such as KV444. At what point does the track record of such massive falsification and gross inaccuracy make you reconsider, at least to the point where you will examine other points of view on their merit ?

The Mozartean, frankly, is by my own experience one of the most ignorant sorts of music lover of them all. Knowing virtually nothing of the musical world, even at the time when Mozart was alive. His is a secualar religion in virtually every respect. Since 'genius' and buffoonery have long replaced common sense and plain fact.

I am opposed to dogmas, full stop. And in the case of the Jesuits, the Fraternities, the fantastic exaggerations and blatant falsehoods of the Mozart myth (these towering over corporate European musicology like idols) we can say, beyond reasonable doubt, that musicology is virtually under occupation from the priests of Easter Island, and has been, virtually since the founding of the Mozarteum in Salzburg.

Certainly, the enemies of free and fair discussion are dogmatists. And these I oppose with good reason. Since we see a world filled with only the grossest ignorance on the actual facts of history, these replaced the grinning foolery of pseudo-history and corporate exploitation.

Anonymous said...

You ask me what I thing about all the twaddle in your Swedish radio "interview". It was more like a monologue, and I had great trouble keeping awake as it was simply a litany of all your standard crazy allegations based on weird and wonderful fantasising about second half 18th C music, of which you are an expert in make-believe.

To be frank I only listened to the interview paying rather limited attention to the detail, in order to hear what you sounded like, as I know from lots of previous experience of your written statements what your arguments are. They have all been trotted out before, in much detail, spread out over a countless number of threads in the various classical music forums from which you have been banned over the past 4-5 years.

At all these forums members generally found your arguments to be utterly ludicrous. You wouldn't, or rather couldn't, answer pertinent questions to justify your wild assertions. Faced with such difficulties your standard trick was to ask the questioner to justify their belief in the genuineness of Mozart. This crude tactic became one of your main hallmarks, and one which caused most people to suspect quite quickly that you are a charlatan.

Several times you were warned to back off and stop flaming the forums with more and more and more of your nonsense. You never took the hint but simply continued to flood the forums with further threads, to such an extent that you were an utter nuisance and the Mods in each case had no choice but to ban you.

There aren't any forums left for you to invade with your daft theories, except for GMG. So why not put up or shut up. Here's a challenge: let's see you sign up at GMG (the only remaining forum you haven't yet joined as far as I know) as "Robert Newman" and let's watch how you get on. It should be very amusing indeed. Anyone else reading these exchanges will very soon discover with what very low esteem you and your arguments are held by the wider classical music community.

Any by the way, when is your book coming out which you referred to in the radio interview? We've been hearing about this book for some considerable time now. I suspect that this too is simply another of your fantasies.

Lastly, when I last caught up with on the Magle International classical music forum, were you not also speculating that there was probably something very sinister about the aeroplane that landed in the Hudson River a few months ago? I believe you were suggesting that the USA aviation authorities had manipulated the video footage to conceal something far more sinister than a mere accident. This shows what a “controversy” minded person you are.

Robert N said...

Anonymous,

You had difficulty staying awake in judging the content of the Red Ice broadcast on Mozart ?

You write -

''To be frank I only listened to the interview paying rather limited attention to the detail''

LOL !!!

Such is the world of men who claim to see but who are blind, right ? Who say they hear, but who, on their own admission, are able to pay only limited attention to what is being said !!! A better description of the Mozart cult and their dogmatists is hardly to be found anywhere . Please accept your promotion to a position of complete incompetence at the next Mozartfest in Salzburg !!!

In answer to your question, my book on the fraudulent musical career (and reputation) of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart will be ready (I hope) by September of this year.

Two last points -

1. The number of researchers who believe that Mozart's grotesque reputation is massively and falsely exaggerated is growing fast. It consists of musicians in Europe, Australia, the USA, and elsewhere. The number of ordinary music lovers who see no real criticism of the Mozart myth is vastly greater. So many, in fact, that you should stop avoiding the actual subject and tell us what things are wrong in the Red Ice broadcast. But you can't, can you ? I mean, this is the 4th consecutive request to do so, and we are still waiting.

2. In terms of the reception by others on this subject, take, for example, the following comments on it -

'Find out in this most enlightening of broadcasts who really wrote Mozart’s music and opera’s.

And why Mozart became esteemed as a legendary genius and composer, when he was in fact a mediocre musician less talented than his sister. Unmissable!''

Source -

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:041vuW0xA8YJ:chyldecatcher.livejournal.com/65520.html+mozart+myth+chylde&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

I could provide many others of the same kind. So, once again, your smear campaign against serious researchers has collapsed, even while you were dozing.

The truth is, of course, the Mozart industry, is an elusive and slippery octopus. Not used to criticism of its myths. Used to dominating cultures, nations, schools, the teaching of music and its history and no 'science' at all. The living proof of which is you, 'Anonymous', and your attitude.

Well, I believe readers will be happy to see every story from more than one side. Which is, after all, the hallmark of fair and honest research.

Most people these days realise that news, current affairs, politics, and many other areas of modern life are to a huge extent 'sanitised' and controlled by media moguls. The world of 'Mozart studies' is no exception. As we see clearly in these many posts to this public forum.

Anonymous said...

The reason that I only paid limited attention to your so-called radio interview was, as I very clearly explained, because I have seen the content before on the various message boards from which you were banned for perpetrating nonsense about Mozart and getting everyone's wick in the process.

When you say that your book will be "ready" by September, what exactly do you mean? Will it be published by that date, or do you mean something else? It could be ready for the scrap heap, for all I know.

If it is true, as you allege, that "the number of researchers who believe that Mozart's grotesque reputation is massively and falsely exaggerated is growing fast" why did they not come to your aid when you were debating these points on the various classical music forums? As far I recall, you were on your own and no-one, except perhaps the odd crank, came to offer any support.

At the umpteenth time of asking, you still haven't answered my question about why you are refusing to come to GMG to present your case. I'm sure you would be warmly welcomed if your claims can be substantiated by some persuasive argument rather than pure BS which has characterised your efforts thus far.

Nor have you told us why it was the case that you got yourself banned from 6 classical forums over 4-5 years, except to suggest that the membership and managements of those forums was ignorant. Is that what you believe? Are you suggesting that the treatment you received by the main body of members, and the Mods, was unfair? Surely you must have realised that your style of arguing got right up peoples' noses, with all your bluster, lack of response to requests for evidence to back your allegations.

On this matter, perhaps you could answer me this: why did Rod Corkin (a mate of yours, so I understand) kick you out of his Classical Music Mayhem forum at the end of last after you were convincingly defeated (nay humiliated) on your allegations about Le Nozze?

A major weakness of all your allegations is that they are not based on musicological evidence that Mozart did not write the works. The truth is that it’s not based on any real evidence at all, but is 100% conjecture. You skirt round this awkwardness by claiming that Mozart wrote nothing and was a mere receiver of work written by others.

What about the crazy arguments you were once putting out that an obscure Italian composer, Andrea Luchesi, was the real composer of several of Mozart's symphonies, and the composer of many of Joseph Haydn's? This is utter rubbish. How can a single composer change his style substantially and alternately to emulate that of two other composers? And what about the blind girl who you reckon wrote the best of Mozart’s piano concertos? More rubbish.

As for the alleged support you reckon you have obtained resulting from your interview, I suspect this has come from a tiny few highly untutored people who clearly cannot have delved into this subject seriously. They're probably the sort who sign up to a new religion without any argument in response to Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc calling at peoples' homes unannounced.

Robert N said...

Anonymous,

For the benefit of those reading these exchanges, I think it fair that you should at least give us some examples of errors in the Red Ice interview. (An interview recognised by Red Ice, by the way, to be such). You should also contact the managers of different forums. Since each of them (including Rod Corkin) will give their reasons. That's not my affair. The message itself is clear enough. And it was not palatable to the average Mozartean. Nor to those whose education consists of never allowing cross-examination. In short, Mozart studies are a paradigm. A circular world where, despite literally hundreds of misattributions, falsehoods, examples of works being blatantly 'managed' we go round and round in circles without appreciating the track record overall. And a biography more riddled with errors and inventions than anyone with critical capacity can accept. The net result being that Mozart is something of a secular religion. The very enemy of musicology and of fair, modern study. That this paradigm should virtually control music and the teaching of music history is testimony to the power of propaganda.

As for GMG site, I have little time to dispute this work or that work, and I do not think that the prospect of being banned, yet again, is any reason to join. Besides, I have no axe to grind against them and am hopeful, instead, that they might remain impartial to these debates/discussions, whether they are aired on their site or not. For one thing is sure - the Mozart industry have no track record of toleration. Nor any of accepting criticism on its long record of grossly misinforming its consumers.

In short, Mozart is a tired icon, and a pale reflection of music and music history as it really happened in the late 18th century -an image propped up only by the input of dozens of composers whose names go unmentioned and unappreciated year after year after year. A scandal of wholesale proportions for lazy minds, and for the credulous. The manufacture of a musical 'Superman' which, in plain fact, is only another myth of our civilization, though invented and re-invented in the name of culture and of music.

Anonymous said...

You continue to pour out utter twaddle. Even a newcomer to reading your material should be able to see that it's 99.99% blather and mere assertion.

You keep referring to the "Mozart Establishment" as those who are fighting to resist your claims. This is utterly ridiculous. The vast majority of people who have challenged your loony opinions on the various internet Message Boards (from which you have been banned 6 times in the past 4-5 years) are ordinary folk who are interested in classical music but who lay no claim whatsoever to being part of the "Mozart Establishment", whatever that it is. These people have seen through all your completely phoney arguments without laying any claim to possession of Mozart expertise. The vast majority of genuine Mozart scholars have never heard of either you or your miniscule band of Italian followers, and the tiny few who have heard of you treat you with contempt.

Returning to the main point, what is so incredible about your viewpoint is that you believe that a number of relatively little known composers was responsible for writing virtually all of the music attributed to W A Mozart. For you it isn't sufficient to question the authenticity of just some works. Rather you question the whole lot. This is where any rational person would have major trouble believing your story. Just think about the colossal practical problems of implementing such a major "con", as running such a huge operation, there would have been serious risks of being caught out from any number of sources:

(i) Mozart's students would have surely cottoned on that they were being duped by an incompetent person, if your allegations are correct. And yet there is nothing in this regard to support that view.

(ii) Why should all these "other" composers - Luchesi, Vanhal, etc - have kindly obliged to supply Mozart without claiming any credit for themselves? What was in it for them? Why sacrifice their reputation merely to promote someone else’s? Can you point to any motives? What evidence do you have that shows what forms of payment were used to reimburse these various composers for their efforts? Or did they supply it all completely out of the goodness of their hearts? You have been tackled on these questions before on the various Message Boards you have appeared, but you have consistently failed to answer any of them.

(iii) How was musical quality control maintained across and within all genres of music written by Mozart? This must have been a hugely difficult task, and one with very clear risks of failure. With the exception of much of Papa Haydn's work, Mozart's music is generally of far higher in quality than that of contemporaries. Generations of musicologists who have studied Mozart's music far more thoroughly than you are capable of would have been easily spotted any inconsistencies in style. They haven’t done so, and the last time that any significant work attributed to Mozart was rejected was over 100 years ago.

I am afraid that in view of the enormity of your allegations they are baseless and ludicrous. You have achieved nothing so far and you will continue to achieve nothing. But even supposing a miracle were to happen and your dreams came true that all these works attributed to WAM were henceforth regarded as fakes, do you know what happen next? You claim that the fame currently attached to W A Mozart would simply be transferred to these various other composers, with no loss of overall value. It wouldn’t. There would be so much residual uncertainty about the true authorship of these works that, more than likely, the whole lot would lose value very considerably.

Thus you have no more idea about economics than you do musicology. Everything you write and say smacks enormously of complete amateurism.

Robert N said...

Idiot's Guide to the Mozart Myth

1. W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) never spent a single day in school during his entire life. And at no time during his entire life did he make a detailed study of music theory.

2. W.A. Mozart is not recorded as ever having interacted with children of his own age at any time during his childhood.

3. The works of early 'Mozart' are so riddled with evidence of being by other composers that nobody, not even the most fanatical devotee of Mozart, can deny it.

4. In musical inventories made during his lifetime as an adult (for example, the music inventory made at the great Bonn Hofkapelle in the year of 1784) not a single symphony of 'Mozart', nor a single piece of music by 'Mozart' is contained in their report.

5. In the music books of the time written while Mozart was living in Vienna there is not a single reference to Mozart being a well known composer of piano concertos. In fact, the study of piano concertos made in a published study of 1793 (2 years after Mozart's death) has no reference, none at all, to Mozart or his supposed reputation in Vienna.

6. In his musical almanac of 1789 (published while Mozart had been 8 years in the Austrian capital) his list of works is very small, and does NOT include such operas as 'Le Nozze di Figaro' nor even 'Don Giovanni'. Strange omissions, yes ?

7. The list of patrons to the Vienna concerts of Mozart (which listed almost 200 'patrons' in 1784) are bogus, since those concerts did not actually take place.

8. Within 4 years of this date the list of Mozart's 'patrons' has dwindled to contain only ONE name by 1789, that of his fraternal patron, Baron Van Sweiten !

9. The number of public performances given by Mozart in Vienna during the last year of his life can be counted on the fingers of your hand. And even these were mostly as an accompanist.

10. The number of works falsely attributed and published in Mozart's name over the past 200 years is greater in proportion than that of any other composer in the entire history of western music.

And, finally (since this forum needs posts of moderate size) the number of Mozart myths are so many that entire books have been written on them.

Would you buy a used car from these people ?

Finally, the domination of music teaching, performance and musicology by the Mozart myth and its disciples was the objective of making this musical Superman. A project that, today, has successfully suppressed the lives and careers of literally dozens of composers from Bohemia, Italy, Germany etc.

Mozart is the FOX News of Classical Music.

Anonymous said...

Consistently with all your previous "outings" on the 6 classical music message boards from which you were banned for peddling nonsense about Mozart, you have yet AGAIN completely failed to answer specific questions put to you.

Here they are again lifted directly from my previous post. Please try answering them this time, instead of totally ignoring them and merely firing off yet more FLAK in a vain attempt to hide your complete lack of answers:

"(i) Mozart's students would have surely cottoned on that they were being duped by an incompetent person, if your allegations are correct. And yet there is nothing in this regard to support that view.

(ii) Why should all these "other" composers - Luchesi, Vanhal, etc - have kindly obliged to supply Mozart without claiming any credit for themselves? What was in it for them? Why sacrifice their reputation merely to promote someone else’s? Can you point to any motives? What evidence do you have that shows what forms of payment were used to reimburse these various composers for their efforts? Or did they supply it all completely out of the goodness of their hearts? You have been tackled on these questions before on the various Message Boards you have appeared, but you have consistently failed to answer any of them.

(iii) How was musical quality control maintained across and within all genres of music written by Mozart? This must have been a hugely difficult task, and one with very clear risks of failure. With the exception of much of Papa Haydn's work, Mozart's music is generally of far higher in quality than that of contemporaries. Generations of musicologists who have studied Mozart's music far more thoroughly than you are capable of would have been easily spotted any inconsistencies in style. They haven’t done so, and the last time that any significant work attributed to Mozart was rejected was over 100 years ago."

.......

I do hope that the Swedish Radio interviewer is reading all this, so that he can see how he was completely conned, and what questions he should have put to you rather than just let you waffle on and on and meander away.

Robert N said...

I also hope the Swedish radio station is reading these exchanges. I hope the music lovers everywhere are too. But since you have still not answered my own questions on the content of that interview (despite being asked 4 times in a row) let me show how you've been deceived.

I will gladly answer your questions right here -

1. The subject of ''Mozart's students'' has always been riddled with exaggeration and falsehood. The list seems virtually endless, depending on which source you consult. Was FX Sussmayr a 'student' of Mozart ? Tell us plainly. How about various piano 'students' who, in plain fact, were vastly more talented than he inluding Josepha von,Aurnhammer ? These 'students' are bogus. The same Aurnhammer (and not Mozart) helping with the early violin sonatas published in Mozart's name shortly after his arrival in Vienna. The violinist for their rehearsal prior to publication coming specially from Salzburg (the very place which had supposedly kicked Mozart out of their service in that same year !). The whole affair of these 'Mozart' sonatas stage managed by Abbe Maximilian Stadler as Mozart himself strummed away on a second piano !!! So much for 'Mozart's' students, a subject so riddled with errors and falsehoods that half of Vienna were allegedly 'his students'.

2. Why would Luchesi, Fiala, Vanhal, JM Kraus, and many, many others, all have been involved in the supply of music to Mozart ? Well, quite simply because the creation of the Mozart myth was the product of a project to create a musical superman, one who could be and was controlled and sold as the product of a genius of the Holy Roman Empire. And to which these composers and their fraternal associates fraternally contributed, both during and after Mozart's lifetime. So that the dominance of music, musicology, and performance could be (and was achieved) that we see today right across music. The manufacture of Mozart's 'genius' and the dissemination of his myth. Beginning with the Jesuit Order and with the elite vested interests from Augsburg, Salzburg etc. and including the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons, later the Illuminatists and others - all of which, to this day, support and sustain the Mozart myth. To the exclusion of a fair understanding of music and its history.

3. Music quality was controlled by committee. In Prague, Vienna and elsewhere. Including, of course the posthumous creation of NMA versions, the revision and re-writing/re-orchestration of many works. The blatant purchase of others. In the case of the church music, through Prague and the Premonstratensian abbey there, to where manuscripts came prior to their final publication. The symphonies by blatant manipulation and suppression of their true authors, and by their posthumous publication, often decades after Mozart's death.

'Mozart's' music IS of higher quality because it had the input and expertise of literally dozens of these same people. Nobody disputes its quality. But, even here it's a myth to say it's quality is uniform. You know, for sure, it is not.

In assuming 'Mozart's style' is uniform, we simply ignore the style of many of his contemporaries such as that of Joseph Myslivececk. Again, what of Vanhal's style ? They are remarkably Mozartean, are they not ? Or various others. Have you heard, for example, the D Major symphony of Paul Wranitsky ? Or works by Myslivecek ? These too massively suppressed. Do yourself a favour. Actually LISTEN -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj78iHzcXBk

The suppression of facts. So that 'Mozart's style' is discussed only in terms of the suppression of various other great composers of his time. Again, have you heard the music of Righini ? Ever listened to the great aria in a piece of his written in the 1780's in Vienna, ''Il natal d'Apollo'' ?

In a musical universe where all respect for the works of others is being suppressed, well, what result do we get except an icon, detached from all context, all fair and reasonable criticism.

Anonymous said...

In answer to my FIRST question regarding evidence from any of Mozart’s students that he was completely incompetent as you allege, you have singularly failed to prove any evidence whatsoever. In fact, to my knowledge, you have not at any stage in your long career of bad-mouthing Mozart on various internet classical music discussion boards ever come up with any evidence from contemporaries of Mozart (friends, work colleagues, students, customers) that he was in any way defective as a composer, or that he was somehow caught up in any fraudulent activity of passing off other composers’ works as his own. You have totally ignored the fact that Joseph Haydn, the most famous composer of his day, stated that W A Mozart was the greatest composer her had ever encountered, including himself. Haydn didn’t base this assessment on hearsay, but personal contact.

In answer to my SECOND question concerning what possible motive other composers might have had in sacrificing their own careers for the glorification of an individual who you regard was a buffoon (namely W A Mozart), you have come up with the same tired old argument that it was engineered by the Jesuit Order as part of a plot to further their interests. You forgot to clarify that these interests were allegedly to ingratiate themselves with the Emperor, following the Papal ban of the Order in 1773, in order to get back into business again. Apart from the obvious fact that this is clearly a rubbish argument, in fact it was not until 1814 that Jesuit Order was actually reinstated, i.e. 23 years after Mozart’s death. Therefore, the alleged Jesuit’s cunning plan was hardly a success was it?

In answer to my THIRD question about how the quality level of Mozart’s work was maintained across and within all genres of music, you say that it was done by committee. What committee are you talking about? Who was on this Committee? When was it formed? Who chaired it? What decisions did it take? Where is the evidence of its existence? I know you can’t answer any of these questions, as the truth is that you have made it all up and it's all completely vacuous.

The only conclusion is that you talk a load of rubbish, and I really don’t know where you get the gall from to continue in this fashion. You won't succeed, and if I were you I'd pack up right now and do something more useful with your life.

Robert N said...

What I say is Mozart was a medicocre musician of no great talent. But why let truth get in the way of your hostility ?

You deny that the reputation of Mozart was built on the fraudulent acquisition of works by other composers. Well, how long do you have on this subject ? 8 hours of conversation, perhaps ? Tell us, the Symphony known as Symphony No 37 (also known as KV444) was known as a 'Mozart' symphony until 1908. But it's NOT by Mozart, is it ? That's just one example, isn't it ? The 7 early piano concertos was falsely (and fraudulently) attributed to Mozart, several of these until decades after Mozart's death, and others until the 20th century. True or False ? Shall I continue ? With such facts (including the recognised FACT that hardly a single symphony of 'Mozart' from up until 1771 has any evidence of being attributable to W.A. Mozart - a fact recognised by many music researchers including Cliff Eisen, Maynard Solomon, etc. etc. etc.) what on earth causes you to be so humiliated in public on your ignorance of musical fact ? But let me continue. There are dozens and dozens of works which, today, are NOT by Mozart, despite them still being attributed to him. I have already given you various composers. The fact is that you cannot take off your Mozartean spectacles long enough to see the humiliating track record of this nonsense. Not a note of the 'Haffner' Symphony (K385) was recognised by Mozart when he saw it in Vienna - and yet he claims to be its composer. This is ludicrous. At Modena in Italy are the scores of no less than 9 symphonies all attributed to 'Mozart' and yet none of them were attributed to him in 1784. Including a version of the 'Prague' symphony which predates the one you know. This too never mentioned in Mozart research. Again, you believe (because the industry tells you) that Mozart wrote his last 3 symphonies in 3 weeks only, during the summmer of 1788. Once again, there is not a shred of evidence of this. It's hocus pocus. Yours is an industry of blatant dogmatism and of such suppression of plain facts that I hardly know where to begin in its description. The 'genius' of Mozart was not great enough for him to secure a full time post in his entire career, and yet you believe his 'genius' was widely recognised. By whom ? By the fraternities who created this musical Superman, that's who. You are interested not so much in music but in the fabulous occultic mumbo jumbo of Mozart. In the suppression of entire blocks of music history, of the influence of many, many composers in the making of this music, and have less knowledge of music during the time of Mozart than most lovers of jazz, or of rock and roll. Yours is a secular religion which, a century and more ago lost any claim to being interested in reality. But which literally dominates the teaching of music and its history. And it's time for this nonsense to be exposed.

I have already explained the motive behind the manufacture of this icon of western civilization. And it is simple to understand how the Jesuit Order were involved. For, are you ignorant that the Illuminati were created by a Jesuit educated man, whose godfather was none other than the Rector of the University where Weishaupt was a professor ? Are you so ignorant of history that you dispute the long Jesuit support of Leopold Mozart, Wolfgang, and even as late as 1778 when Abbe Bullinger was the man to whom Mozart, in Paris, first wrote, on the death of his own mother - rather than to his father ? The astounding ignorance of the Mozartean cult to a mass of contacts with Illuminatists, Freemasons and Rosicrucians by Mozart and his supporters (these including Goethe and many, many of his musical contemporaries) is laughable in the sense that you seem unaware of them.

The Jesuit Order were banned in 1773 but they worked tirelessly to be restored, even arresting the pope himself during the Napoleonic period and holding him hostage to ensure their own restoration. It was the Jesuits of Corsica (from which Napoleon came) who masterminded the French Revolution, as we see in the bloody career of the Jesuit educated tyrant, Robespierre. But these and a thousand other facts have gone over your head. And when, at the Congress of Vienna, the same Jesuit Order was revived (thanks to the machinations of their supporters) it still does not occur to you that Voltaire, Rousseau and others owed the Jesuit Order their own career successes.

Well, you are entitled to believe any fairy story that you please. But please do not ram it down the throats of those who know rather better. The myth of Mozart is an icon of your Easter Island. And we are not buying it. The accumulation of facts, the gross exaggerations, the mountain of false attributions, the sheer scale of fawning admiration and near worship of this icon are the stuff of infantile ignorance and the suppression of music and musicians everywhere. So says 200 years of music study. This myth is the living proof of just how gullible we can be, and will be, when our world allows no criticism.

Did it ever occur to you that people other than you know their subject as well, if not better, than you suppose ? That you are reduced to throwing mud, and this from your very first post ? This is the product of a person who is not interested in detailed and respectful exchange, but only in insults.

Look. The myth of 'Amadeus' ('everything you've heard is true') is the education of the musical underachiever, of the man/woman whose knowledge and appreciation is severely limited, and for whom the facts of music, musicology and of common sense have little, if any, place.

We may place Mozart in the same category of myths as Isis and Osiris, Neil Armstrong's moon walks, aluminium planes toppling 2steel-clad giant skyscrapers in New York and the garbage that is given today as news. Damn the facts of science and of history, right ?

Well, it had to happen. The inhabitants of Easter Island were finally discovered in 1722 by two Dutch crews. But in reply to the question of how their icons were built, and how they were raised in to their place, these inhabitants of Easter Island had no answer, saying, only that they had been there as long as they had been alive. We see the same repeated in the grotesque and dominating myth of Mozart, which has come to dominate music and its study to an obscene, even preposterous degree in our time.

Isn't it time that you gave credit to those who disagree with you ? Better still, isn't it time that you grew up ?

You can draw any conclusions that you wish. But take my advice. Do so after you have heard, in detail, the views of those who disagree with you. The world will then find in you a person worth listening to.

Regards

Robert N said...

CORRECTION

''Again, you believe (because the industry tells you) that Mozart wrote his last 3 symphonies in 3 weeks only, during the summmer of 1788''.

Should actually read -

'Again, you believe (because the industry tells you) that Mozart wrote his last 3 symphonies in 6 weeks only, during the summer of 1788'

//

Anonymous said...

Interesting response. I am especially fascinated that you raise doubt about "... aluminium planes toppling 2steel-clad giant skyscrapers in New York ..."

This suggests that you put the widely held on 9/11 in the same category of "myth" as the commonly held view that Mozart was one of the greatest composers. Do tell me more.

Returning to Mozart, why do you keep on fussing about KV 444, when this error was discovered over 100 years ago? I have already acknowledged this fact, and noted there has been nothing like it since then. It really is quite ridiculous of you to focus on this historic event and pretend that it is a regular occurrence, with many other examples since that time. At any rate, there was no evidence of fraud involved in respect of KV 444.

At this stage of the discussion, I should perhaps note that there may be other readers of these exchanges who are slightly puzzled, or rather confused, by the so-called "evidence" that Robert Newman has presented about Mozart's alleged fakery.

Fear not, as you are not alone. As I have said previously, all this twaddle has all been trotted out before, and in much greater detail than either here or in the radio interview. He has made very similar allegations about Joseph Haydn, the other major pillar of the Classical Period, but for some reason he has kept quiet about this here. Possibly, he thinks that if he included Haydn too in his onslaught this might make him look too obviously bonkers.

The general assessment of all those who participated on various Message Boards was that this guy has no credibility and is unbelievable. The view is that all he has done is to take a few facts about Mozart's life and weave around it a most fantastical story of alleged deceit and fakery. When faced with a battery of awkward questions, he either ducks them or at best only gives a partial answer. In order to take the heat off himself in awkward situations, he invariably tries to turn the tables in his inquisitors by demanding that they justify their own mainstream views of Mozart. And so it goes on and on, endlessly. Just have a look back at this thread to see what I mean.

Is there anybody else out there? If they would like some specific references to Robert Newman’s involvement in previous classical music Forums, I will try to assist, but it must be remembered that much of it has been completely deleted by the Mods of those Forums. Some threads do still exist, which are quite revealing about the tactics used by Newman and the generally contemptuous manner in which his opinions were held. As I have stressed previously, these people were mainly run-of-the-mill Forum members with no special interests to protect. They simply could not believe the enormous scale of the fakery that Newman was alleging, or any of the mechanisms by which he reckons it was perpetrated.

Robert N said...

Is it not true that almost 100 symphonies have, at one time or another been attributed to Mozart over the past 200 years ? And will you confirm that still, today there are works being published in Mozart's name which are simply not his ? Just confirm this, can you ? Thus, beyond dispute, the number of symphonies that have been attributed to Mozart is nearly double the number today said to be by him. And you want to teach us how to suck eggs !! This is, by any definition, the fraudulent reputation of Mozart. Of which the symphonies are only one indisputable example.

Can you name a famous composer who has been more falsely attributed than Mozart ?

Now, if we are to judge fairly, from the evidence of history and from the records of history, what will we make of the track record of the Mozart industry ? What credit would the manager of a bank give to a situation where more than half the cheques presented to him by a customer prove to be false ?

The musical underachiever is trapped in the glare of the headlights of the continually reinvented Mozart industry, plain and simple. Let's leave him on Easter Island and give credit to composers past and present who deserve credit, having been massively suppressed by this industry of chicanery, falsehood and blatant fraud.

A GMG observer said...

Could Robert Newman please confirm that he was a student of the Royal School of Music, London, between 1970-1974, where he evidently studied Music/Orchestration/Harmony/Instrumentation?

This information is provided on the "Italian Opera" website, where a photo of Robert Newman appears and lists this information about his musical background.

The problem is that there appears to be no such place as the "Royal School of Music" in London. In view of this could Robert Newman please clarify where exactly in London this "School" is located, and the exact name of his music qualification gained from this School.

This should be very easy information to provide. And yet Robert Newman has refused to answer the same questions on the GMG classical music Forum where is currently making a complete mess of his last remaining credibility.

Anonymous said...

In May 2009 I challenged Robert Newman thus:

"There aren't any forums left for you to invade with your daft theories, except for GMG. So why not put up or shut up. Here's a challenge: let's see you sign up at GMG (the only remaining forum you haven't yet joined as far as I know) as "Robert Newman" and let's watch how you get on. It should be very amusing indeed. Anyone else reading these exchanges will very soon discover with what very low esteem you and your arguments are held by the wider classical music community."

To be fair, Robert Newman did sign up at GMG on 18 May, and tried very hard to persuade the members of that Forum of his views about Mozart's alleged fakery.

As I predicted, he failed miserably. A very long thread - "Mozart a Fraud" - of almost 90 pages revealed 100% hostility towards any of his views. Member after member rubbished all of his many allegations, and in the end he annoyed people so much that he was strongly advised to leave voluntarily or face a ban. He left voluntarily today, 28 July.

Robert N said...

I see this thread has been cut down to 21 posts. For the record the last post of 'Anonymous' was replied to. At length.

The cross-examination of the Mozart myth is a valid part of historical research. And how can it be otherwise when it has dominated, and still dominates the musical 'education' of students virtually worldwide ? If cuddly myths are your preference, great. But if the history of music matters, I hope readers will encourage a view based on detailed study of the actual evidence.

Best wishes

Robert Newman
'The Manufacture of Mozart'

Hilarious said...

Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. Not Newman. I don't care about Newman. Not his assertions. His assertions are profound and I've read at least two articles which confirm his 15 years of research (which I think shows that I put more effort in 30 minutes than "anonymous" put in his senseless arguing)

So far, the only counter argument I see against Robert Newman in the past 5 websites I visited is that "he was banned from major forums." Whether or not they are esteemed is irrelevant. We all know what happens when a group runs the show :)

It's funny how the supposed "facts" against Newman's "allegations" are so emotionally triggered they can hardly presentable as unbiased evidence. Most counter arguments I've read of only dismiss and degrade Newman's reputation (or what's left of it) latent with some type of latent yet strong resentment. I wonder why? Maybe because someone is telling them the idol they've worshiped for so long is actually false? What was it that Erich Fromm said that could be so psychologically traumatizing? Oh that's right... something about false idols... when a person puts an enormous amount of effort in giving sacred meaning to an object or idea they become hostile to the assertion that the object is a "mere object" and nothing more. Mozart is a myth. Nothing more. Sorry esteemed ladies and gentlemen of said forums. You're just too defensive, and not enough substance.

Anonymous said...

Has Robert Newman produced his book yet?

Linnette said...

Hi,
It will never be possible to convince Anonymous.
Mozart is his idol. Take away a persons idol, and they are completely lost.

Anonymous said...

This is a fun page for anyone that's versed in informal and formal logical fallacies because it's just littered with them. It's like the Omaha Beach of unwitting sophistry. I don't know if what Robert Newman says is correct or not, but I do know this much. I will wait until his book comes out first before I vehemently dismiss his claims out of hand. Then I will compare it to what we've been battered over the head with from day one in the compulsory schooling system through what the media espouse(Amadeus,etc.) and I'm guessing I'm going to discover there's more in Robert Newman's book that mirrors veracity than all of the grandiose embellishments that have been made over the years about Mozart. Why can't people listen to something without taking an entrenched, intractable position? Aristotle said the mark of an educated mind is being able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Why is controversy so reviled? So shunned? so unwelcome? when dialectics is the only way to come to come to some modicum of understanding in regards to the truth. I don't know how many times throughout history we've been presented with a publicized version of historical events only to find out it just didn't happen the way it's glamorously portrayed. Gulf of Tonkin sticks in my head right now. There are many other if I really have to be pressed that I can think of. Being banned from mainstream popular forums and sites is NOT proof that someone lacks legitimate claims and evidence. Immanuel Velikovsky's books were banned at one point and I don't suggest you pass those up. The plates to internationally recognized scholar Carroll Quigley's book Tragedy and Hope were destroyed. Gerald Massey the autodidactic Egyptologist was egregiously marginalized. Ostracism represents proof only if your approach to life consents to the ad verecundiam and ad populum approach instead of examining the principles with your own discerning faculties first. Sadly our educational systems have deprived us of those critical thinking skills. Glad to see there are some people out there who still examine things before reacting emotionally.

Anonymous said...

I guess what it comes down to for me is...if the music that is attributed to Mozart is beautiful and you like it...listen to it...but since you weren't there it's hard to claim you know for a fact that he's the one who wrote it...no primary sources there...and if there are...in the age of manipulation with our high definition televisions...how do you know it's really true? it's like the Bible...I could care less who wrote the book because I know that it sure as shit isn't in the form it originally was...it's been redacted and emended so many times who knows how with the exception of the people holding the original documents or history of their manipulation...who cares if Jesus is shown to be real or if we have no evidence of it...is it his message or it the man that matters? I think living everyday with the kind of love that's attributed to him is all that matters...I'm not waiting for the sky to part and for some deity to come down and save me...I'm gonna do what I can and try and incorporate the message into my life regardless of what my religious or political views are...at the present moment I have none...if I like Shakespeare's writings and they happen to be those of Rosicrucian Francis Bacon's...they're still beautiful...the points of why they were attributed to Shakespeare are worth examining...but not to the point where we divide ourselves or where we can't continue to go on because the people we admire don't turn out to be as they are written to be in their hagiographies...

Truthseeker said...

I'll probably never know the truth, too many years have passed and I know that probably in my lifetime I will never spend time that can be measured by even a day researching the life and secrets of Mozart. But Newman kinda of has a point. His ideas, as far as can see and I just discovered this controversy, are perfectly plausible since these kind of things still happens today.

Cheers

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

The red ice mp3 links not working; but the interview is available on youtube.