I feel that I owe this board a fuller explanation for my posts of yesterday on the subject of Wallishauser - also known as 'Valesi' (the Munich based tenor who appeared in several Mozart operatic premieres even during Mozart‘s lifetime) and on Wallishauser the Vienna based publishing firm. Especially since one member here denies there was any real relation between the two and thinks I was 'incompetent' (if not disingenuous) to give the impression which I did.

The reason for this subject of Wallishauser coming up is that in the surviving copy of the German Figaro singspiel from 1798 (now held at the Austrian National Library) the name of JB Wallishauser is given to it (as has been pointed out on this thread). That singspiel score (as readers know) is currently the focus of much controversial discussion. It is known as document ‘A’ in Bianchini/Trombetta’s recently published book. It’s a music score which, by careful analysis of its text and music, can be shown to have existed even BEFORE the conductor score for the Figaro premiere in May of 1786 - a view hotly disputed by conservative critics. For these critics say this German language version of Figaro and its text was made after the time of Mozart’s death. Close to '1798'. Not earlier. Our view is this singspiel music and text actually comes from 1785/6.

I want to admit, at the very start, that I cannot, at present, prove by documentary evidence a direct relation between Wallishauser the Munich tenor and the Vienna publisher, JB Wallishauser. This is not critical to establishing the date of the singspiel but it does raise questions on my competence and on my integrity and honesty as a researcher. So I thought I would lay out some circumstantial evidences which led me to post as I did. Some of which I have not introduced before.

In my view the circumstantial evidence is quite compelling that the Munich tenor really was related to the publishing family in Vienna. This despite the fact that Wallishauser ('Valesi') is known to have been a famous tenor with a career of some 41 years on the stage.

WALLISHAUSER PUBLISHING - VIENNA

The name ‘Wallishauser’ is not common, even today, and you may agree that in the late 18th century the population of Austria was far smaller than it is today. So you can perhaps forgive me thinking the singer Wallishauser of Munich really was related to Wallishauser, publisher of Vienna and vice-versa, even though one may have been, say, a woodcutter and the other a gamekeeper. Or vice versa. (Neither worked as woodcutters or gamekeepers, but you see my point ?).

The second line of circumstantial evidence of linkage between these two was/is (to me) even more persuasive. It is found in the fact that the tenor singer Wallishauser ('Valesi') was personally known to Mozart in the late 1770's and was even a singer in the premiere of two Mozart operas, one of which included ’Idomeneo’ in Munich. Furthermore, the Vienna publishing firm of Wallishauser was certainly involved in publishing such things as operatic libretti. A remarkable coincidence that two Wallishauser’s should be involved in music that involved the circle of Mozart, even during Mozart's lifetime, is it not ? Remarkable too that in 1798 (7 years after Mozart's death) the name of Wallishauser was (eventually) associated with a version of the Figaro singspiel itself. And, for example, as early as 1790, and thus within the lifetime of Mozart (according to a journal article entitled (‘Mozart and the Theatre auf der Weiden’) reference is made to publication by the Vienna publisher Wallishauser of a printed libretto for a stage production by the Schickaneder Freihaus group. Here again is a remarkable coincidence.

Continued association of the Vienna publisher with music and music related publishing is itself plain and indisputable. Further examples are numerous and include -

1. Publication by J.B. Wallishauser in 1823 of a lustspiel in 3 Acts - (Augustin Moreto/J Schrevvogel) was published in Vienna in 1823

2. J.B. Wallishauser, as late as June 1888 printed the cards for the procession which re-buried the remains of Ludwig van Beethoven. (An event administrated by the Gesellschaft der Muskifreunde in Vienna).

That the Munich singer ('Valesi') continued to have close links to Mozart and to musical activities close to Mozart is also reflected in the fact that in the last year of his career in Munich (1798) he is known to have taught singing to the young Carl Maria von Weber. And so on. That same year appeared the Figaro Singspiel in the name of Wallishauser, Vienna publisher.

I do not have details of 'Valesi’s' career after 1798 although he ended work in Munich that year. I assume he came to Vienna and these links made me assume he continued in Vienna. That same year, of course, appeared the version of the Figaro Singspiel today in Vienna. Dated by the Austrian National Library as that same year. We know for certain Valsei did come to Vienna after 1798. And we know for certain both he and the publishing firm continued to have association with Mozart and his posthumous reputation.

For all these reasons (and many more) you may agree I was not being ‘incompetent’ in assuming an actual familial relationship between one Wallishauser and the other, men whose areas of work and interest were so intimately associated with Mozart and music.

I will continue to study this issue although, of course, it's not crucial in settling the main issue - that of the dating of the Figaro Singspiel and its text. JB Wallishauser, Vienna publisher, was not at any time a writer of operatic libretti and texts. They were/are, as said, publishers. With clear links to musical and theatrical publications. It remains my view and those of the book writers this singspiel and its text are a copy of the very singspiel used by Mozart and da Ponte to create the Italian operatic version premiered in May of 1786. The evidence in favour of this view is found in close analysis of the music itself, and in comparing it with the music and its setting found in the Figaro conductor score of May 1786, staged in Italian.

Figaro - Aria della Contessa
Prof. Luca Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta
http://www.lulu.com/content/2710313


Regards

Robert Newman wrote:

But I really must correct your wrong impression - where you say we regard this subjective view of literary value as 'proof' that it preceded Knigge's translation and da Ponte's Italian libretto. We did not claim such things and it's misleading of you to suggest so.

Mr Newman, you seem to be unfamiliar with the contents of your book:

Quote:

Questo testo ha sicuramente preceduto quello italiano, per la questione degli accenti e per la qualità dei versi, che sono una vera gemma letteraria [...].

Clearly, you present the gem-like quality of the text as proof that it came first. But as we have already established, you were wrong to make such a claim.

Wintersee wrote:

Robert Newman wrote: But I really must correct your wrong impression - where you say we regard this subjective view of literary value as 'proof' that it preceded Knigge's translation and da Ponte's Italian libretto. We did not claim such things and it's misleading of you to suggest so. Mr Newman, you seem to be unfamiliar with the contents of your book: Quote: Questo testo ha sicuramente preceduto quello italiano, per la questione degli accenti e per la qualità dei versi, che sono una vera gemma letteraria [...]. Clearly, you present the gem-like quality of the text as proof that it came first. But as we have already established, you were wrong to make such a claim.

Mr Wintersee,

Firstly, I am responsible for the English version of this text and not the Italian. I can only repeat that the 200 pages of this book contain a lengthy analytical argument derived from these early musical scores themselves including orchestral transcription of both versions (i.e. the 1786 conductor score and also the singspiel score) by two musicologists using musical and metrical proofs that the German Figaro singspiel existed and was used before that made in 1786 in Italian by Mozart and da Ponte. These musical and other proofs show beyond reasonable doubt which version existed before the other. They also show that one was derived from the other. The 'gem-like' quality or otherwise of these texts are of course quite separate issues. They are incidentally described as such because we had reason to describe the German in that way. Not as proofs in themselves of which came first. Indeed, the music and setting of the German singspiel is shown to have served da Ponte and Mozart for the making of their operatic version in Italian whether the German version is agreed to be of 'gem-like' quality or not.

Regards

Johann Nikolaus Forkel (1749 –1818), was a German musician, musicologist and music theorist. Forkel is often regarded as the founder of Historical Musicology, for it is with him that the study of music history and theory became an academic discipline with rigorous standards of scholarship.

He was a great admirer of Johann Sebastian Bach, whose music he did much to popularize. He also wrote the first biography of Bach (in 1802), one which is of great value as he was still able to correspond directly with Bach's sons Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach and Wilhelm Friedemann Bach, and obtained much valuable information that would otherwise have been lost. Here is his entry for Mozart in his yearbook for the year 1789, 3 years after the Vienna premiere of Figaro. Note that he does NOT attribute that work to Mozart -

'MOZART - (J.J.W.) Kapellmeister in Vienna since 1787. 'Abduction from the Seraglio has been printed since 1785. Since the year of 1784 have been publicly known several symphonies, quartets and collections of sonatas, besides concertos for keyboard'.

JN Forkel - 'Musical Almanach of Gemany' (1789), page 84.

Not only does Forkel does NOT attribute the 1786 stage work 'Le Nozze di Figaro' to Mozart but he does not even attribute him the opera 'Don Giovanni' premiered two years earlier in Prague on 29th October 1787. NOW THAT'S AN HONEST MAN !!!

Gary Smith of another forum has just posted what he genuinely believes is a defence of the traditional 'Mozart opera Figaro' for the consumption of the completely gullible. This epistle he has bombastically entitled, 'FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa - UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS - Part 4' though I must warn you it's more loaded with crude errors, silly smears and blatant untruths on this issue than even his first 3 poor attempts. Here is its text in full. I will reply at length to it on this thread -

FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa

UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS

GARY SMITH

Pt. 4

INTRODUCTION

In part 1 of this review, we looked at what our writers of the FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa tract didn’t do to attempt to inject a modicum of factual basis to show that the 1798 German language singspiel they have “discovered” dates from before the composition of Le nozze di Figaro. This “spurious” pre-1785 work was then, according to our writers, was “stolen” in part by Mozart and changed around in order to produce the opera Le nozze de Figaro, one of the great operas of all times. Part 2 focused on what they did do to attempt to substantiate their claims and the mangled quoting of secondary sources they made in order to attempt to do so. Part 3 took a look at what they apparently found in viewing the aria “Dove sono” in the KT315b volumes, which is the writer’s MS B. That they didn’t see the 1789 revised version of this aria was mixed in with the 1786 original version (thus allowing the theater to have available BOTH versions for any future staging) shows as simply as anything the paucity of research insight here. Part 4 looks at new avenues and approaches the writers have taken to supply “authoritative” backup to this tract.


MORE POINTS OF ORDER

First off, as mentioned back in Pt 2, it was mused as to why the date-challenged writers omitted to show the frontispiece of their newly recognized pre-1786 Figaro singspiel. Might be due to the fact that front page of the singspiel at the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Wien, has on it (among other things):

“Aus dem Italienischen übersetzt" [translated from Italian, ed], Wien : J.B. Wallishausser, 1798.

The date, of course, being a dead giveaway. Operas are dated as to their year of composition, or, if a translation (say Italian to German), then by the year this translation was produced (see the Donaueschingen Abschrift of Mozart’s Figaro for example, which IS in German, and is dated 1787, the year it was created [Tyson, Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Score, pg 288]). So, as one can see, we can document another small suppression of fact in the tract. This is further highlighted by one of the writers stating on-line that:

The Singspiel KT315 (MS 'A') is NOT the Singspiel of Knigge but is anonymous and without a date. Who wrote it ?

Since the title page of the 1798 German Figaro (MS A) does in fact have a date and a name (neither point mentioned in the tract, naturally), one would expect reasonable researchers to, well, explain this incongruity in their text. No fears; it’s not covered, in part or in total.

Further, the NMA Critical Report on Figaro (pg 75) doesn't say the text is BY Knigge, only that the text is "nach Adolph von Knigge". Which is to say from, or derived from, Knigge. Again, if the reader is expecting the writers to show otherwise, you will waste your $15.00US.

Following on to a previous Commentary, the writers have continued to hammer away at the theme of naming the KT315B2 volumes (which are Acts III and IV of Figaro) in Vienna the “Conductor’s Score”, on the premise that, if this point were true, this score (with the mixed in copy of the 1789 version of “Dove sono”, hence a pastiche) being inferior to the “spurious” Singspiel, would prove that Mozart was indeed a hack.

Now, if one reads the Figaro tract carefully, the point that KT315B2 is indeed the "Conductor’s Score” doesn’t appear to be mentioned anywhere. If one reads Tyson’s book Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Scores, nowhere does this point get stated either. Further, one writer has gone on record to polish this claim even-more-so that such a point is “…known to Mozarteans worldwide..” A source of such a claim might be useful. One is currently not presently found. As we discussed early on, the Court theaters always made at least two copies of a composer‘s autograph; one copy of orchestra parts, and one house copy, noted as the Hoftheater version. Many opera houses did use this single copy as the conducting copy; many others, leery of having just one copy available for such use and the damage or loss possible from such parsimony, had other copies made. Whether this partial surviving copy, which Alan Tyson himself dates only as from the 1780’s, is the “Conductor’s Copy” (and again which he did NOT so notate in his book as being), has never been finalized, to my knowledge.

That there appear to be some changes and notes in it by Mozart himself is very telling; the trick is, were these changes applied during rehearsals and then transferred to the master book in large, legible text (as one should expect?) Or, would you expect that Mozart’s smallish handwriting would be perfectly legible and hence reliable under candle-lit conditions, for conducting purposes? Certainly MOZART would know what was meant, but what about the succeeding conductors? Would they? It would be prudent to have a clear conductor’s score in large script for such occasions.

The main position of the tract’s writers has amorphously shifted around as well as time progresses. They were all for arguing details “substantiating” their position, until the details were all knocked down like dominoes standing in line. They have no comments whatsoever and stand silent on the quote mangling documented in Pt 2 or of Tyson’s showing of two copies of “Dove sono” mixed together in KT315B2. When one is nailed on the facts, one then has to move on to opinion, which is easier to try and defend. So we read:

“This issue is not resolved by arguing about playbills. It is resolved by examining the totality of the evidence, with the music itself as the nucleus of our study towards which all other considerations are focused.”

EXPERT “OPINION?”

The writers have apparently sought out other “expert” opinions, as they have attempted to show that the German-texted 1798 (pseudo-1785) Figaro singspiel is a work of great value on it’s own. “Everyone who has read this Figaro text recognizes that it is a German text of great value. A literary gem.” Now, whether it is or it isn’t, there are a couple of point to ponder. First, however truly well and gemlike a rendition of a play in the style of Shakespeare is, if it’s written in 2008, it can have no bearing on how well Shakespeare might have adapted it 500 years ago. It wasn’t available then, no matter how good it really, really is now. A 1798 singspiel with a wonderful German text is in a similar boat; however good it is has no bearing on Mozart’s work composed 12 years earlier.

Second, what type of authorities are “experts” that can’t/won’t be quoted/cited for their support? The writers note that they have four “authorities” from off the internet backing them. This means exactly what? What’s their background and expertise? Do they know all the context points involved, or are they commenting on a single stanza or page of text emailed to them for comments? Again, saying it’s so because one says it is so is hardly research.

Third, if uncited/unquotable internet “authorities” are of value, then I can call up six as well who, having read this tract, would pronounce it poppycock overall and poorly translated to boot . And, if the writers can produce 8 “new“ authorities” to dispute me, I have another 12 “authorities” in the wings to discount them. Proves nothing.

One as well could point out that the three writers maintain that this German libretto is great writing, ruined by the forcing of Italian into the prewritten music, but since none of the three speaks or read German as a first language (or perhaps in one case even at all), or mention in their tract which outside experts have reviewed this major point, one suspects here again that commentary opinion has been substituted for expertise and citations of authority. Certainly the vital point that they didn’t see the 1789 revised version of “Dove sono’ was mixed in with the 1786 original version of it (thus having available BOTH versions for any future staging) in the KT315B2 volume shows either a lack of musical skills, or a deliberate suppression of information on the writer‘s part, something they themselves decry at every point with others.

At this point, we might ask a question or two on backgrounds of the writers. As is found constantly in the on-line commentaries, the two Italian musicologists are noted as:

Prof. Luca Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta

When early on it was asked what they were professors of and where they were or had been on staff, the questioner was directed by the third writer to buy the book, the answer being on the last page. That’s a wonderfully open and responsive answer, is it not? You want our credentials, it’s gonna cost you. The ridiculousness of such an approach however, is consistent with the entire approach of the parties involved here.

If one does read the last page of the tract, we do find that both musicologists are claimed to have Ph.D’s in musicology, and have a diverse background in period music. All well and good; however, the claims are made that they are PROFESSORS, not people with doctorates. (I myself know of two people with Ph.D’s, neither of whom work in the fields of their studies). Despite further questions along this course, no further information has been forthcoming. So again, we have the writers making a claim with no substantiation, which continues to be par for the course of this tract.

The pastiche angle of all of this is as well telling in the approach the writers have taken. They claim that Le nozze di Figaro by Mozart that we know is really a pastiche work, with a path that starts with the “spurious” pre-1786 Figaro (composer unknown) that Mozart stole and ham fistedly rewrote/reworked, which, despite all the documented encores, was rewritten by SOMEBODY or SOME OTHERS (unknown), went on to Prague, where OTHER entities (unknown) worked on it, and thus the end result was to turn Figaro into the great work it has remained to this date.

Do you note all the unknown markers in there?

A pastiche musical work is generically described as being one that is made up from bits or sections from various sources. As is noted by the writers, they have NOT reviewed the totality of Figaro, their center of approach has only been on “Dove sono”, no doubt due to the fact that only in an older Abschrift (KT315B2) is there a documented (Tyson, pg. 321 of Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Scores) combination of material intermingled for this aria. By disregarding Tyson’s study of this point (by simply ignoring it), our “experts” have then gone on to contour up this vast pastiche theory covering ALL of Figaro, without exerting the work required to even rationally attempt such a theory. That would mean reviewing the opera in its totality, of course.

The writers are straight-forward in one respect, they state on the last page (the very last full page of commentary, pg 118), in the very last line, that they have determined, from just one misdirecting “analysis” ed.) that Figaro is (emphasis added)“…an existing pastiche, an ensemble of pieces from more than one composer, the names at this time are still unidentified.” Note again pieces, instead of piece of which the writers have in the tract of course have only looked AT ONE.

CLOSING PART 4

So we have, in the end (literally!) a statement intending to overthrow 250 some-odd years of knowledge and study, that one of the best operas written, one that has called forth high praise from non-Mozart proponents as well for its clarity, cohesion and innate beauty, is not fully by Mozart, but instead by OTHER hands. Not a single one of which can be identified, documented or shown, without any sort of reference to a single section in KT315B2, of which one of the deans of Mozart studies has noted to be of a very different character and background than the one our writers have laid out. However, the same writers hold up Alan Tyson as the “expert” that supports their theories (when it’s convenient to do so, of course). The consistency of the writers approach is glaringly obvious and it still in the end boils down to unsubstantiated commentary based on biased opinions.


Hold on to your money.


//

A SHORT REPLY TO GARY SMITH’S CRITICISM OF ‘FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa - UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS - PART 4

Gary Smith, a person hardly interested in musicology or documentary evidence, has just posted a long article on another forum attacking Bianchini and Trombetta’s remarkable book, ‘L’Aria della Contessa’ - for the 4th time. (See above).

Having already received replies to his earlier writings you’d think he would have learned by now. But Gary Smith is a Mozartean. He is preaching to the converted and believes he is genuinely rescuing them from error.

Gary, you and your supporters have not read the book, have you ? You show no sign of having done so and are discouraging others from doing so. In fact the book and its contents are quoted only in passing. So, once again, we must give you a lesson.

1. Gary Smith is good at inventing things people never said. He’s becoming used to telling lies. He says we teach in the book that Figaro was ‘stolen’ by Mozart from other composers. Gary, this lie appears in the second sentence of your latest article where you say (and I quote )-

‘This “spurious” pre-1785 work was then, according to our writers, was “stolen” in part by Mozart and changed around in order to produce the opera Le nozze de Figaro, one of the great operas of all time’.

CHALLENGE NUMBER 1

If what Gary says is true show us, Gary, where we say in the book that Mozart ‘stole’ Figaro. And if you cannot show us, have the dignity and honesty to withdraw such a false smear ‘quote’ and such a blatant lie. We did NOT say anywhere that Mozart ‘stole’ Figaro. Nowhere. YOU are a liar by making such a statement. Your arguments are so weak on Figaro you must now invent book quotes we never actually said. Yet you use the word ’stolen’ with ‘quote’ marks as if we have written it in the book. Surely this is as dirty as it gets Gary ? Is this the stuff that Mozarteans love ? I repeat we NEVER said such a thing. It’s yet another Gary Smith lie designed for the gullible. Because your entire argument is a pack of lies and distortions. You owe the writers of the book a written apology.

2. Gary Smith next introduces into his latest post a rather big admission. (He must be hoping you don’t notice it). He admits the Figaro music performed in May 1786 in Vienna is DIFFERENT from the Figaro version we know today ! He now says the ‘Dove Sono’ we know today was actually composed by Mozart 3 years later, in 1789. 3 years after the Vienna premiere, that is.

Well Gary, here’s something, for sure ! Why do you believe ‘Dove Sono’ was composed by Mozart 3 whole years after the premiere ? I will tell you why - it’s because the CONDUCTOR’S SCORE held at the Austrian National Library contains a much cruder version (one you don’t want people to see) - a version we have reproduced and transcribed in the newly published book. Gary Smith doesn’t want readers to see the CONDUCTOR’S SCORE from May 1786 or the Singspiel so he slips in this idea of a 1789 ‘Dove Sono’ as if it was of no real significance. What a con-man you are Gary ! And of course you don't want to see the Singspiel also, right ?

You can’t let people see the absurd music used in Vienna by Mozart in May 1786 because that would open a whole can of worms. So you tell people this aria was written 3 years later, in another form !

Wrong again Gary. Having started your post with a big lie you just go from bad to worse. Your Mozartean colleague Hansen now tells us the Mozart ‘autograph’ already existed in 1786. He even tells us the ‘autograph’ was used by Mozart at the premiere to conduct from ! Now, sort it out with him !

Our book is the FIRST detailed analysis of ‘Dove Sono’ from the Conductor Score of 1786. It provides images for all to see. It does not invent a ‘Dove Sono’ of 3 years later (for which you have not a shadow of proof). The writers of the new book show beyond reasonable doubt this Italian opera was derived in that year from an already existing German Singspiel in which ‘Dove Sono’ ALREADY EXISTS. But Mozart/da Ponte made a botched arrangement of it in the 1786 conductor’s score. That is why you don’t want people to see the music performed in Vienna in May 1786. Nor do you want people to see Mozart's work in that conductor's score. It's poor stuff.

And where did you get this idea of a 1789 ‘Dove Sono’ ? I will tell you. It comes from Alan Tyson. Alan Tyson did NOT study the Singspiel in KT315 ? We told you this ourselves. He was forced to believe ‘Dove Sono’ came 3 years later when, in fact, it can be shown it already existed in that singspiel. For, Gary Smith, you never spent a single moment in musical analysis in your entire life. You have never examined the conductor’s score and have never examined the Singspiel either. You are in fact little more than a deceiver. You do not even know the Figaro conductor score of May 1786 contains ample evidence of itself being derived from the already existing singspiel. Yes, even in its version of ‘Dove Sono’ (which is vastly inferior to that of the singspiel). Our book shows this beyond all reasonable doubt. But you didn’t know this fact either Gary, did you ?

Why don’t you listen to Hansen, who insists the Mozart ‘autograph’ existed at the premiere of May 1786 ? And what ‘Dove Sono’ do we find in the ‘autograph’ Gary other than a version PLAINLY DERIVED FROM THE CONDUCTOR SCORE AND FROM THE SINGSPIEL !!!!!

It seems Gary you and Hansen have some talking to do together. Mozarteans don't know what they believe. You are ignorant, non-musical, propagandists who have no idea what you are talking about because you refuse the simple rule of actually reading new research material. You are 'flying a passenger jet on which you have never taken lessons'. Your knowledge of musical scores, of conductor’s scores, of composition, of the sequence of events, is laughable. It's non-existant. And yet you expect the world to agree with you ? It’s amazing. And now, having a chance to read and study the newly published detailed analysis of two great musicologists, Bianchini and Trombetta, you arrogantly reject it and tell others not to read it. And your cult members will sheepishly follow you ! Shame on you ! But that's the Mozartean way.

I want you to know your cult is a small one. Musicians worldwide will laugh and be shocked at your attitude towards newly published documentary/microfiche evidence on Figaro. I hope and trust people will ignore you and read this great piece of research.

THE SINGSPIEL

In the newly published book, ‘FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa’ 3 early Manuscripts are examined. These are all early musical scores of Figaro and you are reading of them for the first time. They were all written before the NMA version was created. In fact, the NMA version is derived from them. These 3 Figaro scores we have called MS ‘A’, ‘B’, and ‘C’.

‘A’ - the German singspiel now in Vienna
‘B’ - the conductor score from May 1786 in Italian now in Vienna
‘C’ - the Italian score now in Modena

C came from B. And B came from A. Chronologically. That is what the 200 pages of Bianchini and Trombetta’s book proves, and this beyond reasonable doubt. But you have not read it Gary, have you ?

Do you know what a conductor’s score IS Gary ? It's the document used by the conductor during the weeks or days of rehearsals. MS ‘B’ above is the Figaro conductor’s score Gary for 1786 !!!!!!! It was used for rehearsals in Vienna. Right ? It contains the music actually performed at the premiere. OK ? It also contains many signs of being used by the singers and the orchestra during those rehearsals. Why don’t you study it Gary ? It shows the actual music used at that premiere. And this music, Gary, is derived from an EARLIER document. The German Singspiel known as MS ‘A’ in the book.

Do not rubbish this idea unless/until you have actually examined the evidence. But you haven’t examined it. The musical analysis of ‘Dove Sono’ (and other pieces) in this conductor score shows they were derived from the German Singspiel and were transformed into the Italian version of da Ponte. Argue with evidence but don’t deny its existence.

We now come to the actual singspiel document, described in the Austrian National Library as ‘“Aus dem Italienischen übersetzt" [translated from Italian, ed], Wien : J.B. Wallishausser, 1798.

And this, according to you, is a ‘dead giveaway’. OK, stop again, Gary, and learn something.

First, for your information JB Wallishauser was NOT at any time a translator of operatic texts. He was not the writer of operatic libretti also. In fact, JB Wallishauser was never on the stage in his entire life. He was a well established Vienna publisher. The company exists today. He translated nothing. Indeed, according to others, this singspiel contains a German text that came from an earlier German version by von Knigge. Seems to me Mozarteans need to make up their mind. Are you telling us the Singspiel libretto was translated from Knigge’s earlier German version or was it translated from Italian ? ?????? You can’t have it both ways, can you ? Once again, you have not done your homework, and it shows. Fools.

You are probably ignorant of the fact that JB Wallishauser was already publishing operatic texts during the lifetime of Mozart. Indeed, he published a stage work for Schickaneder at the Freiahaus in Vienna 1790 and a string of libretti publications earlier and later. But that publishing firm were NOT translators or librettists. They were and are today still publishers. So where does that leave your idea of JB Wallishauser as ‘translator’ of the Figaro text ? Do tell us, from da Ponte’s Italian into German or from Knigge’s German into Italian ? Such is your confusion on this issue.

You go on to say NMA Critical Report on Figaro says ‘nach Adolph von Knigge’ which is as you admit ‘from’ or ‘derived from’ Knigge.

Yes, Gary Smith. But how then can you say Wallishauser translated this text from Italian ? He clearly did not if, in fact, he actually made a version of the GERMAN 'from von Knigge'. But such blatant absurdities and contradictions have missed you completely.

The simple truth is in 1798 it was safe to restore the original singspiel. Figaro was now a ‘Mozart opera’. But it’s true origin was that very singspiel. Whose German is NOT by Knigge. In fact, during 1798 (a year after Knigge’s death) the text Knigge made was published in Bonn, by Simrock and Ch. G. Neefe. But Knigge's German text of Figaro is very, very different from this of the singspiel. Isn't it Gary ?

You make such glaring mistakes that it’s almost embarrassing to list them.

Look, Gary, do yourself and others a favour. First read this book. Read it under the sheets if you must. Beat read it. PLEASE. Especially if you want to lecture people about it. Further displays of your ignorance are not required.

This singspiel and its German text came, beyond reasonable doubt, from the time when the Italian version was being hastily arranged by da Ponte and by Mozart. So says the documentary evidence of musicology. I dare you and all who read this message to see the evidence for yourself and to stop making such a complete mess of something very, very simple.

So you see, once again, you have not studied your subject. Yours is a gut reaction without a shred of acknowledgement for the talents and abilities of musicology. You should recognise this fact and stop being such a bungling 'blind leader of the blind'. You are the laughing stock of the musical world.

Figaro - Aria della Contessa
Prof. Luca Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta
http://www.lulu.com/content/2710313



//

Robert Newman wrote:

A SHORT REPLY TO GARY SMITH’S CRITICISM OF ‘FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa - UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS - PART 4 … 1. Gary Smith is good at inventing things people never said. He’s also becoming used to telling lies. He says we teach in the book that Figaro was ‘stolen’ by Mozart from other composers. Gary, this lie appears in the second sentence of your latest article where you say (and I quote )- ‘This “spurious” pre-1785 work was then, according to our writers, was “stolen” in part by Mozart and changed around in order to produce the opera Le nozze de Figaro, one of the great operas of all time’. CHALLENGE NUMBER 1 … We did NOT say anywhere that Mozart ‘stole’ Figaro. Nowhere. … I repeat that we NEVER said such a thing. …

Short reply by himself, to a long "SHORT REPLY" from him.

Robert Newman (Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:34 am) wrote:

… That singspiel (with its text overseen by Lippert) was the hidden basis for the Vienna premiere, hastily arranged in Italian language by da Ponte and with its music stolen almost wholesale by Mozart, was performed in May 1786. …

Hansen

Hansen wrote:

Robert Newman wrote: A SHORT REPLY TO GARY SMITH’S CRITICISM OF ‘FIGARO L'Aria della Contessa - UNADORNED SIMPLE FACTS - PART 4 … 1. Gary Smith is good at inventing things people never said. He’s also becoming used to telling lies. He says we teach in the book that Figaro was ‘stolen’ by Mozart from other composers. Gary, this lie appears in the second sentence of your latest article where you say (and I quote )- ‘This “spurious” pre-1785 work was then, according to our writers, was “stolen” in part by Mozart and changed around in order to produce the opera Le nozze de Figaro, one of the great operas of all time’. CHALLENGE NUMBER 1 … We did NOT say anywhere that Mozart ‘stole’ Figaro. Nowhere. … I repeat that we NEVER said such a thing. … Short reply by himself, to a long "SHORT REPLY" from him. Robert Newman (Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:34 am) wrote: … That singspiel (with its text overseen by Lippert) was the hidden basis for the Vienna premiere, hastily arranged in Italian language by da Ponte and with its music stolen almost wholesale by Mozart, was performed in May 1786. … Hansen

Hansen, is there ANY honesty left in musical studies ??????

We are here discussing the contents of Bianchini and Trombetta's BOOK. Can you find IN THE BOOK any such statement of Mozart theft by its writers ? There is none. Why do you do this ?

You know, Hansen, you have a clear choice here. To read and judge THE BOOK. WHEN - WILL - Y0U - READ - THE - BOOK ??????
Figaro - Aria della Contessa
Prof. Luca Bianchini and Prof. Anna Trombetta
http://www.lulu.com/content/2710313

Dear Hansen,

You remember when you told me there was no Figaro Singspiel ?
And now you yourself are talking about a Singspiel by Knigge. And yet the text of this singspiel - is it the same as that of Knigge ?

but look Hansen this is Knigge "Nur zur fluechtig bist du verschwunden" and this is the Singspiel "Wo seyd ihr? Schoenste der Stunden" are they equal?

I sent the text of the Singspiel to my aunt in Swiss she is a great scholar and teach German literature, she told me it is a masterpiece and a literary gem;
I sent the knigge text ... and she told me ... it is just rubbish.

Now, Hansen, exspecially after your change of mind about the existence of the Singspiel, do you want me to believe you more than my aunt ?

Johsim

Well if you are looking for a genuine literary gem for comparative purposes, you won't find any better than this, in the musical realm at least...

http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/handel-l-allegro-il-penseroso-ed-il-moderato-t559.html

_________________
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/handel-semele-t668.html

Robert Newman wrote:

If what Gary says is true show us, Gary, where we say in the book that Mozart ‘stole’ Figaro. And if you cannot show us, have the dignity and honesty to at least withdraw such a false smear ‘quote’ and such a blatant lie. We did NOT say anywhere that Mozart ‘stole’ Figaro. Nowhere. YOU are a liar by making such a statement. Your arguments are so weak on Figaro you must now invent quotes we never actually said. Yet you use the word ’stolen’ with ‘quote’ marks as if we have written it. Surely this is as dirty as it gets Gary ? Is this the stuff that Mozarteans love ? I repeat that we NEVER said such a thing. It’s yet another Gary Smith lie designed for the gullible. Because your entire argument is a pack of lies and distortions.

Newman: seriously, turn off the computer (you seem to be on this thread 24/7) and take your meds. You don't sound well.

Jager wrote:

Robert Newman wrote: If what Gary says is true show us, Gary, where we say in the book that Mozart ‘stole’ Figaro. And if you cannot show us, have the dignity and honesty to at least withdraw such a false smear ‘quote’ and such a blatant lie. We did NOT say anywhere that Mozart ‘stole’ Figaro. Nowhere. YOU are a liar by making such a statement. Your arguments are so weak on Figaro you must now invent quotes we never actually said. Yet you use the word ’stolen’ with ‘quote’ marks as if we have written it. Surely this is as dirty as it gets Gary ? Is this the stuff that Mozarteans love ? I repeat that we NEVER said such a thing. It’s yet another Gary Smith lie designed for the gullible. Because your entire argument is a pack of lies and distortions. Newman: seriously, turn off the computer (you seem to be on this thread 24/7) and take your meds. You don't sound well.

Jager,

Read the book and stop telling lies. Nowhere in the book is there any such statement by its writers. Period.

johsim wrote:

Now, Hansen, exspecially after your change of mind about the existence of the Singspiel, do you want me to believe you more than my aunt ? Johsim

So, Bianchini, how often do you base your "scholarship" on what your relatives tell you? My second cousin twice removed told me that the Illuminati faked Mozart's music, but I know better

Jager wrote:

So, Bianchini, how often do you base your "scholarship" on what your relatives tell you? My second cousin twice removed told me that the Illuminati faked Mozart's music, but I know better

Well the scholars whom I presume you would respect are invariably someones relatives too.

_________________
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/handel-semele-t668.html

Rod Corkin wrote:

Well the scholars whom I presume you would respect are invariably someones relatives too.

Of course. But the point is, they're not my own relatives. If you have a scholarly argument you want someone to support, it doesn't look good if you have to rely on your own family.

Jager wrote:

Rod Corkin wrote: Well the scholars whom I presume you would respect are invariably someones relatives too. Of course. But the point is, they're not my own relatives. If you have a scholarly argument you want someone to support, it doesn't look good if you have to rely on your own family.

Well even I can tell Milton's ode is light years ahead of most other texts Handel got his hands on, and I have no literary qualifications at all. How qualified do you have to be to tell the good stuff from the pulp fiction? No need for me to call my aunt.

_________________
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/handel-semele-t668.html

Leporello87 wrote:

Settembrini, welcome to the forum! Would you mind elaborating on what you find poor about the Italian and German texts? I would be interested to hear your perspective.

I just meant that literary quality is not the proper parameter for evaluating the merits of a libretto. I wouldn’t say, as Boieldieu used to do, of a bad literary text that “it is only suited to be sung”, but I think that what in 18th century made a good text for music had little to do with the features which are usually associated with good literature. A libretto was good not in itself but for what it let to do, for example to ehance key-words, repeat meaningful segments, respect the conventional balance of static and dynamic moments, and so on. It didn’t have to present complex concepts nor extended arguments, as music interferes with comprehension …

From this point of view, the discussion about the “literary gems” of the Singspiel text seems to me completely senseless.

Let me make a few methodological (and logical) remarks.

1) The stylistical superiority of a version does not imply necessarily pre-dating. We could assert the contrary with an equal or perhaps higher degree of probability (rielaboration implies very often improvement).

2) Newman, and Bianchini in his book, praise the perfect rhythmic concordance between text and music in the German version of Countess’s Aria. But that was exactly what a translation of a libretto was required to be: a “rhythmical translation”. The questionable accentuation of the first verse of the Aria (“Dove sono ì-bei momenti”) does not regard the text, for Italian verse implies elision (“Dove son’i bei momenti”), but it is to be imputed to Mozart only. As regards this, Leporello 87 made precious observations which prof. Bianchini could profit from.

3) The German and Italian text of Countess’s Recitativo & Aria have very little in commun. Of course the situation is the same, but the concepts and the semantic references are quite different. The relationship between the two texts seems to be a very “frei Bearbeitug” (free elaboration) rather than a translation. In this case is quite difficult or even impossible to establish, between the two authors, who elaborated who. To obtain a result which is hardly plausible, the comparison should be extended to the whole Figaro text.

4) A deeper difference may concern cultural levels. Da Ponte’s verses are more sofisticated and subtle (e.g.: “dal mio sen non trapassò”, “languire amando ognor…”), while German text sounds more direct and naif (“für den Verbrächer”, “grosser Rächer…” and so on). Might be that da Ponte’s audience was aristocratic and italianizing, while the Singspiel was addressed to a more popular parterre? Have you take that into consideration in your historical recostruction, Mr Biancini?

Regards

(P.S. In my last spiritulistic séance I asked Monsieur de Beaumarchais about his opinion on the German text of Figaro. I cannot repeat his answer for I wouldn’t feel Marianne’s breath … N’est-ce pas, mon Empereur, Rod Corkin?)

Settembrini wrote:

(P.S. In my last spiritulistic séance I asked Monsieur de Beaumarchais about his opinion on the German text of Figaro. I cannot repeat his answer for I wouldn’t feel Marianne’s breath … N’est-ce pas, mon Empereur, Rod Corkin?)

Today I am your Emperor, tomorrow I will be your God... or maybe Sunday...

_________________
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin
http://classicalmusicmayhem.freeforums.org/handel-semele-t668.html

Rod Corkin wrote:

Settembrini wrote: (P.S. In my last spiritulistic séance I asked Monsieur de Beaumarchais about his opinion on the German text of Figaro. I cannot repeat his answer for I wouldn’t feel Marianne’s breath … N’est-ce pas, mon Empereur, Rod Corkin?) Today I am your Emperor, tomorrow I will be your God... or maybe Sunday...

But won't you be resting on Sunday?

_________________
"No one achieves frivolity straight off. It is a privilege and an art;" - E M Cioran

Interesting comments, Settembrini, thank you for elaborating.

Robert, today I opened the italianopera.org website and chanced upon some MIDI-ized mp3 version of the "Aria manoscritta da cui Mozart ha copiato," but there were discrepancies between that file and the score printed at the Appendix of the TB(N) Booklet. Which record of MS A is the correct one, or is there yet another document hiding somewhere?