Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - anything strange there?

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
308
Reactions
613
Can you provide one example? It would help me to understand where "all blacks are the same race and all whites are the same race" comes from. Maybe I'm misunderstanding :)
I tried, mis'under'standing is mutual here. we work with what we have, in this case its the written word so it often reads different than it writes. I will PM ya though when I come across anything more specific. I plan to read more and have dloaded your newer lore/laws. more interested in the original direction you were on about though.
 

Qmeta

Active member
Messages
76
Reactions
128
It may be that Mozart was credited with the work of another for racial (or other) reasons. Is there more or other evidence of that claim?
First, we look for evidence of deception.

Very few of us (humans) care about evidence. There's too much cognitive dissonance for people to believe anything other than what is commonly-accepted.

It doesn't matter, for example, that Edison didn't actually invent the lightbulb. Once people have something in their heads it becomes 'fact' and no amount of evidence can change their thinking.

I think for most of this stuff it's better to move beyond evidence and focus on the deception, instead. Evidence can be fabricated, and often is. It's a rabbit hole with no end. We could spend years, for example, on evidence for the events of 9-11 (and have) with no resolution whatsoever. It seems to be what the 'masters of deception' want us to do, because it wastes our time and gets us to focus away from the deception.

Imagine the millions of hours that people have wasted on 9-11 evidence. Now multiply that by all of the deception going on over the past 500 years, in every corner of society.

For me, it's about showing how we are deceived, even today. This way, we can recognize it when we see it and begin to make different choices as we see more of the big picture.

Personally, I don't care who Mozart was. But to anyone that actually knows Mozart's work and can employ some critical thinking I think the deception is obvious, and points to deception being the rule rather than the exception.
I tried, mis'under'standing is mutual here. we work with what we have, in this case its the written word so it often reads different than it writes. I will PM ya though when I come across anything more specific. I plan to read more and have dloaded your newer lore/laws. more interested in the original direction you were on about though.
It doesn't need to be specific. Any kind of evidence or example at all would be fine :coffee:

(I'm afraid the misunderstanding is only on one side, though. Mine was a question.)

Still on the same direction, though.
 
Last edited:

welkyn

Active member
Messages
36
Reactions
119
Saint-Georges's pieces are definitely distinguishable from what we call "Mozart". There's a different tone to the composition - the emotional themes being drawn from are different, so the end result is different. Technically it's the same school of "Classical" classical: post-Baroque, pre-Romantic - ergo the similarity in technique. Emotionally, Saint-Georges is quite different (and arguably better).

"Mozart" definitely listened to Saint-Georges and/or read his pieces; that the two are the same, seems unlikely, given that the "powers that be" tend to be inept when it comes to doing such a switcheroo properly. This would have to be the first time that they had managed to accurately select a composite body of works distinct enough from its original corpus to be recognisably different - different enough to seem like a different creator. "Mozart" sounds like "Mozart", with all "his" variation; Saint-Georges sound likes Saint-Georges, with all his variation; the two overlap, but do not equate to one another.

As far as the racial debate goes, it would seem that plenty enough people in both Europe and America had no problem with the fame and prosperity of Saint-Georges at the time - though I can certainly see certain 19th century sentiments creeping in to usher him out of the limelight, in favour of a (real? Made up?) German figure. The nature of the identity of Mozart is up for question, as far as I'm concerned - the idea that he's a mask for Saint-Georges is untenable, in my view, from even a cursory examination of the music. It's a little bit like saying that Iron Maiden and Judas Priest are the same band because they both play heavy metal - it just isn't true.
 

Qmeta

Active member
Messages
76
Reactions
128
It's a little bit like saying that Iron Maiden and Judas Priest are the same band because they both play heavy metal - it just isn't true.
Not at all like this, as you know. That would be the false equivalence logical fallacy.

Only one of them taught music to the King's wife, but both were in Paris at the same time and they bought taught music.

Mozart was relatively unknown, it would seem. It would also seem that Saint-Georges was the real prodigy between the two (actor, swordsman, general, composer)

I wonder how much cognitive dissonance prevents us from seeing 'stolen history' related topics for what they are. I don't mean with this specifically, but somehow I thought about 'dissonance' related to classical pieces.
 

welkyn

Active member
Messages
36
Reactions
119
Saint-Georges was definitely better known and better respected in his time; if "Mozart" ever came to prominence, it would've been after, and in spite of Saint-Georges's popularity. That's still not quite the same as the two being the same person.

Not at all like this, as you know. That would be the false equivalence logical fallacy.
Analogy =/= false equivalence. False equivalence would be saying "Mozart and Saint-Georges both wrote classical music in the 18th century, so clearly they're the same person." Or, "Mozart and Saint-Georges were both in Paris at the same time - clearly there's no difference between them."
 

Qmeta

Active member
Messages
76
Reactions
128
Saint-Georges was definitely better known and better respected in his time; if "Mozart" ever came to prominence, it would've been after, and in spite of Saint-Georges's popularity. That's still not quite the same as the two being the same person.

Analogy =/= false equivalence. False equivalence would be saying "Mozart and Saint-Georges both wrote classical music in the 18th century, so clearly they're the same person." Or, "Mozart and Saint-Georges were both in Paris at the same time - clearly there's no difference between them."
We love a good tune, don't we folks?
 

CurvedBullet

New member
Messages
11
Reactions
16
I was going to bring this artists up as well. Let's not overlook the "Moors" of Europe and their influence in architecture, the arts, math, music etc. "The Golden Age of The Moors" is a good read.
 

welkyn

Active member
Messages
36
Reactions
119
There is a theory out there that Mozart never existed and the music attributed to him came from many different composers.
This is in line with my thinking - have you found any decent research in this direction?
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
414
Reactions
2,044
My suspicion is that most lone geniuses (especially pre-1700) did not exist in the way protrayed. The distance from the supposed average person back then is just too much. Doesn't make sense to have this kind of high culture but then the majority of people living in mud without ability to read, etc.

Either a culture supports this kind of music in general, but then it produces lots of Mozarts, or it doesn't, but then it produces none.
 

CurvedBullet

New member
Messages
11
Reactions
16
My suspicion is that most lone geniuses (especially pre-1700) did not exist in the way protrayed. The distance from the supposed average person back then is just too much. Doesn't make sense to have this kind of high culture but then the majority of people living in mud without ability to read, etc.

Either a culture supports this kind of music in general, but then it produces lots of Mozarts, or it doesn't, but then it produces none.
...unless...there were converging worlds and the narrative of the high culture was promoted as the norm or more commonplace.
 

Top