(Meistermusik and The Masonic Funeral Music) 


                                   General Information


                                                Last Updated on February 16th, 2016

                                                Minor Update November 13th, 2016     




                                      Some Links


                          Description and Basic Theory of Meistermusik

                          First Performances


                          Spy Report     



       For an analysis of the notes, words, syllables, phrases, and meaning of

       Meistermusik, see the main Meistermusik Page, topic "Phrase Analysis",

       illustrating that the text and music fit together perfectly, and the words

       match the Ceremonial Function.  



       Short Preview of This Paper:

    * The Masonic Funeral Music, which contains no Vocal Music, contains strong

       evidence of a Vocal Music Predecessor. 

       We call that Predecessor Meistermusik.


    * That Predecessor matches words, syllables, and phrases of some Masonic

       text perfectly, and the text matches Masonic beliefs perfectly, making it a

       certainty that the music/text linkage of 38 notes and syllables is intentional,

       and making it highly probable that it was written as a vocal/choral piece.

       In other words, overlaying certain Masonic text onto The Masonic Funeral

       Music creates a Vocal piece in which all the words, syllables and phrases

       match the notes and musical phrases EXACTLY. 


    * The melody sung by the chorus in the Vocal Predecessor matches the melody

       used in the Catholic Liturgy when referring to the Biblical character adopted

       by the Freemasons for use in their beliefs and rituals. 


    * The choral melody is a Gregorian Chant - normally sung by male voices.


    * The Gregorian Chant is in a "Cantus Firmus" style, as usual.

       "Cantus Firmus" normally applies to a style of singing, not instrumental



    * That same melody is present in The Masonic Funeral Music, though not sung.


    * The Masonic Funeral Music is apparently an instrumental version of a Vocal



    *  If the Masonic text were overlaid onto The Masonic Funeral Music, we

       would have Meistermusik, almost exactly. 


    * Meistermusik, with its words, melody, and ritualistic purpose, is Funereal in

       nature (related to the death of an Ancient man), and The Masonic Funeral

       Music is also Funereal in nature, given its name by Mozart, meaning that the

       two pieces serve identical ritualistic purposes, namely "A Funeral" or

       "A Memorial Service".  

       At least OFFICIALLY.

       Both Pieces may have been composed for additional, PERSONAL reasons,

       but their Official reasons were Identical: Funeral Music.     


   *  The Masonic Funeral Music (the MFM) seems to be a huge over-delivery of

       pathos and passion for the deaths of 2 Aristocrats, regardless of their high

       social positions - a factor unrelated to emotional feelings of sadness and


       (Their Personalities - not their high social positions - could give rise to

       emotional feelings about their deaths. Was there something about their

       Personalities that would engender sadness and grieving at their deaths??

       Was Mozart aware of such factors??  Did Mozart even KNOW these men??

       He might have known Esterhazy (the Lodge Master from a wealthy family),

       but did he know Mecklenburg?? 

       I'm not aware of any such feelings on Mozart's part.)  

       Thus, the MFM appears to have additional meanings, or a hidden history,

       beyond its official meaning of "Funeral Music for 2 Masonic Aristocrats". 

       It feels far too deep and intense to mark the passing of 2 Rich Guys. 

       This might be caused by Mozart's use of a Predecessor Piece which DID have

       deep and intense feelings associated with it, and for a combination of reasons

       was felt to be appropriate and practical for the occasion, and possibly

       appropriate for Mozart's emotional state at the time. 


   *  Mozart hid and camouflaged Meistermusik in his Catalog, employing some

       clever "Cryptography", but gave us strong hints of its existence.


   *  Mozart did not log The MFM under "July" or "July xx" (month and day)

       in his Catalog.

       He logged it in using the phrase "In the month of July" and did not list

       a day of the month.  


       Since the last entry on the previous page is for the 8th of June - still early

       June, it seems unlikely that Mozart started a new page assuming that the

       next piece would be written in July (with 22 days still remaining in June),

       and created an unusual heading of  "In the month of July" in preparation

       for the next piece.

       It makes no sense, meaning that the verbiage he used was not a clerical

       error or assumption, it was intentional, the wording was unusual for some 

       reason, and it applied to the MFM - the first entry.  


       Additionally, "In the month of July" was used as a HEADING for pieces

       written in July - a most unusual style. 

       Mozart did not use "Month" headings in his Catalog, with pieces listed

       under that month, except for this ONE time.  He normally always listed a

       Piece with that month.

       This strange entry deserves analysis.  

       With 22 days remaining in June since the last entry, I doubt that Mozart

       turned the page and wrote "In the month of July" for whatever piece he

       wrote next, assuming it would be in July, blowing off the rest of June. 

       Nor would he "Forget" that this unique heading, staring him in the face,

       was "July".

       How can you Forget something that you're LOOKING AT??


       The "July" heading is on a new page, at the top of the page.

       "In the Month of July".

       Then The Masonic Funeral Music. No date.  

       Then "detto" (ditto) for a piece. No date. Autograph: October.

       Then November for a piece.  5 November.

       Then November again for a piece.  21 November.

       Then December for a piece.  12 December.

       (These entries were made in November or later, since the 2 Aristocrats died

        in early November, and the MFM was written for them.) 


       Why did he write "July" if he didn't have anything to enter??

       (He never did that). 

       Why did he write "July" with 22 days remaining in June since the last entry??  

       (Because he MEANT July.)    

       Note that there's no date attached to the "July" heading or to the MFM or

       the next piece.

       Just the month.


       "July" means "The first VERSION was completed in the month of July,

       and there was something special about the month of July ". 


   *  If Mozart made a Mistake with his "July" entry for the MFM, note that he

       never corrected it.  He never changed "July" to "November", even though

       November was actually the month when he wrote it - at least when he wrote

       that Version of the Piece. 


   *  Mozart's normal practice for logging in pieces in his Catalog was to list the

       month and day for a piece, or a heading of the month and day for a piece,

       with just the day entered for all the following pieces composed during that


       He never created a "Month" heading, except for the July-1785 pieces with

       the MFM listed under that heading.  This was not his normal practice.

       There was something very SPECIAL about the month of July.

       It might have been Good, it might have been Bad, it might have been Traumatic,

       it might have been Horrible, it might have been recent, and it might have been

       old, but it was Special and Unusual - at least for July of 1785.  


   *  Mistake-ology is not a science.

       They don't teach the subject of Mistake-ology because there's nothing

       to teach.  

       It often involves Guesswork, attempted Mind-Reading, Shooting from the

       Hip, and even Kneejerk reactions, depending on the issue and the depth of

       information available. 

       Asserting that something is a "Mistake" requires evidence, just like any

       other claim, and should be accompanied by some Psychological explanation

       involving either typical human behavior, or known factors influencing

       Mozart's behavior. 

       There's nothing wrong with pointing out a Mistake if it's genuinely obvious

       (and everyone probably already sees it) or it can be proven, or weighty

       evidence submitted.   

       Mistakes should be noted and hopefully, corrected. 

       But with no evidence, and with the possibility of exculpating reasons or

       explanations, the claim of a Mistake is just another empty claim.   


   *  Several other pieces composed during that same year (1785) add up to a

       stressful, romantic, frustrating, desperate time for Mozart, which might also

       have found expression in Meistermusik and The Masonic Funeral Music. 

       These selected pieces from 1785 are called "The Collection" in this paper. 


   *  Mozart was not the only composer to write music possibly related to the death

       of a child. It's believed that Michael Haydn, Mozart's friend, did the same thing

       years earlier. 


   *  Some of the music in The Masonic Funeral Music (and Meistermusik) was

       OLD music - 200 years old, which was a Gregorian Chant created by the

       Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in the 1500's, and sung by Catholic

       Congregations during Easter Week. 

       The arrangement by Mozart was new, done in 1785, but the middle melody in

       Meistermusik and The Masonic Funeral Music was very old.


       In that sense, the MFM was never a "New" Piece.

       Even if the MFM had had no Predecessor (Meistermusik had never existed),

       and had been newly composed for the 2 deceased Aristocrats, the resulting

       melody was still very old.   

       Michael Haydn also used the same melody in a piece, years earlier, related

       to the death of his daughter in 1771, who died on Mozart's birthday

       (January 27th).

       Michael Haydn's piece (a Requiem - MH155 - December 1771) can also be

       thought of as a kind of predecessor to the MFM since he used the same

       melody that Mozart did, and did so years earlier. 


       Thus, the MFM was never ENTIRELY a "New" Piece. 

       A piece cannot be said to be entirely New and Original if it's using 200-year

       old music for the middle theme - a melody familiar to Catholic churchgoers. 


       And it had at least two predecessors: Meistermusik (almost identical to the

       MFM), and Michael Haydn's Requiem (MH155). 


   *  Meistermusik and the MFM were probably written for "Official" reasons

       (for the Freemasons) and for Mozart's "Private" reasons, or Private


       But I don't think anyone knows exactly WHY Mozart wrote the MFM. 

       Aristocrats die all the time. Why the MFM in this case??  Because they

       were more important than most??  Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. 


   *  Motivation: Nancy Storace, possibly Mozart's Mother, deceased children,

       victims of the Inquisition, the "bad" aspects of the Catholic Church in those

       days, Jeremiah, Hiram Abiff, the deceased Aristocrats, and miscellaneous

       others, all played a role in Mozart's motivations for writing Meistermusik,

       or The Masonic Funeral Music, or both Pieces. 




       Those are the Highlights.  



       Some of the Issues and Questions Explored:  

       Did Mozart compose a Masonic piece known as Meistermusik?

       Did Meistermusik form the foundation for The Masonic Funeral Music?

       Why did Mozart write The Masonic Funeral Music?

             (The traditional reasons seem rather superficial and un-compelling

             for such a piece, unless the Lodge Management asked Mozart to

             write something).  

       Why is The Masonic Funeral Music so impassioned and Intense?

       Does the music of The Masonic Funeral Music match the Event?

       Does the music of Meistermusik (if it exists) match the Event?


       Why did Mozart compose the Dissonant Quartet as he did?

       Why did Mozart write so many unusual pieces in 1785?"  


       Is Meistermusik or the MFM partially related to:

           The death of Mozart's Mother, several years earlier, in the month of JULY?? 

           The death of Nancy Storace's child in the month of JULY?? 

           The temporary loss of Nancy Storace's voice and career in the month of


           The loss of Nancy Storace's marriage sometime in 1785??  

           The death of Mozart's son, several years earlier, in the month of AUGUST??  

           The death of Michael Haydn's child,  several years earlier, on Mozart's

               birthday, using the SAME MELODY??  


       Are Meistermusik and The Masonic Funeral Music BOTH Funeral pieces?? 

       Why did Mozart add 3 instruments to a 2nd version of the MFM??

       Why did Mozart write a Sketch, apparently for the entire Cantus Firmus

                vocal line in Meistermusik, also found in the MFM as a non-vocal line??  

                For a VOCAL piece or an instrumental piece??   

                Why did he need to sketch that line?? 


       Who was Mozart referring to when he wrote a vocal musical fragment

             which reads "I am so lonely, my love..." ?  Someone or Anyone?

       Who was Mozart referring to when he wrote a vocal musical fragment

             which reads "What was my Mistake??"  Someone or Anyone?


       Why did Constance Mozart wait 17 years before visiting Mozart's grave?

       Why did both Nancy Storace and Constance Mozart burn a number of

             letters before they died?

             (There are many "normal" possibilities, such as Mozart begging for a

             loan, with Constance wishing to avoid embarrassment, as well as

             "romantic letter" possibilities. The question has no available answer,

             but it should be noted and asked.

             As I recall, not a single letter between Mozart and Nancy Storace

             has turned up. This would strongly indicate that Nancy Storace burned

             her Mozart letters, and Constance Mozart burned the Storace letters.)       


      Who sired Nancy Storace's daughter?

              (Probably not Mozart, but it's a possibility.)

      John Fisher, and Nancy Storace's Fake Marriage to him.  

              Why did they get married? Did it work out well?  Was it a good idea?  

              Was it a factor in Mozart's emotional state?

              Were their serious marital problems all John Fisher's fault??

              Was (Professor) Dr. John Fisher really a monster?? 

      Did Nancy Storace keep her marriage a secret from England??


      Was The Masonic Funeral Music the ONLY significant tribute in Europe

             for the 2 deceased Aristocrats? 

      Did The Masonic Funeral Music HAVE to be a New, Original Piece with 

             no Predecessor, due to Royal Connections? 

             Can I see your Mind-Reading Certificate 

                     and the names of the Royal Spies, please??    

             (The theory lacks compulsion, and is not convincing.  

             It mostly involves Mind-Reading - difficult if the people are dead.  

             It would partially involve a nit-picking, ungrateful, un-royal Queen

             with Spies or Informers taking notes at Private Functions at

             Masonic Lodges in Vienna, and being upset that The Greatest Composer

             in the World had merely created a gorgeous new Version of a recent funereal

             piece, instead of writing a New piece from Scratch, even though it might

             have been the ONLY tribute in Europe for her little brother and another



             In short, it assumes that The Masonic Funeral Music, if it was a Version

             of a recently-composed piece, WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH for one of the

             2  deceased Aristocrats, that Mozart and the Lodges felt obligated to

             compose, rehearse, and perform a New Piece for some reason, when they

             didn't actually owe the 2 Aristocrats anything at all - beyond the

             traditional Masonic "Lodge of Sorrow" which they undoubtedly held for

             the men, and that the Foreign Queen somehow knew that the Vienna

             Freemasons would hold a promotion ceremony for someone, where

             Mozart would compose music for it, and that they re-used said music

             without the chorus in a Memorial Service for the little brother 4 months

             later, as reported by spies planted by the Foreign Queen at both Private

             events, just in case they tried to pull a fast one by reusing some music,

             thus insulting the little brother who deserved a brand new piece, composed

             by the Greatest Composer in the World, working without pay, as always,

             learned and rehearsed by the Lodge Orchestra without pay, as always,

             all of whom had nothing better to do and weren't busy with their jobs and

             families, and would never be so rude as to ask the Queen what SHE did for

             her little brother, if anything, and demand that they be paid for their past

             efforts of generosity.)   


      Did Salvador Dali make mistakes in his "Soft Watches" Painting, or did he

            paint it that way intentionally?  

            (Relates to the Dissonant Quartet Intro and to the "July" entry in his

             Catalog for The Masonic Funeral Music - not Mistakes). 

      Did Mozart Hide and Camouflage Meistermusik?

             Is that why we don't find an entry for it in his Catalog under that name? 

       Why is the Catalog entry for The Masonic Funeral Music puzzling?

            Did Mozart write that piece in July - 4 months before the Aristocrats died?

       Did someone ORDER Mozart to compose The Masonic Funeral Music?

       Was Mozart PAID to compose The Masonic Funeral Music, or compensated

            in some way, such as with a reduction in his Lodge Dues?

       Was Foul Play involved in the deaths of the 2 Aristocrats in November 1785?

            (I don't know the answer, and I'm not assuming that it occurred.

             It seems rather doubtful, but the question should be asked.)  


         (Note: I am not drawn to theories or possibilities of Foul Play, Murder, and

            the seamy side of life. However, it IS peculiar that the 2 Aristocrats died

            only 1 Day apart, Mozart wrote (or modified) a Major work for these

            2 men, followed by the closing of several Masonic Lodges by the Emperor

            of Austria, a few weeks later. 

           It's a sad and somewhat troubling situation.

           Like it or not (and I don't), the questions of why these 2 men died on successive

           days, why Mozart wrote the MFM, and why Emperor Joseph II began closing

           Masonic Lodges a few weeks later should be asked.

           There may be no Foul Play involved at all, and I hope there isn't.

           The closing of some of the Lodges may have been a result of the Natural

           Deaths of these men, with Joseph simply taking advantage of the opportunity

           afforded. Namely, the 2 important, Aristocratic Freemasons are now dead,

           and it's time to proceed with the closing of some of those "Libertarian",

           Masonic Lodges, keeping them down to a manageable number to watch and

           control, if necessary, since their beliefs and activities are Suspect, and should

           be monitored.  


       It still leaves the question of Mozart's reasons for composing the MFM

       unanswered, but his "official" reasons may be perfectly normal: The 2 men

       were very important, the Lodge Management asked Mozart to write

       something performable in their memory, and Mozart obliged.

       If Mozart had additional, emotional reasons for writing the MFM, once he

       agreed to write the piece, they may be perfectly normal and understandable

       as well, supplying additional motivation for creating such a superb product.

       These issues don't depend on the existence of Meistermusik as a Predecessor,

       but its existence would have potentially made everyone's job easier, if the

       same orchestra players were used, and easier on Mozart.)   






      Description and Basic Theory of Meistermusik:

           Camouflaged, Grieving, Bitter, Unusually Intense,

           Purportedly Masonic, Tender and Personal,  

           "Deeper than Deep", Unplumbed, Ineffably Sad,

           Officially Funereal, Vocal, Precise, Dual, Hard and Soft,

           Contrite, Serious, Honest, Direct, Genuine, Sincere,

           Mature, Persuasive, and Probably Authentic.


           (Officially "Funereal" and "Masonic" for Masonic

           purposes - being funeral music for Hiram Abiff

           (Meistermusik),  and later, funeral music for 2 Masonic

          Aristocrats in the form of The Masonic Funeral Music.

          But the Pieces feel more "Personal" than Masonic

          or Funereal.) 




      The composition known as "Meistermusik" is almost certainly authentic,

      composed by Mozart for orchestra and male chorus (Tenors and Basses),

      and served as the foundation for The Masonic Funeral Music - a well-known

      orchestral piece, also intensely passionate. 


      The evidence for it is compelling, but complex - from the seeming Over-Delivery

      of Intense, Passionate Emotion for 2 deceased Aristocrats, to the identical

      function  of Meistermusik and The Masonic Funeral Music (both are "funeral"

      pieces), to the perfect fit of Masonic words, syllables, and phrases with the

      middle melody of The Masonic Funeral Music - either intentional, or a

      Million-to-One Coincidence involving 2 Biblical verses, 4 phrases, and 38 notes

      paired with 38 syllables - where Text could be overlaid onto The Masonic

      Funeral Music producing Meistermusik, with Text and Music perfectly aligned

      with each other like 2 Identical Twins.  


      The PERFECT ALIGNMENT of textual verses, phrases, and 38

      syllables with the musical verses, musical phrases, and a 38 note phrase in

      The Masonic  Funeral Music (which has no text) is one of the compelling

      arguments that a Vocal Version of The Masonic Funeral Music probably

      existed at some time, and that it formed the foundation of The Masonic

      Funeral Music, with the 2 pieces being almost identical, containing the same

      number of measures. 


      IE, Meistermusik could by created from The Masonic Funeral Music by adding

      the appropriate words - probably even without adding the 2 Vocal parts (Tenor

      and Bass) to the MFM, using 1 or 2 orchestral lines for the dual purpose of music

      for the instruments and music for the Voices. 


      Officially and Visibly, both pieces were composed for Masonic purposes, but

      Mozart may have had other, stronger reasons for composing them, unstated

      in the music or in his Thematic Catalog.

      An examination of other evidence reveals other possible motives.


        Pictorially, these concepts would look like this:


       Meistermusik ===> Remove Chorus ===> The Masonic Funeral Music    

       The Masonic Funeral Music ===> Overlay Words ===> Meistermusik     


       Official MM Function (Funereal)  ===> Official MFM Function (Funereal)

       Real MM Function      (Funereal)  ===> Real MFM Function      (Funereal)

              (but with different people represented in the music than the                 

               "official" people of Hiram Abiff (MM) and the 2 Aristocrats (MFM) )


       Official MM Reason (Masonic)    ===> Official MFM Reason (Masonic)   

       Real MM Reason (Opportunity)  ===> Real MFM Reason (Opportunity) 

                                 (...and for ease of composing and performing the Piece)       


       (MM = Meistermusik.   MFM = The Masonic Funeral Music.)                     





      Since the middle melody of Meistermusik is a known "song" or melody

      with words (Tonus lamentatorium), the idea of "coincidence" involving the

      the words and phrases matching the notes and musical phrases, in a

      Million-to-One Fluke, is a pointless mathematical pursuit. 

      But for anyone interested in other so-called "Coincidences" claimed by the

      Mainstream experts, things that are the equivalent of calling "Lake Michigan"

      a coincidence, not involving the State of Michigan (just a name picked out of

      a hat - with candidates like "Lake Kentucky Fried Chicken" and "Lake Take

      Two Aspirin and Call Me in the Morning" being available selections), they

      can read a short page on the subject of Coincidence as seen through the eyes

      of SOME Mainstream Experts, still debating whether "Lake Michigan"

      was an intentionally chosen name, or whether it's just a Coincidence that a

      neighboring State is "Michigan", or the logical opposite of "lake first" and

      "state second".

      Please note that dozens of incredible, almost unbelievable coincidences have

      happened to me over the years. But there is no way that these appropriately

      Masonic words and phrases accidentally match the notes and phrases of



      Meistermusik might even have involved his mother's death (OR... The Masonic

      Funeral Music might have involved his mother's death rather than


      It was apparently hidden by Mozart, then camouflaged later, using The

      Masonic Funeral Music as a mask, in order to hide the true meaning of the

      Piece from his fellow Freemasons and from future prying eyes - an act that

      sowed confusion for 200 years.   


      The True Meaning of Meistermusik involves evidence, speculation, and

      various events, but it's probably related mostly to friends and relatives,

      (such as his friend Nancy Storace and her problems), as well as a number

      of other factors - possibly even the victims of The Inquisition, and possibly

      Mozart's Mother.


      The main tip-off is the huge over-delivery of passion for the official event - a

      Masonic Ceremony related to an ancient Masonic Hero (Hiram Abiff) - a man

      LONG DEAD who no one knew, as opposed to someone known by Mozart.

      Wouldn't it be difficult to write deep, intense, passionate music for an ancient

      Masonic Hero who Mozart never knew, and no one at the Masonic Lodges


      If Mozart was just trying to impress the Lodge members with an over-the-top

      piece related to their Hero, then the previous theory doesn't apply.


      But all composers draw on their Life experiences, not on pages from a dusty

      book, and Mozart could most easily draw on Nancy Storace's troubles, as well

      as some other issues.


      Another tip-off is the date of July for the Masonic Funeral Music as listed in his

      Catalog - 4 months too early, and a time when Nancy Storace was probably

      suffering the most, and the same month that his Mother died, 7 years earlier

      (July 1778).  

      Smoke and Mirrors - and very Masonic.  Typical of Freemasonry.    


      An understanding of Meistermusik, and an examination of some events in the

      lives of Mozart and some of his friends in 1784/1785, solves most of the questions

      and idiosyncrasies of several pieces - The Masonic Funeral Music and some other

      pieces (such as the Dissonant Quartet), in a Collection of pieces composed during

      the year 1785.


      The events of 1784/1785, and the music composed during 1785, shine a brighter

      light on Mozart's life during that period, help to explain why he wrote certain

      pieces, why he apparently hid and camouflaged Meistermusik, and why both

      Meistermusik and The Masonic Funeral Music are so intensely passionate, sad,

      and grieving, and seemingly a mismatch for the events they were composed for. 






                                First Performances


         Meistermusik and The Masonic Funeral Music

                               First Performances





                           Possibly first performed at the True Concord Lodge,

                               (Zur wahren Eintracht),  on August 12th, 1785.

                      Composed for a Masonic promotion Ceremony to Master Mason

                      for a visiting Freemason from Venice, whose Lodge had been closed

                      by the Catholic Inquisition in May 1785, and travelled to Vienna to

                                               obtain his promotion.

                   "True Concord" was the largest and most Aristocratic Lodge in Vienna. 

                         Mozart's involvement: Occasionally attended meetings there.



               The Masonic Funeral Music 


                                First performed at the Crowned Hope Lodge,

                               (Zur Gekrönten Hoffnung),  on November 17th, 1785.

                               (Later renamed the New Crowned Hope Lodge around

                                December 1785.) 

                        It's understandable why the MFM was first performed here:

                        This was Esterhazy's Lodge, where he had been the Grand Master,

                        and The Masonic Funeral Music was written partly for Esterhazy.

                        Possibly performed during a Masonic "Lodge of Sorrow" which is

                        a state of being for a Lodge after a member's death.

                        This was to honor both Mecklenburg and Esterhazy.    


                        Second Performance:  Possibly performed on December 9th, with

                        additional instruments (2 Basset Horns and a Contrabassoon) added

                        to the score.

                        Location unknown. 

                        Evidently modified and performed in December because two well-known

                        players of the Basset Horn, fellow Masons, were in Vienna (and in

                        somewhat indigent condition, as they were given a benefit concert by

                        one of the lodges).

                        This is the version we hear today. 



                    Mozart's original main Lodge (Dec 1784):  Beneficence (Zur Wohltatigkeit).

                    December 1785/January 1786:  Beneficence combined with the Crowned Hope to become

                    the New Crowned Hope Lodge per Imperial decree to reduce the number of Lodges. 


                                              December 1785/January 1786:

                             Mozart's new main Lodge:  The New Crowned Hope Lodge 

                             due to the combining of the Lodges.

                             The Masonic Funeral Music was first performed at

                             the Old Crowned Hope Lodge - Esterhazy's Lodge.

                             If it had a 2nd performance on December 9th, it would still

                             have been held under the old name of the Lodge.   

                             Mozart was welcome at all the Lodges.




                                    Summary of the Initial Points  


        ::  Instead of using Masonic History - Ceremonial History, or theorized Social

             Reasons - for evidence that Meistermusik might exist (or might not), use

             hard data - Musical Facts such as Musical Styles.

             Use More Facts and Less Speculation where possible to determine if Meistermusik

             is an authentic Piece, and if it formed the basis of the MFM.


             Primary method: Use Reverse Engineering  on a KNOWN Piece: 

             The Masonic Funeral Music, which is said to be a derivative of Meistermusik.

             (We have the Autograph Score of the MFM, and Mozart entered the Piece in

             his Catalog - his Thematic Catalog of Pieces which he composed.)


             Reason:  The  existence of the MFM is not disputed, and we know that Mozart

             wrote it. If the MFM was based on a Predecessor, that Piece would probably      

             have left traces of itself in its derivative.

             It's not CERTAIN, but it's PROBABLE.

             The determination will require Evidence and some Analysis.  

             Therefore, we will examine the MFM to see if we can find any evidence that

             a Predecessor left Musical Traces of itself.

             If we find any Evidence, and the Analysis of the Evidence is logical, and no other

             explanation can be found for our conclusions, we've proven that the MFM had a




         Using Reverse Engineering on the MFM proves that  

            The Masonic Funeral Music probably had a Predecessor.

         We demonstrate that the Original Music left many traces of

         itself in its offspring - the offspring being The Masonic Funeral

         Music -- with enough evidence to state that: 


        "The Masonic Funeral Music was probably 

         a Vocal Piece in its original incarnation,

         with traces of the Original Vocal Style

         remaining in it."


         (Namely, an old religious sung melody (Tonus

         Lamentatorium) , Gregorian Chant, Cantus

         Firmus, etc.) 



          A Vocal Predecessor probably existed for the MFM.

          We call it Meistermusik, and it formed the basis for

          The Masonic Funeral Music. 



        Continuing with the Points: 

        ::  Vocal Music is Implied for The Masonic Funeral Music.

        ::  A Predecessor is Implied for the Masonic Funeral Music.

        ::  The middle melody is a well-known, sacred, Vocal Gregorian Chant. 

        ::  The words used in Meistermusik are both Catholic and Masonic.  

        ::  The Notes, Syllables, and Phrases match each other in both pieces, if we

             insert words/syllables into Meistermusik and the MFM. 

        ::  The Masonic Funeral Music is basically a non-vocal clone of Meistermusik

             which could be converted into Meistermusik by SINGING THE INSERTED

             WORDS postulated for Meistermusik, with the same phrasing, etc.   

             This implies that the MFM was originally Vocal Music.

        ::  Mozart may have done the same thing as his friend Michael Haydn,

             regarding deceased children ("Raimund Leopold" and Meistermusik in

             Mozart's case). 

        ::  Meistermusik and the MFM are both Funeral Pieces, not radically different..

        ::  Mozart's Primary Motivation for composing Meistermusik: Nancy Storace

             and possibly Mozart's Mother. 

        ::  Musical Mismatch for both Events - a Ceremony and a Memorial Service.

             Meistermusik and the MFM are far too intense and passionate.  


        ::  Mozart was evidently emotionally stressed in 1785.       

        ::  The Dissonant String Quartet Intro: An obvious clue of something very

             Strange, Troubling, and Bizarre - possibly the Mental Malfunction of

             someone, a certain Pointlessness of Living, Irrationality, Going Through

             the Motions with No Joy,  etc. 

             The Question of WHY the Dissonant Quartet was composed needs to be

             asked - a question far more important than HOW it was written. 

             An analysis of the Intro is interesting, and is worthwhile reading, but it

             explains nothing about motives - completely missing the more important

             point of Mozart's reasons for writing it that way. 


        ::  Meistermusik: No Autograph Score and no Catalog entry.

        ::  Mozart's Catalog: Intentionally Confusing?? Camouflage??   

        ::  "July" for the date of the MFM: Too Early, Odd Format, claimed Mistake,

             other "July" events - issues requiring some thoughtful analysis  - not

             kneejerk responses. 

             Too many oddities to dismiss with a wave of the hand. 


       * Dealing With No Ceremonial Evidence

          Solution: Use Reverse Engineering, if possible, instead of Ceremonial Evidence.

          In searching for evidence of the existence or non-existence of a Mozart piece

          known as Meistermusik:

          --- What if there were NO evidence, or just WEAK evidence, that there was a

               Promotion Ceremony on August 12th, 1785, for a promotion to Master

               Mason  at one of the Vienna Masonic Lodges, possibly eliminating the

               very reason for the existence of Meistermusik?? 

          --- How could you determine if there probably WAS such a ceremony, around

               that time, and that Mozart composed a suitable piece for the it??          

          --- That such a theorized piece was similar to The Masonic Funeral Music??

          --- Or determine if there was probably a Vocal Predecessor to The Masonic

               Funeral Music, possibly composed for multiple reasons - a Masonic

               Ceremony, Mozart's emotional needs, or even composed for

               non-Ceremonial reasons - performed by a Masonic Lodge, but not as part

               of a Ceremony, etc??


          Answer: Proof of a Vocal Predecessor to The Masonic Funeral Music would

          constitute  significant evidence that an important Masonic Ceremony took

          place prior to November 1785, as long as the words are "Masonic", they fit

          the notes, they're singable by a male chorus with little musical training, and

          Mozart was available to do the work. 

          Such a ceremony MIGHT have been a Promotion ceremony, as claimed, and it

          MIGHT have taken place in August 1785, as claimed, unless there's evidence

          that it did not occur or could not have occurred.  


          A VOCAL Predecessor would probably be required for a Masonic Ceremony

          where Masonic Tenets, Beliefs, or History are sung, in order to convey a

          message TO the membership and FROM the membership, much as one

          would sing a National Anthem, a Hymn, or a Theme Song.    

          A Non-Vocal Predecessor would be far less likely for a Ceremony.    


          (A Funeral Piece could be vocal or instrumental, depending on the words

          and miscellaneous other factors. The words used for Meistermusik would

          NOT be suitable for a funeral or Memorial Service, in my opinion, with

          its mentioning of "bitterness", etc, which might be why Mozart converted

          the vocal Meistermusik, with its words of bitterness, into a piece with no


          Thus, a wordless Meistermusik makes perfect sense as a funeral piece

           (Memorial Service) for the 2 Aristocrats, with its more calming feeling, than

           the same piece with words of Bitterness.)   


          How could you determine if their was a Vocal Predecessor to the Masonic

          Funeral Music??

          It might be able to be done by analyzing the MFM - looking for oddities,

          looking for traces of something that doesn't quite fit, looking for historical

          traces, looking for vocal clues, looking for words that do fit, etc. 

          And analyzing Mozart's Catalog during 1785, and comparing it to other

          years, looking for oddities and differences.

          Looking for pieces and Fragments not listed in his Catalog, as well. 


          Specifically ----

              Analyzing The Masonic Funeral Music

              (and Meistermusik) by....  

          * Analyzing the MELODY in the middle section of the MFM. 

             Is it a known melody??  What is it typically used for?? 

          * Analyzing the musical STYLE of the middle melody of the MFM.

             Does it have a "Style"??  Is it a "vocal" style??   

          * Evaluating the LEGITIMACY of phrases that might fit the notes.

          * Evaluating words, syllables, and phrases for note FITNESS to the


          * Analyzing the content and MEANING of the theorized words that fit

             Mozart's situation during that time (actually, Nancy Storace's situation, for

             the most part). 

          * Seeing the PRIOR USE of the same melody by another composer

             (Michael Haydn, in this case) in the same or similar tragic situation. 

             What did Michael Haydn do??

          * Evaluating the APPROPRIATENESS of Meistermusik's words for a

             Masonic Promotion Ceremony (if we can determine it). 

          * Evaluating the proposed words for their general Masonic


          * Evaluating the MUSIC of the MFM for its suitability in a Masonic

             Promotion Ceremony - as well as a non-Freemason can, IE, if a Predecessor

             to the MFM exists, assuming that it's essentially the same music as the


             Is there something "Masonic" about the music (if we can determine it)?? 

          * Locating and evaluating pertinent AUTOGRAPH SCORES

             (if possible).

          * Locating and evaluating pertinent SKETCHES (if any). 

          * Analyzing DATES and VERBIAGE in Mozart's Thematic Catalog,

             for their sequence, anomalies, etc.

          * Checking for Pieces that he DID and DIDN'T ENTER in his Catalog

             (if we think he wrote them but didn't list them).

          * Checking for known FRAGMENTS during that timeframe. 

          * Checking some of the "DEEST" Pieces - unassigned Pieces - during that




           Other pieces composed during the theorized timeframe of Meistermusik

           (estimated as being June/July 1785) could give us an idea of Mozart's

           emotional state, possibly adding credence to the existence of words in

           Meistermusik, expanding the timeframe before and after a proposed

           Promotion Ceremony to an entire year - the year of 1785, to give us a

           broader view of the types of Pieces Mozart was composing, the types of

           Pieces he didn't finish (if any), the words to any songs or other vocal music

           he wrote (if any), Pieces that he didn't enter in his Catalog (if any), what he

           might have been thinking, and what he might have been feeling during

           that year.   


          Everything needed for a Vocal Predecessor, and everything needed for a Piece 

          that could be used in a Masonic Ceremony, we are calling Meistermusik.

          The likelihood that such a Piece exists is very strong, based on evidence from

          multiple sources.  

          Meistermusik can probably be created by simply "Reverse Engineering" The

          Masonic Funeral Music.

          This can be accomplished even with no evidence, or weak evidence, from the

          usual sources, determining that such a piece was probably performed, and that

          it was probably intended for a Masonic Promotion Ceremony.  


          Thus, we can backtrack: The MFM yields Meistermusik which yields a

          Masonic Promotion Ceremony. All 3 are "Funeral related", with the

          ceremony re-enacting the death and resurrection of the Masonic hero

          "Hiram Abiff", with Meistermusik being the accompanying music, The

          Lamentations of Jeremiah being the words sung in Meistermusik, words filled

          with sadness and bitterness, and the MFM being a non-vocal derivative of

          Meistermusik for a Masonic Memorial Service, equivalent to Hiram Abiff's

          funeral and resurrection (Hiram Abiff being an early Masonic hero).    


          We have now found a probable Predecessor to the Masonic Funeral Music.

          Meistermusik and the MFM are equivalent, and the MFM implies the

          existence  of Meistermusik - the Predecessor - because of the multiple clues

          in The Masonic Funeral Music and elsewhere.


          This situation is similar to what sometimes happens in Archeology.

          Sometimes numerous traces of an Ancient Civilization are discovered, in the

          form of pieces of pottery, small fragments of jewelry, fire pits for cooking, etc,

          but the more interesting evidence, the writings, statues, art, tools, houses,

          buildings, etc, are missing or crumbled, possibly buried deeper in the Earth,

          and possibly destroyed by time or other causes.

         The findings are sufficient to announce that a previously unknown civilization

          (or a City) existed, even if they don't have all the examples they would like

          to have, or movies of the ancient people walking around on the city streets.


          The same is true of Meistermusik: We have numerous traces of its existence.

          The search for evidence begins with The Masonic Funeral Music, and expands

           into other areas.

          Although we don't have an Autograph score for Meistermusik, and there's no

          entry in Mozart's Catalog for such a Piece (except for the curious entry for

          The Masonic Funeral Music), the weight of evidence for such a Piece is heavy. 


          It can safely be said that Meistermusik PROBABLY exists, and is almost

          certainly authentic, using the same Rationale that Archeologists use when

          discovering lost Cities and lost Civilizations. 



       * Vocal Music Implied:

          The middle melody in The Masonic Funeral Music is called "tonus

          lamentatorium" - the sad and despairing song of Jeremiah's Lamentations,

          established by the Catholic Church in the 1500's, implying "Vocal Music"

          for this orchestral, non-vocal piece.

          In other words, although The Masonic Funeral Music is not a vocal piece, the

          melody which it uses in its middle section, is derived from vocal music, as well

          as being in a "Gregorian Chant" and "Cantus Firmus" style, further implying

          a Vocal parentage.  

          Did Mozart write an orchestral piece with vocal music implied, but didn't

          write a vocal Version of the piece??  Maybe, but it seems rather doubtful.



       * Predecessor Piece Implied:

              Since Vocal Music is implied by the "tonus lamentatorium" melody found

          in The Masonic Funeral Music, there might have been a predecessor or

          successor to this piece, vocalized in the "tonus lamentatorium" portion.   

          No successors to The Masonic Funeral Music are known to exist,

          implying the alternative, that there might have been a predecessor, with

          the "tonus lamentatorium" portion vocalized. 

          No such piece has turned up using traditional sources, such as an Autograph

          Score, an entry in Mozart's Catalog, Letters, or comments by friends.   

          However, using other sources, it appears that a piece we call "Meistermusik"

          is a Vocal Predecessor of The Masonic Funeral Music. 


          (Of course, there might be no Predecessor to the Masonic Funeral Music,

          but that would constitute a mystifying situation, where Mozart wrote a

          full-length piece for orchestra only, included a well-known vocal melody

          with vocal styles, but didn't compose a Twin, even though words were available

          to match the notes PERFECTLY.

          And since the words that fit constitute Masonic text, fitting for a Masonic

          promotion to Master Mason, it makes sense that the piece could have been

          used for that ceremony with the words easily sung by the Lodge chorus.

          Thus, the possibility that The Masonic Funeral Music had a Predecessor

          is excellent.)  



       * Notes, Syllables, and Phrases Match:

          The 38 notes of the middle melody "tonus lamentatorium" match the

          38 syllables of the words of The Lamentations of Jeremiah that Mozart

          apparently used in Meistermusik (if Meistermusik is genuine).

         The textual and musical phrases also match each other.  


         linked together, hand-in-glove. 

         And each NOTE matches a SYLLABLE of the words - 38 syllables.

         This matching of notes, words, syllables, and phrases does more than imply

         Vocal music for some unknown piece; it virtually guarantees that such a

         piece exists.

         And that piece has been labeled "Meistermusik".

         Some of the words from the middle section of Meistermusik, taken from

         The Lamentations of Jeremiah (portion):

            Replevit me amaritudinibus,   

            inebriavit me absynthio.      

         ("He has filled me with bitterness...")


          Why do the notes match the words, and the words match the notes??

          I don't know the complete answer, but they DO match.

          The Catholic Church standardized the melody of Lamentations during their

          meetings in the 1500's known as "The Council of Trent".

          Mozart apparently modified the melody slightly to fit the selected verses

          from Lamentations - verses selected and adopted by the Freemasons.  

          To make sure that his notes would fit the words, Mozart wrote a small

          SKETCH on the back of a page of musical score, using the melody of the

          Tonus Lamentatorium. (I have a copy of it.)  


          See the topic "Phrase Analysis" about halfway down this page for an

          examination of the notes, words, syllables, and textual and musical phrases

          of this section of Meistermusik.

          The entire Vocal section is laid out and analyzed.



       * Michael Haydn's Daughter and his Camouflaged Requiem:

          The middle melody of MM and the MFM are a close match with Michael

          Haydn's use of the SAME melody in a piece thought to be about the tragic

          death of his young daughter, evoking the question of whether Meistermusik

          is also related to the death of a child - at least, partially. 

          (Mozart and Michael Haydn were friends.)

          His only child, a daughter, died on Mozart's Birthday at 1 year of age, and

          scholars believe that Michael musically grieved at his loss in his Requiem

          in C Minor, camouflaging the meaning in a Requiem for an Archbishop.


          Mozart may have done essentially the same thing, using Meistermusik as the  

          vehicle, as well as expressing grief for his own deceased child, Raimund

          Leopold, who died 2 years earlier (1783) in August.   


          Thus, we have 3 deceased children (Nancy Storace's daughter, Michael

          Haydn's daughter, and Mozart's son), 3 pieces using the "tonus

          lamentatorium" melody (Michael Haydn's Requiem, Meistermusik, and

          The Masonic Funeral Music), and 2 or 3 pieces camouflaging their meaning

          (Archbishop Requiem, a Masonic promotion, the deaths of 2 Aristocrats),

          with the possible addition of Mozart's Mother as an object of grief in The

          Masonic Funeral Music.       



      *  Both Are Funeral Pieces:

          Both Meistermusik and The Masonic Funeral Music are Funeral pieces -

          one with a chorus, one without, and nearly identical.

          Meistermusik is not joyous or celebratory, per Masonic ritual which

          involves a funeral, except possibly towards the end, where calm and serenity

          ultimately prevail.   

          But both pieces seem tender and personal - not alien or impersonal.

          Not perfunctory. They seem to be "deeper than deep", ineffably sad, with

          sadness - and possibly Shame or Guilt, of an unplumbed depth. 

          Staring into the Abyss of the Dark Truth with courage and fortitude. 

          Contrite. Serious, honest, direct, persuasive, genuine, sincere, and mature.   

          Mozart pulled out all the stops with these pieces.



      *  Motivation:

          Nancy Storace's problems, and the death of her daughter in July 1785, may

          have been the primary motivation for composing Meistermusik, and the death

          of Mozart's Mother, some years earlier in July, MIGHT have been one of the

          motivations for composing The Masonic Funeral Music. 

          (Mozart's Mother might have been involved as a reason for EITHER piece

          or BOTH pieces. I certainly don't know the answer, but there are clues that

          her death might have been a motivator for both pieces, with Mozart facing up

          to his partial responsibility for her tragic death in Paris, in July 1778, more-so

          than he apparently did in a previous composition, finally expressing himself

          fully rather than partially.  Or, facing up to his deep sorrow and expressing it

          musically, even if he wasn't responsible for her death, in a more mature and

          refined way than he did with his Piano Sonata in A Minor, K.310, with its

          throbbing and pounding. 

          It's a possibility.)  

          The "official" reasons were also motivations, but weaker ones. 

          Multiple deaths, 2 ceremonial "funerals", and 2 funeral pieces.   



      *  Musical Mismatch for the Events:

          The intense depth of feeling and passion in both pieces doesn't seem to match

          the two official occasions for their compositions - namely: 


          ----- 1. A Masonic Ceremony for promotion to Master Mason.

                      Masonic Ceremony:        Aug 12th, 1785??    (Meistermusik).


         ----- 2. A Memorial Service for the deaths of 2 Masonic Aristocrats. 

                      Deaths of Aristocrats:     Nov 6th and 7th, 1785. 

                      Memorial Service:          Nov 17th, 1785.    (The MFM). 


          Why such deep, emotional, musical passion for these events with Meistermusik

          and The Masonic Funeral Music??


          Compare The Masonic Funeral Music to a Funeral March by Mozart,

          composed in 1784.

          The Funeral March is grim and straightforward, seemingly with a

          different message than The Masonic Funeral Music, and only 1/3 the length.

          It's a black-draped nugget of Grim Reaper, almost Medieval ambience,

          as Death slowly marches by, and ghostly spirits randomly whistle and

          whimsically wander about in their un-earthly way.    

          (MIDI file modified by Dave Morton to use an Organ).  



                      Funeral March in C Minor - K.453a   1784  (MIDI)



           Why so different from The Masonic Funeral Music??

           Is a "Funeral March" supposed to be different from "Funeral Music"??   

           Why is the Funeral March so cold, grim, passionless, and ghostly compared

           with the MFM??

           Perhaps because the MFM isn't all that "funereal".

           Or perhaps because Mozart's feelings about Death had changed due to his

           later involvement with Masonic philosophy.


           But when one looks at the Requiem, and numbers such as the "Dies Irae",

           or even the "Lacrimosa", it seems apparent that Mozart feared Death,

           as most people do, unless he was just pretending to believe the words and

           music that he wrote, writing great music for the sake of the music. 

           But if the story about Mozart's emotional breakdown while singing the

           Lacrimosa with friends is true (and I think it IS true), then he was not

           really "ready to go", and feared that Death would take him away from

           his family, his friends, his career, and his wonderful music to an Unknown

           Country, with no guarantee of happiness and contentment - despite

           Masonic proclamations.


           Thus, the Funeral March might represent Mozart's true feelings about

           Death better than the Masonic Funeral Music with the latter's intense

           emotions, and ultimate serenity.    

           It might represent what he felt "deep down" about Death - a feeling that

           might be quite common.   

           And that might imply that the MFM was more about Mozart's feelings

           about certain subjects, than the Deaths of 2 Aristocrats, or Death in general,

           as well as his probable desire to get the piece written quickly so they

           could hold the Memorial Service as soon as possible. 


           IE, the Requiem might trump all other funereal music, in terms of Mozart's

           true feelings, with all its passion and terror. And the Funeral March might

           represent his true feelings when he was too tired or uninspired to write

           passionate music about Death, writing it as if "Death is the Winner, and

           there's nothing I can do about it. The subject is cold, grim, passionless, and

           even a bit ghostly and mysterious. This is Reality. This is the End. It's not

           something I can realistically comment on beyond observing the final moments

           above ground of some poor soul, on his way to a dark and still Oblivion."    


           He composed the Funeral March as a favor for Barbara Ployer, one of his

           piano students, writing it in her notebook, and jokingly signed the piece as:

                   "Marche funebre del Sig! Maestro Contrapunto".

           The piece is either a joke (via exaggeration??) or is serious.

           I suspect that he wrote it as a serious piece, considering the quality, the two

           parts which make the piece "complete",  and the spot-on appropriateness of

           the music - a Dirge for a Funeral March - a Funeral Dirge. 

           K.453b is the entire exercise book for Barbara Ployer.


           And Mozart wouldn't write a "joke of a piece" in one of his student's

           notebooks. It would be rude and even cruel - especially if she treasured it,

           which she probably did. No. He would never do such a thing. It was a serious

           piece, even if he signed his name as Signor Maestro Contrapunto.      


           Arrangements for piano and winds (separately) are available from music



          Even if we omit Meistermusik from consideration, that still leaves The Masonic

          Funeral Music with an intense depth of feeling for the deaths of 2 Aristocrats -

          a notion that seems a little odd, and makes one wonder if Mozart had deeper

          reasons for writing it that way, or for re-using the music of Meistermusik - also

          an intensely passionate piece.  


          The pieces are very unusual "Masonic music" unlike anything else Mozart

          had written for the Lodges, and possibly unlike anything he had written for

         ANY occasion or group. 


         In my opinion, Mozart had deeper reasons for composing Meistermusik and

         possibly The Masonic Funeral Music - more "Normal" and less "Masonic"

         reasons, but with some Masonic symbolism included, as would be obligatory

         for Masonic music performed at Masonic Events. 

         And more EMOTIONAL and less cerebral reasons than the official reasons.   


         And if he composed passionate music for the deaths of 2 Aristocrats (and he

         DID), then it makes sense that he could have composed passionate music for

         a Masonic Promotion Ceremony - at least, for the "official" reason. 

         Thus, we have the mismatch with the events in terms of Depth of passion, due

         to Mozart's deeper reasons for composing the pieces. 



      * Mozart's Stress:

         Other pieces from 1785  ("The Collection" listed below)  demonstrate that

         Mozart was in severe stress part of the time, and 2 or 3 of the pieces hint

         at the possible source of that stress.  1785 was the year MM and the MFM

         were composed, and the events and some of the pieces may shed light on

         Mozart's motivations for writing Meistermusik and The Masonic Funeral

         Music - motivations beyond the "official", documented, or normal reasons. 



      * The Dissonant Quartet:

         The famous Dissonant String Quartet, K.465, from January 1785, is one of

         the "stressful" pieces, although Mozart doesn't give us any hints as to the

         reason for his distress in the piece or in his Catalog. 

         It's one of several oddities from 1785, and perhaps the most obvious clue

         that something was terribly wrong in Mozart's life. 

         One of the meanings: "An Obvious Clue regarding Something Bizarre -

         Possibly Mental Malfunction and Stress". 


         In studying Mozart, his music and his life, many or most of the items are

         subtle - not at all obvious. They often require research and thought.

         But THIS one is is OBVIOUS, even though its meaning isn't obvious. 

         It's some kind of obvious clue - a Hint - a non-subtle statement - that

         something is terribly Wrong, something Bizarre has happened, the music

         has fallen apart, Normality has been shredded, the shadow of

         Neurosis/Psychosis has been cast on composing or the meaning of the

         composition, a Poisonous Fog has slipped into Mozart's life, something

         alien has been glimpsed, pointlessness has taken over, Insanity has blown

         into the room from an open window, etc.  

         The Meaning is not at all Obvious. It's a Mystery.


         (The word "Obvious" should generally be avoided when discussing Mozart.

          Red Flags should usually pop up whenever you see that word.

         This situation with the Intro is a Rare exception to that advice.)   

         What's "Obvious" is that Mozart is TRYING TO TELL US SOMETHING.

         Mozart wrote some seemingly pointless Cacophony for SOME REASON.

         It was INTENTIONAL, with a copy sent to Joseph Haydn, and the same

         notes written in his Thematic Catalog.

         It MEANS something. 

         Something sent with Meaning is a MESSAGE. 

         We don't know what the message is, yet, but there must be one. 

         Fortunately, the problem doesn't remain for long, existing only in the Intro

         of the first movement, and we can relax, knowing Mozart is in full command

         of his faculties, but the brief experience is disturbing - rattling. 


         If we care about "Mozart the Man" and "Mozart the Music", we are

         compelled to seek answers as to WHY he wrote that un-musical, un-Mozartian,

         seemingly irrational Intro to an otherwise beautiful string Quartet, the last one

         of a series dedicated to his fellow composer and friend, Joseph Haydn.         

         Mozart doesn't tell us who (or what) he's referring to.

         It could be Nancy Storace, John Fisher, Constance, Freemasonry, Mozart,

         all of the above, or none of the above.

         He could be referring to issues or ideas that we are unaware of. 

         It could be related to no events at all, existing in musical isolation. 

         But it's "1785 Music" and is probably related to "1784 Events" or

         "1785 Events", being composed in January of 1785. 


         We may not know what it means, but we should try to find out.  

         If we can understand why he wrote that bizarre Intro, it may shed light on

         other pieces written in 1785 - including Meistermusik and The Masonic

         Funeral Music, with Meistermusik possibly written 6 months later in July,

         and The Masonic Funeral Music written 10 months later in November. 



     * Autograph Score:

        We don't have an autograph score for the theorized "Meistermusik" piece,

        and there's no entry for it in Mozart's Thematic Catalog.



      * Intentionally Confusing??

         Some of the confusing, perplexing, and "missing" aspects of these pieces 

         may have been intentionally created by Mozart in order to hide certain

         notions from the public and even from his Lodge.    

        The date of "July" for the MFM is the main problem.

        Additionally, Freemasonry, if it plays a role here, is not an Open and

        Transparent society, but rather one with hidden symbols and meanings,

        as they themselves state, possibly making some of the research and meanings

        more difficult to obtain and understand.  

        Whatever understanding has been reached regarding these pieces, might not

        be complete.  (The Good News is that a much deeper understanding of the

        pieces as been achieved, revealing far more than we previously knew, in my



     * July (Too Early):

        According to Mozart's Catalog, he wrote The Masonic Funeral Music in

        July of 1785,  4 months before the 2 important Aristocrats died - a piece

        written for them, per his Catalog entry. 


     * July (Format):

        The Catalog date of July for The Masonic Funeral Music is listed as

        "in the month of July" in Mozart's Catalog, with no "Day of the Month"

        listed (such as "July 15th")  -  a most unusual entry for Mozart, who normally

        listed the date of completion of a piece with a month and day.  


     * July (Mistake):

        The claim that "July" was a Mistake, for the date of composition of The

        Masonic Funeral Music, looks more and more shaky the deeper one

        looks into the situation during that year, and at other Catalog entries

        made during that same general timeframe, where, for example,

        "November"  IS listed as the month of composition, yielding a strange

        mixture of dates for some pieces - July and November (as well as the

        out-of-sequence "October" date, as explained later).   

        Since the 2 Aristocrats died in November - 4 months later, July certainly

        APPEARS to be a mistake (if we can assume that Mozart could make such

        a huge mistake). But is it?? 

        Did Mozart compose a predecessor piece in July??  


        The "Mistake" assertion is roughly equivalent to claiming that the Dissonant

        Quartet is filled with "obvious mistakes", or that Mozart made a mistake

        when he told someone that his name was "Trazom" ("Mozart" spelled

        backwards) - instead of "Mozart".

        Neither one of those items were mistakes.

        A "Mistake" is not something that we should swallow without questioning it,

        and without demanding Proof - or at least, some solid Evidence. 


        But "July" *IS* confusing, and needs some explanation. 

        It might be part of Mozart's attempt to hide Meistermusik from prying

        eyes, or an entry for the foundation of The Masonic Funeral Music,

        listing only one piece, not two, by listing the known (or better known) piece.

        If Mozart was trying to hide Meistermusik, it worked.

        Tricky, puzzling, and a bit hard to understand and accept, but it successfully

        fooled people (or confused them) for 200 years, apparently as Mozart




     * The Father of Nancy's Child:

        Just for the record, I seriously doubt that Mozart was the father of Nancy

        Storace's child who died in July 1785, when Meistermusik was probably

        composed. However, it is a remote possibility. There might have been too

        much compassion for Nancy Storace, by Mozart. Doubtful, not necessary,

        but possible. I don't think we'll ever know, and I don't think the issue is

        of great importance (unless Nancy's husband knew, or suspected, that he

        wasn't the Father, and unless Mozart and Nancy Storace exchanged letters

        at any time in history regarding "Mozart's Child".)

        The death of a child is a tremendously tragic situation for parents and friends,

        regardless of the parentage - especially if the child has survived for several

        months or several years, as did Nancy Storace's child, who died at 6 months

        of age.      



     * John Fisher:

        (John Fisher is part of this story because he was Nancy Storace's "husband",

        for a while, and Nancy Storace is a major part of the Meistermusik story.)

        Depicting John Fisher, Nancy Storace's "husband", as a monster, doesn't

        add up, and depicting him as her husband is only partially true.

        It was a Fake Marriage, she was a Fake Wife, and it was partially a Secret

        Marriage, concealed from England. 

        "Real" Marriages aren't concealed - aren't Secret: They're Public. 


        He was a Doctor of Music at Oxford, on tour, at age 40. 

        She was an 18-year-old English teenager who had recently been fired from an

        opera due to her bad attitude and her refusal to follow orders.  

        Fisher - and Mozart - may have been unaware of the true purpose of this

        so-called "marriage", arranged by her mother to restore and enhance

        Nancy's singing career. 


        It was strictly a BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT, for Nancy's benefit only, with

        the "Marriage" aspect being the fake framework - rather than creating a

        simple friendship or a businesslike Partnership, as Mozart and da Ponte did.

        Mozart and da Ponte didn't get married, and both men benefitted from the

        partnership - not just Mozart.    

        John Fisher's benefits were probably minimal since it wasn't a "Real" or

        Normal Marriage, and partially a Secret. 


        John Fisher was expelled from Austria by the Emperor, and he then settled

        in Ireland - his life possibly ruined by his experience in Austria. 

        Why did John Fisher become "a violent College Professor" (evidently true),

        expelled by the Emperor??

        Possible related compositions: The Dissonant Quartet and others.



     * Aristocrats' Only Tribute??

        Mozart and the Vienna Freemasons may have been the ONLY people in

        Europe to commemorate the November deaths of the 2 Aristocrats, composing

        and performing a gorgeous piece of music (The Masonic Funeral Music) in

        a Memorial Service on November 17th, even if the MFM was based on

        Meistermusik, composed and performed 4 months earlier for a private

        performance at a Masonic Lodge - an event that only some Vienna Freemasons

        would have been aware of.   

        I don't know if it's the case, but it's possible.


        And Mozart was probably not a bowing and scraping Indentured Servant at

        any of the Masonic Lodges that he visited, compelled to compose Funeral music

        every time someone important died.

        In fact, The Masonic Funeral Music was probably the ONLY piece he wrote

        for such an occasion, and the Memorial Service may have been the ONLY

        extra event held in all of Europe for the 2 deceased Aristocrats.

        In any case, Meistermusik was a perfect fit for funereal music for the 2

        Aristocrats, even if it was over the top in terms of emotional passion (who

        would complain??), and Mozart obligingly converted it to the MFM.



     * "New Piece" Theory for The Masonic Funeral Music:

        There is a theory that The Masonic Funeral Music had to be a New Piece, and

        not a derivative of an earlier piece (Meistermusik, in this case).

        The reason is said to be that the elevated status of the two Freemason

        Aristocrats who died, plus the social connection of one of them (Mecklenburg),

        being the younger brother of the Queen of England, somehow demanded it.

        In other words, a derivative piece composed by Mozart and performed at the

        Masonic Memorial Service for the two men, would not be Good Enough  -

        would not honor them properly.

        Therefore, Mozart must have composed a New Piece for their Memorial Service,

        without using Meistermusik or any other piece as a basis. 

        This theory lacks evidence and compelling logic, and has many other problems.


        *  It deletes Meistermusik from history as a Predecessor, a logical piece, with

        the words of the "tonus lamentatorium" sung by a chorus - a piece that makes

        sense, leaving just the orchestral version of the piece - the Masonic Funeral

        Music (the MFM) and no Vocal version, which doesn't make sense.  

        *  It asserts that a beautiful piece (the MFM) wasn't good enough (didn't honor

        them enough) if it was a version of another piece - a subjective judgement by

        persons unknown.

        (How much honor did they deserve??  How much time and energy did Mozart

        and the Lodges have to honor them??  Who decides how much honor a Piece

        gives to the men?? Etc.) 

        *  It  assumes that the members at a particular Lodge in Vienna were

        concerned  about the reaction to the piece by the men's non-Masonic friends

        and relatives, and the Queen of England.

        *  It possibly assumes that the Queen of England, the older sister of one of the

        Aristocrats, would be offended if she found out that The Masonic Funeral

        Music was a modified version of another piece by Mozart.

        *  It possibly assumes that the Queen would become aware of Meistermusik

        which had received only one performance - a PRIVATE performance at a

        Masonic Lodge - not a Public performance at a normal venue.

        How would she find out??

        *  It assumes that Mozart had the time, energy, desire, and willingness to

        compose a New Piece for the Aristocrats - possibly for free. 

        *  It assumes that the Lodge Orchestra had the time, energy, desire, and

        willingness to learn a New Piece for the occasion of a Memorial Service, even

        though the 2 Aristocrats who died were "Big Shots".  Would they do it??


        Might they say:

            "Mozart, can't you just use that Meistermusik piece we played a few months

            ago,  maybe without a chorus, so we can give the two men a nice, musical


            They were "special", but do we really need to learn a NEW PIECE for the


            We should do SOMETHING for them, and we will.

            We could make some speeches.

            We could sing hymns.

            We could sing Masonic songs.

            We could say prayers.

            We could order statues to be made.

            We could make a nice plaque for them and hang it on the wall.

             We could name a Room after them.     

            But don't make us learn another New piece, Mozart. 

            We have Lives outside of our Masonic Lodge activities. 

            Our wives are saying that we spend too much time here, as it is."  

        Etc, etc.


        To top it all off, if the Queen's relationship to Mecklenburg is a factor,

        what right would the Queen, a non-Freemason, a non-Lodge Member, a

        non-Austrian, and a non-participant, have to complain or be offended by a

        nit-picking detail in the glorious music?? 

        (If that is a concern with the New Piece Theory).   

        I doubt that Mozart or the Lodge Members gave much thought to the Queen's

        reaction to their Full, Honorable, Wonderful, 50-Cent send-off for the 2

        Aristocrats - a send-off that was probably rarely - if ever - done by the Lodge,

        might have been the only tribute in Europe for the deceased Aristocrats - and

        was almost certainly the Biggest tribute of all, composed by the greatest

        composer in the world: Mozart. 


        Yet she would have been offended if the gorgeous piece hadn't been Brand New,

        therefore Mozart wrote a New piece for the 2 Swells??    

        (Or their friends would have been upset that Mozart didn't compose a New


        She would have looked this superb Gift Horse in the mouth and declared it

        unsuitable???  Because it was a Pre-Owned Horse???  And someone had

        informed her that a previous version of the Piece had been played several

        months earlier for a Private, Masonic function, causing offense to her Royal

        sensibilities, much like the poor Princess, whose face was bruised by a pea put

        under her pillow???  


        It's flimsy Logic, attempted Mind Reading of multiple people who have been

        dead for 200 years (Mozart,  some Lodge members, the friends of the deceased

        Aristocrats, and a nit-picking Queen), etc, etc.

        I'm not buying it.


        The "New-Piece-Queen" theory (which is part of the New-Piece theory) doesn't

        have any gears, wires, fulcrums, wheels, or magnetism attached to it, including

        Influence, Fear, Concern, Logic, Information, Motivation, etc.

        Would Mozart (and the Lodge members) be more concerned about what a

        foreign Queen might think of the perfectly honorable previous usage of the

        piece, than honoring these 2 men in a gorgeous, musical tribute??


        Weren't their minds probably occupied with doing justice to them, and 

        HONORING them in some way that could be done easily, inexpensively,

        rapidly. and professionally?? 

        If so, they found the perfect solution in using a modified Version of

        Meistermusik:  Same piece, no chorus.   


        If they gave any thought to the Queen's relationship, it MIGHT have motivated

        the Lodge to give Mecklenburg a wonderful send-off with the beautiful Masonic

        Funeral Music, rather than doing little or nothing special for him (other than

        the usual Masonic prayers and a speech or two, as any organization would do

        for one of its members).


        And since TWO highly-placed Aristocrats died, it might have been sufficient

        motivation to do something special for them.


        What if the Lodges had done nothing, other than mention their deaths and

         say a few prayers - certainly a possibility if the weather was terrible, or they

         were all busy with some big, Masonic project??  No Memorial Service, no

         Masonic Funeral Music, no major effort, no New Piece, no reworked piece?? 

         We would have to hope that a score for Meistermusik turned up someday.

         Or Mozart might have found some other way to use it.

         And that would be a possibility, since I don't think Mozart would have wanted

         that beautiful music to go to waste - unsaved, unknown, unpublished, and

         never heard again.  


         In any case, a Memorial Service WAS held, and The Masonic Funeral Music

         was performed on November 17th, 1785. 





        To honor the 2 deceased Masonic Aristocrats:

        * The Lodge Management needed to discuss their response and schedule it.

        * Mozart needed to be consulted.

          A non-vocal version of Meistermusik would be perfect.

          Funeral Music ==> Funeral Music. 

       * Even as a Version of Meistermusik, Mozart had to COPY the entire piece

          himself - write it down, except for the vocal parts. 

       * Then he had to have COPIES made for the orchestra by professional

          Copyists.   $$ Expense. 

       * The Lodge and orchestra players needed to be selected.

       * The orchestra needed to rehearse it.  

       * Invitations to other Lodges might have needed to be produced.

          Someone needed to volunteer to create the Invitations.

       * The Invitations needed to be mailed or carried to the other Lodges. 

       * Then each Lodge would need to contact its members to inform them of the

         Memorial Service, with the date, time, and location - probably by Mail or

         Messenger. No telephones.   $$ Expense.   

       * And the orchestra needed to perform it. 

       * Speeches?? 

       * Refreshments for the audience (Lodge members and guests)??  


        It probably took around **10 STEPS** or more just to setup and perform

        the Memorial Service for the 2 Aristocrats - even re-using Meistermusik

        as the foundation for The Masonic Funeral Music. 


        That's a lot of work, and some expense. 





        IF THE QUEEN COMPLAINED  (or some of Mecklenburg's friends

        complained) that a Brand New Piece hadn't been composed by Maestro

        Mozart, they should have sent her a bill for the efforts of Mozart, the

        Orchestra, Lodge Management, and the General Membership.

        A Bill for what they ***DID*** do for her brother.


        Here's a fictitious letter to the Queen from the Vienna Freemasons, if the

        Queen had complained that her brother's Memorial Service used recycled

        music for The Masonic Funeral Music, instead of a New Piece:  








                              (Click to see the Letter to Queen Charlotte)



                                    Spy Report     

            (How the Queen Might Have Found Out that the MFM Wasn't New)






        Improbable, but fair - ONLY IF THE QUEEN WAS UPSET AND



        (VERY UNLIKELY).  


        (The same type of letter could be sent to any of Mecklenburg's whining and

        complaining friends, if they complained.)

        Upset that this free, magnificent tribute to her Little Brother, and a

        first performance of the music, arranged by the Greatest Composer in the

        World, had been performed earlier, as a different Version, in a Private

        performance, for a small audience of Masonic members.

        But I doubt that she was upset. 


        I suspect that she felt ****PROUD**** that her little brother was so honored

        at a wonderful Memorial Service, with music composed by Wolfgang Mozart -

        the musical genius, who had actually Lived in England for a while. 


        She was probably not on the Freemason's Radar Screen, and the Lodge had

        nothing to apologize for in using a somewhat unknown, derivative piece for the

        Memorial Service, performed at a different Lodge than Meistermusik.


        One doesn't want to be on the bad side of Royalty, but if she would have been

        upset at the re-use of a Piece for a gratuitous, pro-bono Memorial Service

        for her younger brother and Esterhazy, possibly the only tribute in Europe,

        one should steer clear of her anyway. Such a person would be unpredictable,

        "Flakey", and often impossible to please.


        Personally, I doubt that she cared, and probably didn't even know, that Mozart

        had recycled some music for the Memorial Service.

        Does anyone care that Hollywood recycled and updated the movie "Mutiny on

        the Bounty", or "A Christmas Carol" [Scrooge, Tiny Tim]??

        The Original movies are "bigger than any Aristocrats" and "more important

        than a Foreign Queen", seen by millions of people, icons of movie making,

        icons of popular entertainment, yet Hollywood released New Versions of both

        of those movies - probably with no protests that they had used the same subject

        and the same scripts twice for each movie.


        What if one of the New Versions had been made partly to honor the Director of

        the Original movie, shooting it in widescreen color instead of standard Black

        and White??  Would the Original Director feel insulted??  Very Doubtful.

        He probably would have complimented the crew on doing such a great job,

        assuming that everything turned out all right.

        Queen Charlotte would probably have done the same thing, if people reported

        back to her about the wonderful Memorial Service for her younger brother

        and Esterhazy, held at one of the Masonic Lodges in Vienna.   


        In short, this "MFM New Piece" theory is full of problems, unproven

        assumptions, and weird Psychology.

        In my opinion, it has no merit at all.     


        The reason the 2 men received anything at all (beyond a standard Masonic

        ceremony of a "Lodge of Sorrow")  was due to their elevated status.

        They were well-honored!! 

        And Mozart's musical tribute might have been the ONLY tribute they received

        in all of Europe.


        There's no need to push the envelope further and claim that the Lodge not only

        owed them something extra, and owed them a piece by Mozart, but also owed

        them a NEW Piece by Mozart - or that Mozart would have felt obligated to

        write a New Piece. 

        There's no justification for ANY of it that I've seen.   


        The Lodge didn't owe them anything, Mozart didn't owe them anything, and he

        certainly didn't owe them a New Piece.

        It was probably all done out of generosity rather than obligation.


      The "MFM New Piece" Theory involves "Over The Top"

      generosity and extra work for all involved - Mozart and

      a Masonic Orchestra, far beyond what was needed to

      honor the two men. 

      And performing a Known piece (known to some of the

      Freemasons) was smarter and easier than composing and

      learning a New Piece for the Memorial Service for Esterhazy

      and Mecklenburg. 


      For the 2 deceased Aristocrats:

      The Lodge WAS GENEROUS!!

      The Lodge Orchestra WAS GENEROUS!!    

      Mozart WAS GENEROUS!!   OVERLY Generous!!    


        He apparently didn't feel generous enough to compose a New Piece for

        2 dead Aristocrats, even if they were very important Aristocrats, and quite

        possibly felt that the Masonic Funeral Music was MORE than adequate,

        VERY generous, and perhaps even OVERLY generous. 

        (Actually, The Masonic Funeral Music *IS* overly generous, in my opinion.

         But it was convenient, and almost "off-the-shelf".)


        Yet, all this hard work, expense, and generosity wasn't Good Enough if

        Mozart had merely created a new Version of a recent, appropriate piece,

        performed once before at a PRIVATE Ceremony, rehearsed, and probably

        played in a polished style, probably with all the Lodges in Vienna contacted

        so all the Lodge members in Vienna could attend and pay their respects

        to the two Freemasons - Brothers equal in the eyes of the Great Architect

        of the Universe, and no better than the lowest Masonic Brother, according

        to Masonic beliefs???  

        The Mind Boggles. 


        To prove that the MFM was a New Piece,                                                     

        * You would need to negate all the good reasons that a Vocal Predecessor

           probably existed,                                                                                             

        * Explain a curious Catalog entry for the MFM (July) implying that he    

           wrote Something in July (Why did Mozart state that he wrote the MFM     

           in the month of July??  Please explain.),                                                           

        * Explain a small sketch for what appears to be the working out of notes and

           syllables for a Cantus Firmus line in C-Minor on the back side of a Basset

          Horn part for the MFM - an unnecessary exercise for an orchestral Piece

          with no words,                                                                                                  

       * Erase the history of the Church's usage of the "Tonus Lamentatorium" for

          200 years (used in the MFM),                                                                          

       * And erase any memories of Michael Haydn's Requiem (MH155) composed

          14 years earlier, which also contained the "Tonus Lamentatorium",  and   

          may have been heard by many people, which would make the MFM partially

          a derivative of MH155, and not a Brand New Piece, etc.                                  

       An impossible task.   



       of funeral music ---

       for important Aristocrats,

       wherever they may live in this world (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart),

       I can understand that the Queen might be slightly irritated that the Bowing

       and Scraping Servant Mozart did not compose an entirely New, Original

       Piece for her Little Brother, and pay the Copyists,

       and rehearse the Orchestra, and Perform the Piece, as reported by her

       musically-trained Spies or Agents, who heard both pieces or examined

       both Conductor's Scores or Autograph copies, reporting back to her Royal

       Music Department that "The Masonic Funeral Music" was a derivative of

       a piece performed 4 months earlier at a

                  Private Masonic Ceremony in August 1785, 

       and I can understand that she might be slightly irritated at the management

       of that Masonic Lodge for permitting a derivative of an earlier piece to be

       played, rather than somehow FORCING Mozart to compose a New piece, and

       FORCING the unpaid musicians to learn and rehearse a New piece, and I can

       understand that she might be VERY irritated to learn that the Central

       Musical Theme of the piece was a 200-year old Catholic Gregorian Chant,

       since she and her Little Brother were probably not Catholics, confusing the

       attendees with its flubbed religious target, not to mention the probable lack

       of Tuxedos or Mournful but Gentlemanly Pin-Striped Black Suits, Top Hats,

       and Fresh, White Chrysanthemums sprouting from spare button holes on

       broadcloth - pressed flat as a Notarized Death Certificate (my Commission

       never expires), but I doubt that any of that nit-picking, Psychotic, ingratitude

       ever occurred with the Queen, who probably never found out that the piece

       played at the Memorial Service was a recycled version of another piece.


       And if Meistermusik is Fictitious (highly unlikely), and the MFM was a New,

       Original Piece (except for the 200-year old Tonus Lamentatorium), I doubt

       that she knew, or had any way of knowing, that it was a New Piece, or even

       inquired as to whether it was New, Old, Recycled, Modified, Approved,

       Certified, Revised, Rehearsed, Re-Instrumented, Substituted, etc.

       She might have inquired if it was WELL-PERFORMED, and the answer would

       probably have been YES, and if the Service had been WELL-ATTENDED,

       and the answer would probably again have been YES, much to her relief and

       contentment, knowing that her Little Brother had been well-honored by his

       fellow Freemasons.


       In other words, she could be PROUD of him, knowing that his friends, his

       Freemason friends, HONORED him with a wonderful Send-off, and that the

       music was composed by the Greatest Composer in the World.     

       That's quite a Tribute!!!!


       In fact, she MIGHT never have learned of the Memorial Service at all. 

       That possibility seems rather unlikely, but could have happened.


       New Piece, Old Piece, Recycled Piece, etc - there's always room for ungrateful,

       un-Royal criticism, but civilized people with Good Manners, and a Good

       Upbringing, don't do that.

       They're polite and grateful, and know that the participants did the best they


       Mozart and the Freemasons of Vienna who planned the Memorial Service,

       had nothing to worry about.  They MUST have put a lot of effort into the

       Memorial Service (including Mozart), and gave the 2 Aristocrats a wonderful

       Send-off, and a Great Tribute - even with some recycled music by the Greatest

       Composer in the World!!


       (But *I* want to know if the Freemasons bought New Chairs!! 

       And did they sing New Songs, or those same old, tired Masonic songs?? 

       Did everyone buy NEW CLOTHES??  

       And what about the "Real" Funerals -- the Church Funerals??

       Did someone write New Hymns for the two Swells??

       Did they buy a New Organ??

       The "MFM New Piece" Theory says that OLD=INSULTING.

       The entire "New Piece" Theory is Silly Nonsense,

       and is just a Theory with no evidence to support it.

       Is "Honorable" New, and "Dishonorable" Old??

       Are Grandparents dishonorable because they're Old???

       Are old books less valuable because they're Old??? 

      A 4-month old derivative piece was just as honorable as old Grandparents

      and an old painting by da Vinci.


      Painted about 500 years ago by Leonardo da Vinci, in a process that took

      him as long as TEN YEARS, with many Versions and Changes over the

      years, the old painting is currently valued at approximately $780 million,

      but is not for sale.

      If you were to donate it to some wealthy Art Collector in memory of

      Mecklenburg, I don't think he would feel offended that it wasn't a

      NEW painting, or the final version in a long line of re-worked versions. 

      He could keep it, charge people to see it, or sell it for Hundreds of Millions

      of Dollars!!   Up to $780,000,000!! 


      Would the Art Collector say: 

      "This thing is older than dirt!!  And the guy worked on it for TEN YEARS,

      painting over it, layer by layer, revision by revision!! 

      The ORIGINAL version is located underneath the painting on display!!

      And the girl has a face like a Rock!!

      Bring me one of da Vinci's NEW paintings!!  From last week!!

      Or a recent Elvis on Black Velvet.  Or Dogs Playing Poker.

      Or a Campbell's Soup Can.  

      And don't offend me or the Mecklenburg's with any more of this reworked

      Old Stuff!!  Nobody wants to look at Old Stuff or Version 325 of a stupid

      painting of some Plain-Jane with no Eyelashes who has never heard of

      Makeup!!  Is lipstick against her religion, or something??

      No wonder it took him 10 Years to paint it!! 

      Even the Nunnery begged her not to join!! 

      Bring me something NEW and Fresh and Zippy!!" ??)   




                        Mona Lisa.  Pathetic, but Famous and Expensive!!

                    Some guy's wife, partially cheated by Nature.    

                    Painting: About 500 years old.  VERY OLD!!

                    Estimated value:

                                $100 million in 1962.

                                $780 million in 2015. 

                    Revised/reworked many times for 10 years.

                    Original Version: Located Underneath the visible paint.

                   All for some very plain-looking Peasant girl

                   you could probably meet at the Thrift Shop,

                   or selling Unflavored Tofu at the Co-op.

                   Already viewed by millions of Commoners.    

                   Known and Familiar to millions.        

                   Gift Rating:  Very Low/Unsuitable. Poor choice. 

                         Not "Special" or Personal. Very Hoi poloi'ish. 

                         Not for Connoisseurs. Fake Snob Appeal.

                         Not worth a penny more than $15 million.

                         Recipient would feel offended by your lack of taste,

                         your gullible sense of value, all the modifications made,

                         and the Old Age of this painting (500 years old!!).  


                         Don't donate it to the Esterhazy or Mecklenburg

                         families!! They only want New, Original Stuff!! 


                   Bottom Line: Avoid this one.

                   Better: Dogs Playing Poker      (recent lithograph). 

                                Elvis on Black Velvet    (recent lithograph).

                                Campbell's Soup Can   (recent lithograph).



     * Hiding Meistermusik:

        Mozart may have had 4 "informational" objectives with Meistermusik:

            1. Hide the deeper meaning of the piece from the Lodge members in order

                to not irritate them, etc.   

            2. Hide the deeper meaning of the piece from the Lodge members in order

                to prevent rumors from starting, regarding his strong attraction to

                Nancy Storace.    

            3. Hide the deeper meaning of the piece from the Lodge members in order

                to help curb the spread of knowledge about her Marriage to John


           4.  Hide the existence of the piece from future prying eyes. 


        If Meistermusik is partly related to Nancy Storace and her serious problems

        (composed after she lost her voice, her child, and her career, temporarily,

        in June and July of 1785), Mozart had good reason to hide the existence and

        meaning of that piece, even though it had received one Private performance at a



        Another reason for the hiding may be related to her Secret Marriage to John

        Fisher -  a secret to her friends and fans in England.

        IE, Mozart didn't want to irritate the Lodge members by revealing that he had

        a Personal Agenda for a Masonic Promotion piece, and didn't want to advertise

        Nancy Storace's Marriage with John Fisher.

        Additionally, a general knowledge of the piece and its meaning might reveal

        Mozart's strong attraction and concern for Nancy.


        With a "Masonic" reason of a promotion to Master Mason, utilizing Masonic

        text from The Lamentations of Jeremiah, with no entry in his Catalog for the

        piece, and with a confusing entry under July for The Masonic Funeral Music

        a few months later - a piece nearly identical to Meistermusik, he hid

        Meistermusik, and thereby hid any linkages to Nancy Storace and to her

        Secret Marriage.



     * Salvador Dali's Painting:



        The painting by Dali called "The Persistence of Memory" (with the droopy

        watches) is not a Mistake.

        He painted it that way intentionally. 

        By the same token, Mozart entered "July" correctly in his Catalog for the

        date of composition for the Masonic Funeral Music, but it was for a Previous

        Version of the MFM - a Predecessor - the Original Version:  Meistermusik. 

        July was not "obviously a mistake" as some people have claimed, any more

        than Dali's painting of the soft watches was "obviously a mistake".


        But they can write to the Art Museum and explain that Dali obviously made

        Mistakes when he created that painting.

        Maybe they'll put up a sign next to the painting apologizing for displaying a

        painting with "obvious mistakes". And maybe not.


        Maybe the Mistake-ologists will have better luck with Music Publishers,

        pointing out the "obvious mistakes" in the Intro of the Dissonant Quartet.

        Mistake-ologists have a keen sense of what is musically "intentional" and

        what is "obviously a mistake" - MANY mistakes, in this case.

        Once they've made their point with the Music Publishers that the Dissonant

        Quartet is riddled with mistakes, they might have a better chance of getting

        their theory accepted that "July is obviously a mistake" for The Masonic

        Funeral Music entry in Mozart's Catalog.  


        In fact, they could expand that concept to a General Theory of Mistake-ology

        involving Salvador Dali and Mozart, where both men were victims of a rare

        Condition they've dubbed "Frontal Lobe Asymmetric Conundrumitis With

        Parallel De-Syncopational Fugue" where geniuses sometimes make Enormous

        mistakes, such as painting droopy watches, writing wrong notes, and writing

        wrong months of the year - as much as 4 months off - all by accident. 

        Following the proof of this concept should be easy, since the examples used

        would be "obvious mistakes" and wouldn't require any actual "Proof".         



     * Foul Play??

        The deaths of the Freemason Aristocrats Mecklenburg and Esterhazy, 1 day

        apart, could simply be coincidence.         

        But Mecklenburg was only 37 years old.

        And about a month after their deaths, Emperor Joseph II began closing

        Masonic Lodges, reducing their number in Vienna from 8 to 3. 

        This was just 2 days after a possible 2nd performance of The Masonic Funeral



             November 6th and 7th:  Two important Freemason Aristocrats die.

             November 17th:  The Masonic Funeral Music is performed.

             December 9th:    The Masonic Funeral Music is possibly performed again,

                                          with some instruments added to it.

             December 11th:  The Emperor decrees that only 3 Lodges will be permitted

                                           in Vienna instead of 8.

                                           That's about 1 month after the Aristocrats died. 


        Did the Emperor order Mozart to write something for a Memorial Service

        (The Masonic Funeral Music), diverting suspicion of foul play with a glorious

        send-off, first performed at Esterhazy's Lodge, with Mozart completely unaware

        of the true situation, simply doing the honorable thing, as well as following

        orders from the top Executive in Austria??  

        Is that the real reason why The Masonic Funeral Music exists?? 

        Because it was an order from the Emperor?? 

        Did Mozart make some unexplained income in November/December 1785??

        Doubtful that they were killed, and very doubtful that Joseph would order such

        a heinous crime.  My hope is that it's all coincidence, but the events do cast some

        doubt --- OR,

        Joseph simply used the opportunity of their unfortunate deaths to clamp down

        on Freemasonry, now that 2 of their elite had died. 

        Freemasonry was (rightly) viewed with suspicion and probably nervousness

        by Royalty, despite many Aristocrats belonging to Masonic Lodges.   

        See the topic of Masonic Lodges at the end of this paper. 


        Some of the Questions (discussed later) are:

        * What did they die of??

        * Why did they die 1 day apart??

        * Were they killed??

        * Did they have enemies??

           (For example, Kennedy had many deadly enemies, but most people didn't

            know anything about that situation. I don't know that the 2 Aristocrats had

            ANY enemies, and I'm not implying that they did, but the question should be


        * Why did Joseph start closing Masonic Lodges about 1 month after they died??

        * Why did Mozart write The Masonic Funeral Music??

        * Did someone ask Mozart to write it??  Who?? 


        These questions may all have perfectly Normal answers.

        But what are the Answers??


        (Foul Play involving the Aristocrats is just a Question - not a theory.

        I have no idea if Foul Play was involved in their deaths.

        But it's a possibility.)