Talk:List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconClassical music: Compositions
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Compositions task force.

To the anon who added the list of symphonies[edit]

Who probably doesn't read the talk-page, but in lieu of just reverting the list immediately--

  • Many of Mozart's works are covered in separate Wikipedia articles, for which there are links on this page.

Note there, the rule for placing a composition on this page: (it doesn't say that it has to be blue-linked and indeed many of the entries don't, but at least link them.) Schissel : bowl listen 12:54, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hello! from "anon"[edit]

Does that mean the content was deleted because its entries weren't linked? Or because they repeated linked entries that were already present?

When you say "note there, the rule" - where is "there"?

Did my added content simply disappear, or was it moved to a more appropriate article that allowed some analysis of trends/style?

Thank you... (Posted by User talk:136.181.195.29)

Hi. I deleted the list. I deleted it because this article was already too long and the repeated link entries were already present. The commentary you added looked interesting at first blush, but it was unreferenced and also had a flavor of POV in it as well. The notes that were deleted were not moved anywhere yet, but are still available in the "history" for this article.
I do think it may be a good idea for someone to create a special Mozart Symphonies page along the lines of either Mozart Piano Concertos or List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn. The scope of this page (List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart) is too broad for any detailed commentary, but there are indeed a ton of symphonies and some overview of the Mozart's work in this field and the evolution of his symphonic style would be very interesting. The notes you had would make a decent start for a page, but it would need to be heavily cited with critical commentary (for example, see Mozart Piano Concertos). Also don't forget that notes particular to any of the specific symphonies could go on that symphony's page. DavidRF 14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Maintaining standards for wikipedia is a good thing. If only other wikipedia sites were as-well maintained!!

Sinfonia Concertantes[edit]

They are listed under both the Concertos and the Sinfonia Concertante sections. They should be in only one.

What about the many sonatas for violin and piano? (edit: 62.101.234.41)

    • See the main page under Chamber music - brief description, no links yet to the two violin sonatas that so far have pages (one of which - for the A major K 526 - I started, so I'm interested to know too :) BTW it's more typical/standard/whathave to add comments, start new sections, at the end of a talk page, which is why I've moved yours there- otherwise it seems as though the people below us are responding to us. Schissel-nonLop! 04:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Sonata 15[edit]

Why does Piano Sonata 15 (F maj) redirect to 16? 15 and 16 are the same? Surely not. The F Major I think is made up of K.533 and K.494, two movements and then a rondo. I'm not sure how this came to be though. But two sonatas redirecting to the same page is ridiculous --86.144.115.45 05:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why one page redirects to the other. I gather that sonata 16 is K. 570, the next-to-last of them, and sonata 15 would be K545, the facile, about which there is an article to which that should be pointing! I'll look into that soon- thanks. As to 533 and 494, though: the earlier work was later attached (by the composer) to the first two movements for publication, I believe, and a cadenza making use of a lower register added at that later date to the rondo as well, if I remember what Alfred Einstein wrote in Mozart: His Character, His Work. I'll get my copy of the book and a computer over in the same place sometime soon, I don't think opinion- or discoveries about watermarks, etc. - have changed, been made, ... - in the half-century since the book was written... Schissel-nonLop! 19:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
533 is Süßmayr's version of the Rondo (K. 494's 2nd movement). K. 494's 2nd movement is the Mozart fragment Süßmayr used to write 533. The sonata is then made up of K. 494's first movement (Mozart) and K. 533 (Süßmayr). -- brianfreud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.153.79 (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably thinking of K.412+514/386b (the first [sic] horn concerto). K.533+494 is all Mozart. Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check the date on the original comment. That was two years ago. At one point it looked like there was confusion as to how 533/494 affected the ordinal numbering scheme. One link used one ordinal numbering an other link used another. This caused two links to redirect to the same page. This has been fixed.
It is true that not everyone agrees with the ordinal numbering chosen here, that's another matter. At least its now consistent with itself. Many correctly point out that its the K-numbers that are most important here, that most don't refer to Mozart sonatas by their ordinal numbers. The Schubert sonatas have been renamed to use the D-numbers in the page titles instead of the ordinal numbers to avoid confused as to ordination schemes. That's a possibility here at some point, but I don't think its necessary yet. As long as the navigation template is at the bottom of each sonatas page, we should be fine here. I'd be more interested in seeing more of the sonatas get articles. DavidRF (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I was just clarifying the question, even if it was old. However,, if I may disagree with the comment below, where it suggests "simplifying" the ordinal numbering, and your point about disagreement with various ordinal numberings, fact is fact, opinion or simplification without purpose is another. AMA published the works and they wee numbered. Various groups have attempted to renumber ever since, but the only *official* numbers are the AMA; hence part of the reason the NMA specifically didn't renumber the works, even if the AMA numbers include some works not by Mozart and don't include all the works in any particular class. Renumbering to any other series than the original AMA numbers just induces confusion without a purpose, and is the job the various groups that have tried, but not the purpose of an encyclopedia. (Having seen, among other things, such things as 370b+371 referred to as "Horn Concerto #0" in attempts to sell more CDs...) :P -- brianfreud
The issue here seems to be K533/K494 and if its included in the ordinal numbering. Checking the NMA, they say it does: K533/K494 is #15 while K545 is #16. I don't know what the AMA says. Googling around, I see much disagreement, though. Many places refer to the famous K545 as #15. Personally, I think the only truly definitive number is the K-number. Ordinal numbers are just used here because they fit the standard wikipedia style of "Type of Work No. XX (Composer)". I don't mind leaving it as it is, it matches the NMA and navigation templates are at the bottom of each page for users (like me) who like the K-numbers. If this is too confusing, I'd jump all the way to a scheme like "Piano Sonata K. 545 (Mozart)", but I'd only do that if it was really necessary. DavidRF (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a nit... That's indicating work #15 within that volume, not "Sonata No. 15"... -- brianfreud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.153.79 (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about here: [1]. I don't know German, but they call K533/K494 "Nr. 15" here. DavidRF (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operas[edit]

Hi. I have erased Ruggiero from the list of operas, it is an opera of Hasse, roughly at the same time of Ascanio in Alba.

Moreover, according to NEUE MOZART-AUSGABE, Betulia Liberata is an oratorio, not an opera. I have indicated it, but I think it should be removed from that section.

Merge from Musical works of Mozart[edit]

The article Musical works of Mozart has had a merge tag on it for a long time. The vast majority of the material there is a duplicate of that which is here. Having two almost identical articles strikes me as a very bad idea. Since I am not an expert in the subject, I have pasted below the material at Musical works of Mozart which is not in this article - everything else there is already here. Could someone with some knowledge merge it in to this article. I have then redirected the other one here. Kcordina Talk 10:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salzburg-era symphonies (1772-1781)[edit]

Not all of the following is included, but some is, the remainder may have been missed for a good reason

These symphonies are sometimes subcategorized as "Early" (1772-1773) and "Late" (1773-1775), and sometimes subcategorized as "Germanic" (with minuet) or "Italian" (without minuet). None of these were printed during Mozart's lifetime.

Although not counted as "symphonies" the three Divertimenti K136-138, in 3-movement Italian overture style, are sometimes indicated as "Salzburg Symphonies" too.

Opera[edit]

Much of the following material is included in a different form

Mozart, at Vienna, playing his Opera "Don Juan" for the first time

In 1767 Mozart composed his first opera, if one may thus call the scholastic musical drama Apollo et Hyacinthus (K 38). With respect to that first attempt, Bastien et Bastienne (1768, K 50=46b) generates a definitely different result. The young musician is already able to dominate texts and his music emanates pastoral joy and spontaneous fascination. La finta semplice (1768, K 51) can be considered Mozart's first - only partially achieved - approach to the Opera buffa genre.

Then, the first Italian operas were composed, upon assignments received in Milan and Salzburg: Mitridate re del Ponto (1770, K 87), Ascanio in Alba (1771, K 111), Il sogno di Scipione (1772, K 126), Lucio Silla (1772, K 135). In all of these works, Mozart still shows some awkwardness while moving in the traditional Opera seria frame. The librettos are often dramatically weak and improbable. Nevertheless, one can find in these works some unambiguously Mozartian distinguishing marks, though the weight, substance and formal perfection of the older Mozart are still lacking.

With La finta giardiniera (1774–75, K 196), Mozart comes back to the opera buffa, outranging all previous models of that genre. The libretto is still weak, but characters are not schematic anymore and become real individuals, with music definitely contributing to their definition.

Le Nozze di Figaro, the first of the three great operatic works, all belonging to the opera buffa genre (though the Don Giovanni obviously involves tragic elements), that Mozart composed with libretto by Lorenzo da Ponte, was preceded by some unfinished fragments (Zaide (1779, K344), L'oca del Cairo (1783, K422)), and by the music drama Il rè pastore (1775, K208) and the comedy Der Schauspieldirektor (1786, K486).

Le Nozze di Figaro (1786, K492), was taken from the comedy Le mariage de Figaro by Pierre Beaumarchais, a work that was hardly accepted - and performed - in France, due to its denunciation contents against the flaws of the higher dominating classes (Clergy and Aristocracy), opposed to the healthy activism of the Third Estate. In Austria, too, Mozart's opera met the opposition of the imperial court, though it should be said that Da Ponte had purged the most shocking aspects from the original text. Actually, the opera was executed during the Spring of 1786 at the Vienna Burgtheater, with enormous success.

The trilogy of Da Ponte librettos continued with Don Giovanni (1787, K527) and Così fan tutte (1789, K588), both dealing - but in highly different ways - with the subject of love between men and women.

In his mature years, Mozart composed two important works belonging to the opera seria genre: Idomeneo re di Creta (1780, K366), and La clemenza di Tito, (1791, K621).

After many years from his debut in the German music drama (Singspiel), Mozart came back to this genre with Die Entführung aus dem Serail (1782, K384) and, finally, with Die Zauberflöte (1791, K620). Die Zauberflöte has been criticized for the absurdities of its libretto (by Emanuel Schikaneder), that was probably rehandled several times. It also achieved scarce success at its first performance. Nevertheless its music proposes elements of great brightness and spirituality, with the composition of sacred and profane love in unique delight.

Thankies[edit]

I was doing a report on Mozart, and this helped alot! :D Keep it up! I also like the way you can edit each page... (I added Mozart's birth date and death date on the page) ~ĶųŘıξ

Number of Mozart Pieces[edit]

Does anyone know roughly how many compositions were written by Mozart?

Depends on your definition of "composition" - any he wrote? Surviving ones? Compositions that survive completely, or do you include fragments and/or sketches? How about variant versions of works? Then throw in the works that are considered doubtful, but not enough to be considered spurious. Then do you count movements as compositions, or only the concerto/symphony/etc that contains those movements - and what if those movements were also performed as separate works by Mozart, not just as entire works? Then there's the overtures to opera that become standalone symphonies when you add additional movement x to them, etc.

Works for four hand piano and two pianos[edit]

Seems like the works for four-hand piano and for two pianos are missing. I do not find the works in the KV list either. Can anyone add these works?

If added, the title of the section "Works for solo piano" should be changed to Piano Works or added in a separate section.

Done. If objections exist, revert. ALTON .ıl

Too much duplicate commentary[edit]

If we have a link to a work, should we also have commentary on this page? Makes sense to put the commentary on the work's page. This page should be more of a list with commentary only before groups of works. The late symphonies and opera sections could both be cleaned up quite a bit. DavidRF 04:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -Asmeurer 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violin Sonatas[edit]

I fixed the links to the Violin Sonata list that was just added here so that it pointed to two articles that were pre-existing. Both of those articles have odd titles: "Sonata in A for Violin and Keyboard (1787)" and "Sonata in C for Keyboard and Violin (Mozart)". It would match other naming conventions if the titles of those articles either had the "index" number or the K-number instead of the key and the year. The "index" number is normal preferred (see symphonies and concertos) but it has problems with the violin sonatas for two reasons. First, there are gaps in the sequence which is confusing. Second, there tends to be a distinction between the very low K-number works of his childhood and the later works (note the huge gap in K-number)... many "complete" collections of violin sonatas start with K 296. Anyhow, if someone can come to an agreement on the appropriate titles for these pages, that would be great. DavidRF 15:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violin sonatas[edit]

There are those who argue that Mozart's early works for violin and harpsichord are not considered as Violin Sonatas because the violin in the these works is subordinate to the harpsichord. Compositionally, the "true" violin sonatas start at K. 296. However, I agree with those who count the early works as Violin Sonatas based on a general understanding that, in the classical era, a sonata is music for an instrument accompanied by either a harpsichord or a fortepiano, except for the harpsichord or fortepiano that is played alone in a sonata. Also, for the benefit of the general users of Wikipedia, who do not really understand these compositional technicalities, simplifying the List of Violin Sonatas by Mozart by counting K.6 as Violin Sonata No. 1 may be a good idea. Truenorth2002 23:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure "Violin Sonata No. 1 (Mozart)" is not very descriptive, but its simple. If it turns out that pages for these get written then a navigational template with K-numbers and keys can be made (like the ones for Beethoven piano sonatas and string quartets). DavidRF 04:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horn Concertos[edit]

It is stated that the Rondo from Horn Concerto No. 3(K447) "is perhaps the most famous movement from all four horn concertos". It is my opinion that the Rondo in the 4th concerto (K495), is more famous. The Rondo from No. 3 is, however, included in a "The Best of Mozart" album from 1997. Cewlac 21:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Greatest Hits of Mozart CD only includes from his horn concertos the first movement of his first horn concerto in D. Famousness could be determined by the number of Googlesearch results for each concerto. Asmeurer (talk • contribs) 23:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greatest hits CD's are notorious for either being misinformed, picking the wrong movement from a great work or just picking a work because it had a length that would fit on the CD nicely. One of the horn concerto finales (I think #3) is famous for sounding like the finale to K482 (piano concerto #22). When the horn concertos get their own page (or pages), then that type of commentary should disappear.DavidRF 13:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created one page for the four horn concertos. They could be split up later if there is more demand. Commentary from the list page should be moved to that page. DavidRF 17:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Trios, Oboe Quartet and Horn Quintet[edit]

I noticed the following pieces are missing from the chamber music section:
Piano Trio in B flat, K. 254
Piano Trio in G, K. 496
Piano Trio in B flat, K. 502
Piano Trio in E, K. 542
Piano Trio in C, K. 548
Piano Trio in G, K. 564
Oboe Quartet in F, K. 370
Horn Quintet In E Flat, K. 407

Sonezy 08:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. DavidRF 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media[edit]

Rather than having all of the music clips at the bottom of the page, I think they should be appropriately placed next to the relevant composition. Any other thoughts? Reywas92Talk 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is already so long. I'd vote for only having media clips of pieces that do not already have articles. Media clips for pieces with an article should go only in that article to save space. Can there be a category in the commons for collecting all Mozart clips so they don't need to all be listed here? DavidRF (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
There is: commons:Category:Compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or its presentation as a Template which you should see there ->.
Its presentation if of course rather unappealing, and there is no guarantee that all relevant media are actually properly categorised (I just added a bit over 20 such items to that category – there are probably more). Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of concert arias, songs and canons by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart[edit]

I forked this off as a child article. In most cases, I'd advocate leaving this list here because its convenient to have everything here. Especially if the list is only a couple of dozen (e.g. operas or piano concertos). In this case, the number of short vocal works was just so enormous (25% of the article by itself). I followed the lead of the List of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach forked off from the List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. DavidRF (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious Violin Concerto no. 7[edit]

Why is the spurious Violin Concerto no. 7 not mentioned here? I believe it used to be listed as spurious, which it should still. This well-known concerto, recorded by Menuhin, Szeryng, et al. can't be found anywhere, and a user has nowhere to turn. Badagnani (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's K.271a which is listed. Should we add a parenthetical ("No. 7") after it? If so, is K268 the parenthetical ("No. 6")? DavidRF (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I advise doing something like this (as I believe some old recordings call it "Mozart Violin Concerto no. 7." Badagnani (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added the nickname to K. 271a.DavidRF (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


An anonymous poster has recently added two spurious violin concertos - K268 & K271a. I wonder if the See Also list of "Mozart symphonies of spurious or doubtful authenticity" ought to be moved to "Mozart Works of spurious or doubtful authenticity, and include these there.
Anyway, it seems to me that trying to maintain a "selective" list of works is going to keep attracting additions until it's no longer "selective" at all. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who supports whom?[edit]

I daresay that I agree with 203.97.254.81's correction in the paragraph on piano and violin sonatas, and disagree with Melodia. The classical piano/violin duo was essentially a piano sonata with violin accompaniment. Look at Haydn's sonatas, or, for example, the sonatas of Kuhlau, where the violin is accompanying the piano almost throughout. It was Mozart who gave the violin equality in the piano-violin duo. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that edit and revert, and wondered about it. I agree with Ravpapa about the Haydn sonatas. But if the intended word is "violin", it's a bit odd to discuss its relationship to "the other solo instrument" rather than just to the piano part. On the other hand, if "piano" is intended, it would be natural to talk about its relationship to the "other solo instrument", as you could think of cello and piano sonatas, for example. That's why I didn't revert. I was trying to figure out what was meant.

Maybe it would simplify things just to remove the whole comment. Tempo rubato (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section is out of date. The childhood pieces are not included in the full count of sixteen. (Arguably, maybe they shouldn't, but some clarification as to the count of childhood/mature should be noted). The childhood pieces should really be grouped into sets with one article per set. No need for separate article for KV 6, KV 7, KV 8, etc. For the mature pieces there should be a sentence saying that these are not the violin-centric sonatas of Corelli or Brahms, these are for the most part "sonatas for pianoforte and accompanying violin". *Then* the note where as Mozart got older, the violin parts of his violin sonatas became more independent and less accompanying makes sense. Also, I think for the articles on the mature sonatas, we should consider abandoning the numbers and going strictly with Köchel (e.g. Violin Sonata, K. 301 (Mozart)). Just for this genre. I know that several other genres use the ordinal numbers less that the Kochel numbers, but for VS's, I don't think I've ever seen use of the ordinal numbers at all. There doesn't seem to be a rush to create all those articles, though, so no rush, but thought I would toss in my two cents as long as it we were discussing it.DavidRF (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Chwialkowski book of many composers catalogs number them all, except the spurious ones from K 55 to K 61, and including three fragments (K 382e, c, and d or 402, 403, and 404). This is the same numbering used in the article now, though for some reason old-number 403 and 404 aren't listed here. What's really odd is that it mentions cello "ad lib" for K 10 to K 15. Here this isn't mentioned, though the Köchel catalogue not only mentions cello (not as optional), but also lists flute as an alternate solo, which my book doesn't do. The Mozart Forum just lists violin or flute. Hmmm... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K 81[edit]

Hogwood's set has this down as D major, rather than F major. It may be an error, can anyone else confirm? Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo. I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out.DavidRF (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divertimenti, K. 136-138 - Quartet or String Orchestra?[edit]

The three Divertimenti K. 136-138 are written for four parts (two violins, viola and cello) but there is uncertainty (on my part anyways) as to whether they were written for string quartet or string orchestra. Anecdotally, I see them recorded much more often for string orchestra, often given the nicknames "Salzburg Symphonies Nos. 1-3", but there are a few string quartet performances out there (Hagen, Auryn, Eder, Kocian) as well. On the other hand there are many complete sets of string quartets that do not include them. There is a similar issue with Eine Kleine Nachtmusik (five instruments or five parts?). I can't check my books right now, so I'll check later. Does anyone else know any details? Thanks.

Pretty sure most places I've seen, such as The Compleat Mozart and the Mozart Forum consider them to be chamber works. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uwe Krammer in Zaslaw's "Compleat Mozart" thinks they were written as chamber pieces. Perhaps with double-bass instead of cello. Sadie in "Mozart, the Early Years" goes back and forth saying they are too short and not serious enough for symphonies, not as refined as the early quartets and distinct in layout from the other divertimenti and serenades. He cops out and says they should be regarded as sui generis. Both clearly state that the works are performed frequently and successfully by both quartets and larger ensembles. I guess that doesn't answer the question. If these had articles, we could spell out the two performance practices in the text. Here with just a terse descriptive title, I'm not sure what to put. I guess if you want to revert my "or string orchestra", you can go ahead.DavidRF (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incipits for the Symphonies[edit]

I have created a list of incipits for the Symphonies. I did not think that they belonged on this page because a) it would look odd and b) if all the other compositions got the same treatment then the page would take too long to load. I have linked it by calling it the main article for symphonies. I trust this is alright and if not, that a concensus can be reached as to how to deal with it. N.B. in the future, I intend to to the same at least for the string quartets and the piano concertos.Op47 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am undecided as to whether we need a lot of incipit-laden lists. The information in the lists is nice, but there is a cost in having odd-looking bulky tables. Where I do think the incipits most certainly do belong is on each article page. Score snippets are a great way to spice up an article page -- especially with many of the early symphony articles being stubs.DavidRF (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking just for myself as a user rather than an editor, I'm not at all undecided - incipits are very good to have on pages for individual compositions, but never in lists of compositions, where they are just eye-clutter. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't understood that you had created a separate table, which is excellent - I had wondered where they were on this page of lists. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, they are a fantastic addition to the work pages themselves -- really, more musical examples in general (especially of PD works) would really enhance many of the pages. A simple list with incipits like that though (especially as the creator seems to have only done the numbered symphonies. which seems pretty silly in Mozart's case) doesn't really add anything, and seems to me to go against the spirit of WP:NOT (nothing really applies specifically but it's pretty "crufty" as the term goes). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A list of incipits can be useful for a reader who knows the opening theme but can't remember the number. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was what I intended them for. I agree that it would have been better to include the unnumbered symphonies, but I do not have access to them. If you have access then perhaps we can find a way forward? Op47 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMSLP?? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NMA is the best source for Mozart scores. See [[2]] and either punch in a K number or navigate through the orchestral works sections.DavidRF (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMSLP is the source of what I have done. There is now a small subset of unnumbered symphonies that were not available when I started this project. I have tried the NMA and it is a little slow and unreliable (probably my connection's fault). I will add them as and when I have time, but I can't do it immediately. Op47 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the menus at the NMA website are terrible, but the content is excellent. We put direct links to there at the bottom of all the Mozart articles so that people don't have to deal with the navigation. Here are more direct links to the unnumbered symphonies found there:
Sinfonie in F KV 75 (Score)
Sinfonie in F KV 76 (42a) (Score)
Sinfonie in D KV 81 (73l) (Score)
Sinfonie in D KV 95 (73n) (Score)
Sinfonie in C KV 96 (111b) (Score)
Sinfonie in D KV 97 (73m) (Score)
Sinfonie in B KV Anh. 214 (45b) (Score)
Sinfonie in G KV Anh. 221 (45a) (Score)
Sinfonie in F KV Anh. 223 (19a) (Score)
DavidRF (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou, if nothing untowards happens then I should have them done in a couple of weeks Op47 (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done now. Op47 (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I pasted the incipits into the single-digit symphonies 1,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 to see how they look. Does that look like a decent enough location? I debated whether or not I should put them up in the lede but decided on the movements section, below the instrumentation but above the movement list. Independent of the incipit-list question, they look great on the article pages. Many thanks to Op47 for making all of those. I didn't realize they were gif's. That's OK for these, but try PNG for future ones.DavidRF (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I finally got around to adding the incipits to all of the individual articles except for #29 and #40 which already had a similar score-snippet image. They look great. Thanks again to Op47. Other editors are free to tweak the location of the incipit on the page if they'd like. It was fairly obvious where to put the image on the more stubbier articles but one could imagine several possible locations for some of the later articles.DavidRF (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What advantage does PNG format have over GIF? Op47 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert. I must admit I'm just repeating what people have told me. I think its because PNG is smaller, allows transparency and looks better when resized. It was easy for me to switch the lilypond settings to output PNG for stuff I did so I just got in the habit of doing that. But these incipit gifs are already pretty small and don't have any color so maybe it doesn't matter. More informed editors weigh in here: [3] and [4].DavidRF (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a brief discussion of graphic file types at Commons:Commons:File types, and some more at Image file formats. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The various discussions seem rather inconclusive. I suggest the easiest way is to find a small list to do (e.g. Brahms) and determine the way forwards. Op47 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a PNG version at List of symphonies by Johannes Brahms. It looks ok to me, so I will use PNG in future. By the way, thankyou for supporting me regarding the citations. Op47 (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KV 570[edit]

The piano sonata in Bb KV 570 has an optional violin part, assumed to be by Mozart. Seldomly played, though, because it is not really adding anything except a little imitation here and there. I have so far not been able to determine whether the violin part is authentic. I have added KV570 on the violon-sonata list, though it really is a sonata for piano with accompanying violin (as are some of the other vl.sonatas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald j axel (talk • contribs) 13:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The NMA is quite firm that the violin accompaniment is not by WAM (http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/objs/ed/ucb20_197_-17.jpg) and lists it as Piano Sonata Nr. 17. I suggest to remove it from the section Mature violin sonatas (1778–88). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. I did not know how to query revision report in NMA. Removed.

--d-axel (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Der Stein der Weisen[edit]

This is a work which is recognised as a collaboration in which Mozart was one of five composers, the other four being Johann Baptist Henneberg, Franz Xaver Gerl, Benedikt Schack and Emmanuel Schikaneder. Someone pointed out that it is not listed in the Köchel catalogue, but nevertheless, it is still a work that Mozart was involved in, even though he may not be the sole composers. Other composers like Vivaldi have operas in which they have only composed a part of listed under their list of compositions. Shouldn't we also list this under Mozart's compositions? Considering that the autograph manuscript with the autographs of Mozart and the other four composers was lost and only rediscovered in 1996, it is not surprising that it is not in the Köchel catalogue. - The dog2 (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you'd need a reliable source for that, if it's not in the catalog. Are saying Mozart actually wrote music, as opposed to someone else taking his music and using it? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart wrote some of the music, but not all of it. The music for this particular singpiel was a collaboration, and Mozart was one of five collaborators. Essentially, each of the five composed different parts of the score. Here are some of the sources I've found. [5] [6]. - The dog2 (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Köchel Catalogue and the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe (NMA) know, WAM wrote one piece for that pasticcio, the duet for soprano and bass "Nun, liebes Weibchen, ziehst mit mir", K. 625/592a. That does not warrant an entry for Der Stein der Weisen in the list of Mozart's operas. Given that the NMA doesn't publish the duet online or in its regular volumes but in Serie X: Supplement 28, sections 3–5/2 titled "Arrangements and completions (or supplementing) of works by various composers" (NMA X/28/Abt. 3–5/2: Bearbeitungen und Ergänzungen von Werken verschiedener Komponisten), I even doubt whether it should mentioned at List of concert arias, songs and canons by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, unless someone writes a stand-alone article about it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the sources I have included, Mozart composed more than one of the musical numbers. While it is true that Mozart only composed a minority of the musical numbers, it is definitely more than one. I don't have any idea why they were not included, but one of the sources I have provided is a peer-reviewed journal article, which I believe, under Wikipedia's guidelines, is considered a reliable source. I understand that the Köchel Catalogue is the authority in listing Mozart's works, but it does not mean that other reliable sources do not deserve to be considered. - The dog2 (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to use those sources to expand on David J. Buch's page –where similar papers are mentioned from 2001 and 2007– on his findings. The NYT article dates from 1997, the Early Musc article from 2008, and Buch's findings don't seem to have caused a great re-evaluation of Mozart's operatic catalogue since then. If Neal Zaslaw publishes a new catalogue which includes Der Stein der Weisen (and Der Wohltatige Derwisch [de] (sic)), then we can start to think about adding it to the list of Mozart's operas. Adding a work which doesn't have a Köchel number to any list of Mozart's compositions requires more authoritative sources than the ones provided so far. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One fragment from this, the duet Nun, liebes Weibchen, has long been in the catalogue as KV 625 (592a). The discovery of Mozart's involvement in the rest of the work substantially postdates KV6, so looking for it there is obviously futile. Similarly, just because KV6 still thinks KV 16a is genuine does not mean we should do so now that the consensus among Mozart scholars is that it is not (see Zaslaw's book Mozart's Symphonies). I do think it should stand in List of concert arias, songs and canons by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart; after, all wasn't the whole point of some of them to supplement works of other composers (e.g. KV 316 for Gluck's Alceste)? Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preambulum[edit]

In a broadcast recital this year in London, Alexandre Tharaud played a Preambulum K.deest. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Levin in The Keyboard in Baroque Europe (ed. Christopher Hogwood, Cambridge UP 2003) discusses on pp. 208ff the 4 preambula K. 395/300g which Wolfgang sent for his sister from Munich to his father on 11 October 1777. Mozart included a further pelude for Marianne in his letter from Paris on 18 July 1778 and describes it in detail, but it was presumed lost. Maybe it has been found. I can't find anything in the NMA. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The only piece I can find is "Modulierendes Präludium (F–e) KV deest" (modulating prelude – F major to E minor) in NMA IX/27/2 "Klavierstücke", p. 4, but that is not what Levin above refers to. However, listening Tharaud's performance (at 12:43) for the Südwestrundfunk, that seems exactly what he plays. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks this is evidently the piece he played but even this title does not appear to be on this article page, nor on the "complete list" Köchel catalogue page either... (although perhaps as it is "KV deest" it shouldn't be there anyway). Maybe someone who is confident with the formatting of these pages could add it, I apologise being a bit nervous to step on others toes. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that almost none of the "K. deest" works – I think there are about 60 of them – are listed anywhere on Wikipedia, except some at List of concert arias, songs and canons by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. That's an obvious gap that someone needs to close – there's a New Year's resolution! -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A possible way to make both genre and chronology happy[edit]

Why not do what Mozarts Streichquintette does within the genre it covers? Here's an excerpt covering 1787–1791.

Mozart's chamber music for strings
Year Trios Quartets Quintets
1787 KV 515: String Quintet No. 3 in C major
KV 516: String Quintet No. 4 in G minor
KV Anh. 80 (514a): String Quintet Fragment in B-flat major
KV Anh. 86 (516a): String Quintet Fragment in G minor
KV Anh. 81 (613a): String Quintet Fragment in E-flat major
1787–1788 KV 406 (516b): String Quintet No. 2 in C minor
1787–1789 KV Anh. 83 (592b): String Quintet Fragment in D major
1788 KV 563: String Trio in E-flat major
1789 KV 575: String Quartet No. 21 in D major
1790 KV 589: String Quintet No. 22 in B-flat major
KV 590: String Quintet No. 23 in F major
1790–1791 KV Anh. 66 (562e): String Trio Fragment in G major KV Anh. 73 (589b): String Quartet Fragment in F major
KV Anh. 75 (458a): String Quartet Fragment in B-flat major
KV Anh. 71 (458b): String Quartet Fragment in B-flat major
KV Anh. 84 (417d): String Quartet Fragment in E minor 		KV Anh. 82 (613b): String Quintet Fragment in E-flat major
1791 KV 614: String Quintet No. 6 in E-flat major
KV Anh. 79 (515c): String Quintet Fragment in A minor
KV Anh. 87 (515a): String Quintet Fragment in F major

And similarly for all the other years and all the other genres. Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Public Musicology[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anacasb (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Anacasb (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

symphonies are gone now?[edit]

in the previous layout Mozart's symphonies were the very first thing listed. Now most of them seem to be simply gone, can't find any. was there some kind of editing error? 95.29.44.47 (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_compositions_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart&oldid=1146969067"