Talk:Kegelstatt Trio

message: Reference re: the original publication: Alfred Einstein, Mozart: His Character, His Work, p 261, 1945 edition, English translation. Will write in standard format soon. Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

message: A while back an anon changed the primary scoring of this work to piano/violin/viola.  I've always seen the primary scoring of this piece as piano/clarinet/viola.  In fact, clarinetist Anton Stadler is said to have played clarinet at its first performance.  I reverted the change, but thought I'd mention the revert here in case anyone wanted to object. DavidRF 15:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoring 

message: The following was posted without citation:
:There has been some discussion that the nickname may have been misapplied - that the legend (if true) applies to a sonata written at roughly the same time instead.
Is this true?  Anyone know?  If we can find a citation, then we can move it to the article.  DavidRF (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  apocryphal nickname story? 

message: The following quote has problems: "among Mozart's chamber music, only the 'Posthornserenade' K. 320 doesn't have any repeats in the opening movement."  K320 is a large-scale orchestral work.  The problem is that the sentence is cited.  Does anyone have access to the source paper?  Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote as it currently reads is "among Mozart's mature works other than symphonies, only the 'Posthornserenade' (K. 320) doesn't have any repeats in the opening movement." I just checked the clarinet concerto: it's clearly a mature work (the last Mozart completed), clearly not a symphony, and its opening movement does not repeat its exposition--or anything else. Apparently someone has thrown out the baby with the bath water. TheScotch (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Sorry to belabor this point to death, but I've just leafed through my Dover edition of all Mozart string quartets. The second and seventh have no repeat marks in their first movements. The tenth has incidental repeat marks, but neither its exposition as a whole nor its development/recapitulation section repeats. Since these are fairly early works, I've restored the qualification mature. TheScotch (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  repeats in chamber music 

message: I checked out three editions of the Kegelstatt trio from the university library. One is Schirmer's, edited by Joseph Adamowski, copyright 1920. Schirmer, obviously, has arguably been for over a century the most prestigious publisher of classical music. This edition shows the last movement in 4/4. Another is a Kalmus edition which also shows the last movement in 4/4. The third is a miniature study score published by Editions Eulenburg, which shows the last movement in 2/2. (I'm not suppressing any evidence, whether or not it supports my position.) The library also has the International Music Company edition I mentioned above that gives the last movement as 4/4. Since I own this edition I didn't check it out, but I did neglect to mention above that its editor is  Isidor Philipp. Thus among professional publishers we can actually name, in the sample we have so far, we are polling three-to-one in favor of 4/4. If we include the three anonymous editions I mentioned earlier and assume these are professional editions, we are polling five-to-two in favor of 4/4. 
Re: "I'm not aware of any publishing house other than Bärenreiter claiming to publish a critical edition of Mozart scores. Thus, their score is the yardstick until challenged with a critical apparatus, scholarly research and peer review comparable to theirs."
Obviously, the second proposition does not logically follow from the first. (I have, by the way, lots of novels on my shelf that claim to be critical editions, and I have a Beethoven symphony score that claims to be a critical edition. Generally it means that historical criticism is appended.)
 
Re: "Unlike with clefs, I can conceive of no good reason to change a time signature clearly readable in the autograph."
There are zillions of very obvious hypothetical possibilities that immediately come to mind, far too many to list here. (If you yourself really can't think of any, it's difficult for me imagine you should ever expect to be hired as a professional editor.) Before I furnish a sample let me admit that I was a bit rash in calling what I saw the autograph (sorry): It's an apparently hand-written version, and that's all I really currently know. When I get around to it, I'll see if there's more information about it at the site that shows it. Also: let me make it clear that I'm not saying any of the possibilities I list below are the case, so it would be silly to attempt to debunk them. The point is merely that the autograph is not necessarily the editor's only consideration. So: 1) there may be multiple autographs (or apparent copies) that disagree. 2) It may look as if the autograph was altered by another hand. 3) It may look as if the autograph was altered by the composer at a later time. 4) The composer may have disavowed aspects of the autograph. 5) The original publisher may have disagreed with the composer, and history may have sided with the original publisher. 6) The authenticity of the existing autograph may be in dispute. 7) A marking that means one thing at the time a piece was written may not have the same meaning centuries later. 8) A particular marking at a particular period in history may be thought equivocal....and so on. Also remember that just because an editor makes one decision, doesn't necessarily mean he thinks another might not be valid. He has to show the music in one time signature only, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to pretend the piece has never been published with another time signature.  (Yes, I've said this before, but apparently it bears repeating.)
Notice that I have offered three compromise proposals and that you have summarily rejected all three and have offered none of your own. TheScotch (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You inserted a citation request; I provided one. You are most welcome to add a discussion of sources with variant notation to the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: An accordance with the guidance given in WP:CITEVAR, I'm letting other editors know that I'll be amending the inconsistent citation style for this article, to make it easier to edit.  Amitchell125 (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In which way is the current citation style inconsistent? What do you propose? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Please see here for the proposed changes (the last ones aren't yet done). Personally, I'm used to the  citation style, as I cite a lot of books, but I'm OK to use the style used in my sandbox. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a lot of work for no tangible benefit. But you obviously know what you're doing, and I can't see why your proposal would be objectionable. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Amitchell125: I noticed that you replaced the previous deep links to the DME at the Mozarteum with a generic URL. E.g. both http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/objs/kb/8222_0043.jpg and http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/objs/ed/ucb19_185_117.jpg became https://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/nmapub_srch.php which is not helpful. Also, I don't understand why http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/nma_cont.php?vsep=185&gen=edition&l=1&p1=XI was replaced with http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b55006502j/f21.item which does not show, IFAICS, Mozart's inscription, whereas it's mentioned in the Critical Report. I suggest to restore the previous citations in these cases. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to revert these citations. Are you intending to work on the article in order to work on the additional citations required? Amitchell125 (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: References