Talk:Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart)

message: I think its useless this article being expanded. This concert is an emanation of pure genius in rhytmic, chromatic and all other musical aspects. No one can describe such a masterpiece with words. Tangra680 15:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we can try. That's what Wikipedia is all about. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  17:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but it's very stupid to think like that. All this sublimity that you describe is sheltered in a language, that is made of artifice. Art is deprehension of language, we must be the interlocutor of music to dialogue with it, to reconstruct what it calls of our perception. There is much to elucidate about this work that was not made here. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No words for such a masterpiece? 

message: The text says that "Chris Goertzen has mapped the structure of the slow movement", and points to the note 6: "Goertzen, Chris (1991). "Compromises in Orchestration in Mozart's Coronation Concerto". The Musical Quarterly 75 (2): 148–173. doi:10.1093/mq/75.2.148. http://mq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/75/2/148. Retrieved 2008-03-15".
As you can see, this text seems to talk about Piano Concerto No. 26 "Coronation", not about this one. Is that right? The access to this reference is restrict. --Leonardo T. Oliveira (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm restricted too.  Its a long article.  It might talk of this concerto as well.  I'm not sure what the point of the statements in that paragraph are though.  They mention a couple of articles, but nothing about them.  I wouldn't mind removing them.DavidRF (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The bulk of the article is about the Coronation Concerto, but on page 158, Goertzen compares the slow movement of K. 537 to that of K. 491, and on the next page there is a diagram for K. 491 followed by one for K. 537. James470 (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong reference? 

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFAR 

message: I don't see any way at all to listen to the audio - what am I missing here? Wnt (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to think it's best to let people find their own version rather than force one upon them. And the free versions to which we are limited are necessarily few in number and substandard. It looks like Mitsuko Uchida's second recording, which is very highly regarded, is free on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PftH8FVzIRY . Syek88 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia exists to pull out a source and show it to users rather than leave them to search around on their own.  This is just a simple case of that.  Remember, a lot of us reading are people who don't really remember what Mozart sounds like at all, who open up that YouTube video, listen for a few minutes, flip forward here and there a bit to see how much it seems to change, close it five minutes later, convinced we never heard it before and are unlikely to hear it again.  Nonetheless, you're presenting this content for our curiosity, and if perhaps someday we somehow find a deep understanding of what order the notes on a piano should be tapped in we might be back.  But only if we remember what it sounded like. Wnt (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely accept those points. The trouble is with excerpts is identifying those that are (a) free, (b) of acceptable musical quality, (c) of acceptable sound quality, and (d) uncontroversially interpreted, and then we need to make sure that we aren't serving as a vehicle to promote the individual pianist whose excerpt is used. Frankly I think that is an impossible balancing act to achieve, but perhaps my attitude is too negative. Syek88 (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe "acceptable" in this context means "the best someone has found so far".  A bad source is better than no source.  As for whether they are free, I think that widely circulated YouTube videos can be assumed not to be likely copyright violations.  Anything has a chance of being a copyright violation no matter who says they have a right to distribute it, because big highly reputable companies take each other to court all the time, but as long as we don't have a reason to know it's a copyright violation we don't have to try to probe into the mind of whoever is distributing it in the open.  Now as for being "used as a vehicle", well, this is inevitable.  The people who post free content on the web where we can link to it are rewarded with references, just as those who upload to Commons are rewarded with direct inline links.  That's just fair - give us the chance to see you when others do not, you get visibility and they don't. Wnt (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Youtube videos are necessarily free and we shouldn't be blasė about it. Many record companies now put music up there under licence and derive small returns. Either that or someone is breaching the record company's copyright by putting bootlegs up. The website IMSLP is a much safer course - it hosts genuinely free recordings and scores of a large number of works (for example, Beethoven Op. 57). But they have nothing for this piece, I'm afraid. Syek88 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't suggesting the link you gave was CC-licensed or anything like that - but Wikipedia references copyrighted materials on other sites routinely (copying the content here would be a different issue).  It's only a question of whether we think it's a pirate copy or not.  Anything that has been downloaded some fraction of a million times is unlikely to stay hosted in the U.S. if it's genuinely a case of piracy, since they have those DMCA notices and such.  And YouTube goes regrettably very far beyond that, muting audios on pieces based on only the most haphazard allegations, even mass allegations by machine, even when they are made against official sources like NASA.  I don't think you should have a moment's worry about the copyright issue; it's simply someone else's problem. Wnt (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio link? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402144045/http://www.sfsymphony.org/Watch-Listen-Learn/Read-Program-Notes/Program-Notes/MOZART-Concerto-No-24-in-C-minor-for-Piano-and-Orc.aspx to http://www.sfsymphony.org/Watch-Listen-Learn/Read-Program-Notes/Program-Notes/MOZART-Concerto-No-24-in-C-minor-for-Piano-and-Orc.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came over to this article just after viewing Glenn Gould's 1968 video "How Mozart Became a Bad Composer." Gould is no fan of Mozart, to say the least, and that video distills his criticisms by tearing apart (or trying to tear apart) a movement of Concerto No. 24. Are his views noteworthy enough to deserve a place in this article? Ishboyfay (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean this? It would need a non-trivial amount of summarizing, supplemented by reactions of others to Gould's position, but I think it would make a good addition. Let's wait and see what others think. As this is a featured article, maybe this should be raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that’s the video, although I saw it at a different site. Ishboyfay (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gould's opinion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion