Talk:Serenade No. 10 (Mozart)

message: Great new article!  Could you also work in the "Gran Partita" nickname somehow to help disambiguate from the other serenades?  I don't know the details of it myself (his own? anachronistic? etc).  Thanks. DavidRF 11:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. My first made-from-scratch, non-stub article. :-) I'm surprised, though, that I forgot to mention "Gran Partita"; I will definitely have to work that in. Heimstern Läufer 17:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gran Partita Nickname 

message: The section mentioning the arrangement of the double bass part for contrabassoon is getting a bit messy from over-editing.  Is there some way we can clean this up so that it tersely hits the important points?  From my understanding, the purpose of the using the contrabassoon is to make the piece "all winds", but it should be stressed that Mozart did not write it that way, he wrote the piece for 12 winds and string bass.  Replacing the string bass with a contrabassoon is not a straight transcription, and that an adaptation of the score is necessary.  I'd edit the article myself, but as you can can see I'm not that terse.  :-)  I don't necessary want this point to dominate the instrumentation section.  Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  arrangement for contrabassoon 

message: This view of Tyson's dating of this work to 1781 on the basis of watermarks is insufficiently thorough. For example, it is true that type 57 paper is used for surfaces 1-52 and 95-98, but type 56 paper is used for surfaqces 53-94. This latter papyer type is used mostly for music of the years 1784-87, and much of his basset horn music is on paper of this type.
It is also incorrect to suggest that Köchel made a comment about the paper and watermarks of K. 361. While he dated the work to ca. 1781, he never made a statement that this dating depended on paper or watermakrs. On the contrary, he believed that only the Manheim orchestra might have had basset horns, and that was his basis for dating the work.
There is a great deal to say about Tyson's dating of the work based on watermarkes, but that analysis is too long to included here nmow. One thing at a time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.67.65 (talk • contribs) 
:The above text was written by 76.199.67.65, which I moved here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen anyone who uses the term "surface" in the way it's done in the above statement.  One says "page" when referring to one side of a leaf (or folio), or refers to the "recto" or "verso" of the leaf.  To describe a page as "surface" betrays a certain state of ignorance as far as paper studies are concerned.--Suessmayr (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper/Watermarks 

message: There are so many incorrect things about this Wikipedia entry for the subject Mozart work that a simple fix is not a satisfactory approach.  The entire piece needs to be rewritten, with particular emphasis on the date of composition, the subtitle, the general material, and the references to Tyson and Edge with respect to the date of composition.  I have tried on several occasions to contact the author but I can't seem to do so. I cite the book, "gran Partitta" (sic) by Leeson, as published by Author House in 2009. It is available from Amazon.com.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.153.177 (talk • contribs) 
:The above text was written by 98.207.153.177, which I moved here. --Tijd-jp (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect things