Talk:Symphony No. 25 (Mozart)

message: Whether the Haydn or Mozart symphonies in question were part of the Sturm und Drang (mainly literary) movement in any meaningful way is at best something that's been brought up for discussion and debate as a weak analogy (at worst dubious). Not even a coincidence of time as with Baroque music/Baroque architecture (which are otherwise dissimilar except for being around at the same time), just sharing certain features but lacking too many others, but the features shared caused the analogy to be raised, I gather. (In Haydn's case see Mark Evan Bonds, "Haydn's 'Cours complet de la composition' and the Sturm und Drang" in the book Haydn Studies, W. Dean Sutcliffe, ed., ) Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what everyone calls these chiefly minor-key works from ~1765-1775 (dates approximate).  See the Sturm und Drang article which has literary and musical sections to it.  Any discussion of the strength of the link between the literary & musical movements would fit well in that article.DavidRF (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sturm und Drang

message: I have heard the second subject of this movement played with either long or short appoggiaturas.  (The second version seems to be used in more recent recordings, which I suspect indicates that it has been found to be authentic.)  Anyone know?  Kostaki mou (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Appoggiaturas in 1st Movement

message: 1. Several of the claims regarding the arpeggio theme in the first movement seem unsupported. Particularly, the connection to Beethoven Op. 1 no. 1 in Fminor fails to take into account the dominant pickup, in which the 'Little Appassionata' has as much in common with the opening theme of the 4th movement of the "big" Gminor, despite the latter's apparent disassociation from the Sturm und Drang movement.  --Geof Pawlicki  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpawlicki (talk • contribs) 04:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about different themes.  You are talking about the opening theme (after the opening figure), which does closely resemble the opening theme of Betthoven's Opus 2 no. 1.  I was talking about the second (which does not).  What I was wondering was, should the appogiaturas in this second theme be played as ordinary eighth notes (quavers) or as short appogiaturas? Kostaki mou (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize now that your comment had nothing to do with my previous one.  I should have realized that immediately.  My apologies!  Kostaki mou (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arpeggio in first movement 

message: Do we really care about the first performance in the USA?
If the USA, why not any other English speaking country?
I propose to remove it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.225.227 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to remove content from articles. I find it informative that it wasn't performed in the US for more than 120 years, who performed it first, etc, and I see no reason to remove it. If details of other countries are available, they might be added, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Agree with Michael.  78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 11:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance history 

message: need to be explained. Just throw it in there makes little to none sense. For a start, the scores for the subject per movement would be great. --Mateus2019 (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  scores in the text