lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:List of piano concertos by key

message: Should Konzertstück for Piano and Orchestra in F minor (Weber) be added to the F minor list?  I could go either way, just wondering what the editors' intentions are. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what about Strauss's Burleske in D minor, Liszt's Totentanz, Falla's Nights in the Gardens of Spain, Rachmaninoff's Paganini Rhapsody, various other rhapsodies, etc etc?  Either it's all major concertante works, or none of them. --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  only "piano concerto" or other concertante works? 

message: In the lead it says that the list is for famous piano concertos, however what are we defining as "famous"? 
Sorry if my question is stupid or if there is an answer, and I am just blind, lol  RandomEditorAAA (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are we defining "Famous"?
Talk:Piano Concerto No. 1 (Prokofiev)

message: Sergei Prokofiev won the Anton Rubinstein Prize for his pianistic accomplishments in a performance of the work before the Saint Petersburg Conservatory on 18 May 1914. This was at the same time the premiere of the composition.
However, I have a recording by Sviatoslav Richter, the liner notes of which say that the premiere was in Moscow on 7 August 1912, with the composer as soloist.  Can we confirm the correct date and venue?  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of premiere

message: Why does this article say it's a "one-movement concerto" when it has 3 quite distinct sections with different themes and tempo instructions.  I would recognise these to be separate movements.  I'll edit if someone agrees  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinMorris66 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have NEVER seen the concerto listed as a single movement piece anywhere. I have multiple CDs. They all list separate movements as does iTunes' database. I think the person describing it as a single movement piece may be confusing it with the first sonata.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.15.191 (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Update on this subject. The Discogs information I found for the 1975 Tacchino recording lists the piece as one movement. And yet, I have several more recent CDs, none of which do that. The piece is separated in iTunes when importing the concerto, too. I updated the article is a way that bypasses the issue. The structure area talks about "sections" not movements. Hopefully, this edit will satisfy everyone but it makes no claim either way. In practice, it seems clear that people have differing opinions about this piece being one or three movements.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.233.15.191 (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description
Talk:Piano Concerto No. 3 (Prokofiev)

message: In order to celan up the trivia section of the prokofiev article, I tried to move this bit of information here, but it seems to contradict with the rest of the article.
"Prokofiev's Piano Concerto No. 3 in C major was performed in Prague in 1926 for the first time ever (Ilona Štěpánová-Kurzová, Václav Talich, Czech Philharmonic Orchestra). This concert was featured in the 1980 movie The Competition starring Richard Dreyfuss, Amy Irving, and Lee Remick.  Amy Irving wins the competition over Richard Dreyfuss by deciding to play the Prokofiev concerto at the last minute instead of the Mozart piano concerto she had planned to play."
--Wormsie 13:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Prokofiev article

message: Who was the first pianist to add the more powerful modern ending to the concerto? I listened to Prokokiev's own recording in 1932, which does not have that ending. I like Prokofiev's version better than the modern version because the focus seems to be on the music instead of being on the technical ability of the pianist; it evokes more emotion in me. I do, on the other hand, also like the powerful modern ending, which focuses on the technical ability of the pianist. In fact, when I listen to the modern version, I just skip to the last two minutes of the concerto. 7Jim7 (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean this recording? It's exactly the same as in every "modern" version.-- megA (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Version Versus Original Version
Talk:Piano Concerto No. 6 (Prokofiev)

message: According to a thread on Google Groups, which sources "Sergei Prokofiev: Autobiography, Articles, 
Reminiscences", the concerto is in C major, was intended for 2 pianos and string orchestra (not piano and orchestra), and there were 24 pages of manuscript score- not just a few bars. A performing version based on the mss was made in 2014 and was intended for premiere in Louisiana in 2016, but this did not take place. ELSchissel (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections?
Talk:Piano Concerto No. 15 (Mozart)

message: This Wikipedia article is in great need of expansion. 
Unfortunately, though, I had to delete a sentence that cited a journal article by Simon Keefe entitled "Dramatic Dialogue in Mozart's Viennese Piano Concertos: A Study of Competition and Cooperation in Three First Movements" from The Musical Quarterly. The sentence I deleted stated: "Keefe has also analysed the character of the dialogue between the soloist and the orchestra in the concerto's first movement." This article is not about Keefe but about the piano concerto. So the reader really needs to know what Keefe's interesting analysis was! Without that information -- about the concerto -- the sentence doesn't belong in the article. But somebody (perhaps I) should read Keefe's article and if Keefe's observations are truly interesting and not too arcane, they could be summarized within our article. 
I also deleted a remarkably similar sentence that cited a 1947 journal article by Diane Mcveagh. Her journal article was delightful, but it has nothing useful to say about this piece per se other than that it provides (in her words, my emphasis added) "an example of the classical approach to the problem" of how to divide thematic material between soloist and orchestra. In other words, it is a typical classical concerto. In the case of her journal article, however, I was able to leave in a reference to the journal article, as it provides a handy reference for the (admittedly obvious) fact that the 1st movement is in typical classical first movement sonata form.
In the case of Keefe's journal article, I moved the reference to Keefe's journal article into the "Source" section -- although I am not sure it really belongs anywhere in the article unless its contribution is spelled out.
If we get a lot of content on this talk page, somebody should feel free want to delete my (this) Talk page entry, as it is probably much too detailed about minor editing matters of little importance. I just hated to delete other people's work without an explanation.
David Couch (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Piano Concerto No. 25 (Mozart)

message: I had added the "Emperor" tidbit.  It was Hutchings that said this was Mozart's "Emperor" Concerto.  Subsequent edits had made this point confusing, though.  Its certainly never used as a nickname for the concerto but -- as I recall -- Hutchings used the label to compare the symphonic grandeur of the first movement to the later Beethoven work.  Theres a similar statement in the article for K271 stating that the work was "Mozart's Eroica".  No one calls the ninth concerto "Eroica", but it work does mark a watershed in Mozart's ouevre towards to new, more advanced, compositional style (as the third symphony does in Beethoven's works).  Anyhow, the Emperor factoid is not integral to this article, but I thought I would mark here in the discussion page the source of that statement.   DavidRF 15:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting!  Thanks for the source.  I made the edit after one of my students blithely told me that Mozart wrote the "Emperor" Concerto.  There's also a CD listed on Amazon.com that has picked up the nickname.  I agree with your solution.  Bmwilcox 21:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Emperor" 

message: The indirect Girdlestone reference should be replaced with something more direct- and while he doesn't write that or anything like what the author of the Kennedy Center notes attributes to him (Girdlestone) in the chapter on concerto no. 21 (25- he omits "concertos 1-4" consistently and understandably) in "Mozart and His Piano Concertos" (pp 415-444, Dover edition of 1964)... though he does write "the quintet in C, to which it is near" - and several statements about its relation to the symphony in C which can also largely be taken the same way) - perhaps Girdlestone made that statement elsewhere and more clearly also. Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at the start of the development of each concerto, although I agree the wording is terrible. Each one has the piano cut off the previous tutti with a short-short-short-long motif on repeated notes and move into a new key, but Beethoven's is more abrupt and more effective. Double sharp (talk) 07:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Girdlestone reference 
Talk:Piano Concerto No. 26 (Mozart)

message: I think that this piano concerto is among Mozart's finest. I also agree with the article saying that it is very like Mozart. I've heard this a few times before, and I never grow tired of it.
:It is indeed very like Mozart in some ways. The shape of the themes are very Mozartian. But it does not feel to me like the other Mozart piano concertos where the themes also to some extent shape the form of what is going to happen, and the harmonic structure of the movement is the master. This almost feels like the two Chopin concertos (or the first three Beethoven ones), with an orchestral exposition that stands on its own and is wholly separate from the solo exposition (which then feels like a repeat). The themes feel as though they have been coldly shoved into the necessary form as a result, with obligatory transitions that just mark time (see especially the orchestral exposition to the first movement). (Yes, I've been reading Rosen's The Classical Style recently. But I always felt that something wasn't quite right about this concerto compared to the others by Mozart.) Even in the slow movement, though we for once get a break from the ornamentation that desperately tries to enliven the cadences in the outer movements (since the forced-in material is just not going to do it), I find the theme's contour gets a little boring due to the constant repetition of the E-A fourth. Every scrap of this concerto is brilliantly Mozartian, but stuck together in a post-classical manner that does not seem Mozartean at all. A very interesting experiment, but given that Mozart did not try this again, I get the impression that he did not think it was a success, unlike the later Romantic generation. Double sharp (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Piano Concerto No. 27 (Mozart)

message: It seems probable that Mozart would have performed the concerto on his own piano, which he is known to have moved around Vienna for performances.  It was a Walter, not a Stein, and it still exists (it gets rotated between the two Mozart museums in Salzburg).  We have an image of it, shown at right.
thumb|400px
Perhaps worth including or substituting?  Opus33 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Piano image
Talk:Tovshuur

message: ......that the Tuvan people do not have an instrument called the Topshur? A similar instrument called the Doshpuluur is played differently and usually has three strings as opposed to two. Have you been to Central Asia and Southern Siberia? I would think you have not, though I have been to Khakasia, Tuva and Altai. Please do not replace factual information with sketchy information. If someone were to footnote this and research this information you would find what I corrected in this article to be true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.156.59 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cuyler91093, did you know...... 
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Scriabin)

message: First of ten given a number, or first of ten acknowledged sonatas, of course - but not first of ten. The composer wrote (at least) eleven sonatas for piano, of course. (The sonata in E-flat minor was written - I think - before the F minor, which would make this the second - but I'm not positive.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 11:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First of ten

message: seems to be a sonata form to me. I don't see the reappearances of the main theme inbetween the episodes which one has in a rondo. Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  finale a rondo? 

message: re this article in general: please, more fact, less indulgence in poeticizing and interpreting this piece. There's plenty to say about what it is - in fact, plenty more than what's in this article already - without telling the reader how very sad it is. N.P.O.V.!!!!! Tell the reader the facts. Let them draw their own conclusions. Got it? Right? Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashkenazy quotes etc.
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 3 (Scriabin)

message: I find it's always difficult to try and describe a piece of music in a "subjective" manner, because unless it's done on a mostly theoretical basis, there's always going to be some sort of POV. That being said, this section is full of words to avoid. References would certainly help. --Blehfu (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I've started to rewrite the analysis section completely in a completely objective and contrastable way. I'll paste the original text here and start editing the article. Since I'm not a native English speaker, I'd welcome any grammatical corrections.--62.57.200.96 (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the 1st movement is rewritten--62.57.200.96 (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure and content original research
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 4 (Scriabin)

message: I've tagged this article as having no references whatsoever.
While I'm against tag bombing and the like, I genuinely don't have the time to fix this article. I think readers should be aware that it could be unreliable as it has no sources. Jackc143 (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed. Still not improved as of 2019 Feb. (and I can't seem to find anything to help just offhand, but I'll look harder. I'd like to find a source for that "1903", for starters.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 16:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged as <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki>
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 9 (Scriabin)

message: One other question with regard to this piece however: is it atonal, or written in F major? This record lists the ninth sonata as "Piano Sonata No. 9 in F major". Could someone explain this for me? --Steerpike (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atonal
Talk:Walaycho

message: Is there a reference for the use of this name for this instrument?  I have a number of sources on the history of the charango, and have seen the instrument called walaycho; hualaycho; maulincho and even kalampiador.  But no source I have uses the spelling at the head of this article, with the final "u".
I suggest retitling the article "Walaycho", and either removing the "walaychu" spelling or listing it as a variant, until it's use can be verified.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walaychu?
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 10 (Beethoven)

message: I recently made some major changes to this article, and this is the first time I have done so.
Please send feedback to me on my talk page about any questions or  citations needed. Thanks. ~~MusicalConnoisseur~~  Got Classical? 21:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 11 (Beethoven)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 13 (Beethoven)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 16 (Beethoven)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 17 (Beethoven)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: This page tries to argue for Schindler's reliability as a source by simply stating that the story of Beethoven's reference to The Tempest is "a first-hand account like any other that any scholar reports." No, it is not. It is a story told by Anton Schindller, who, as any Beethoven scholar knows, (or indeed anyone who has read a good Beethoven bio ought to know) is an almost entirely unreliable source on biographical details due to his fabricating conversation book entries and destroying documents, among other astonishingly dishonest shenanigans. (See the Wikipedia article for more on this.) All of this was demonstrated by scholars in the 1970's.
The article then defends the supposed veracity of the "Tempest" story by quoting Tovey, who wrote decades before any of this was known to scholars. So of course Tovey repeats Schindler's story – he even goes Schindler one step further, by talking about the play itself, Prospero, etc.
The statement about its being "a first-hand account like any other that any scholar reports" should be removed, along with the Tovey quote.
David Zuschin (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schindler is **not** a reliable source! This should be fixed 

message: The second mvt notation is missing the bar line between the fifth and sixth bars. 71.59.194.230 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission in second mvt notation
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 18 (Beethoven)

message: Among the descriptions of the Beethoven sonatas I've read through this evening, this article is amazing in its brevity. And, perhaps, its paucity. Let's first fix its structure: 1) Give a simple overall description of the sonata and a list of its movements (devoid of commentary); 2) Give a historical or ouevre context; 3) Give a structural analysis with citations of both the harmonic edifice and the emotional weight of each movement.Tgkohn (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion needed

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: I don't know where this "eleventh" business comes from.  The first chord is ii 6-5, unusual for the first harmony of a piece, but hardly breaking new ground and certainly not requiring jazz terminology.  134.173.80.112 (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: First chord
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 2 (Beethoven)

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress
Talk:Piano Sonata No. 22 (Beethoven)

message: While I am not expert in the topic and therefore have not attempted to edit the material, it seems crystal clear to me that the description of the sonata under discussion is intensely opinionated and non-neutral.  It is one thing to quote a cited source's opinion, but for the entire article to be someone's opinion, particularly a negative opinion, is outside the guidelines for WP.  Monkeyzpop (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your point, and I don't think it's the best article now.  But to be fair, it's not a negative opinion; it is the opinion that the Sonata is an intentional parody. Tb (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of the foregoing notice. The discussion, now long closed, concerned whether to move the sonata articles to new titles incorporating opus numbers. The conclusion was not to do so. Drhoehl (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress