Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:02, 17 September 2008

Classical music: Compositions

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Added k371 using this page as a reference: ] --Commonchaos 00:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Question

When a K number is used without qualifying it with an edition number, to which edition does it usually refer? --Arcadian 15:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The original Kochel listing (K1). There is no confusion because later Kochel editions either match up or have additional letters after the numbering to indicate a change from K1. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New Revision?

A new, completely revised edition will be published soon, this time both in German and in English.

When, exactly?

Anh.

Can someone explain to me what Anh. means? I'm looking for a K. Anh. 184 and I'm not sure what it means. TheProject 21:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

i think its an abbreviation that expands to "Anhang" and means "appendix" or "addendum" Numerao 16:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

K. 397

Where is famous K. 397 ? It's missing.

It's there. It's listed chronologically under the year 1782. Softlavender (talk)

Age

Anyone wants to see Mozart's age added to the table? Shawnc 07:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please!

No. how hard is it to sutbract 1756 from teh date? Numerao 17:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The birth year is not noted in the intro here. It's also less clear and obvious that way. Shawnc 09:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum, Salzburg 2006: Online Publications

I updated K550 to show how it could be linked to the recent http://dme.mozarteum.at Anybody thinks it is worth the effort to replicate for all Ks ? Does it violates any copyright ? Will somebody undo this change ? ChristopheThiebaud 22:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with linking the works to their scores at the Stiftung Mozarteum , although I imagine it would be a considerable effort to do so. The other question is of course how permanent these links are ging to be. Michael Bednarek 11:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. About the "how permanent" question, I guess it is not possible to upload these pdfs to wikipedia ? after all, they are public domain ? About the "considerable" effort, that is why I asked before :) I did not want to spend time and effort only to see my modifications removed :( I'll try to see if there is way to write a script to automate the generation of the link. Christophe Thiebaud 21:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Uploading them to Misplaced Pages? Hmm - 125 volumes, 24,000 pages of scores, 8,000 pages of critical reports? More importantly, it seems to me that their License Agreement prohibts such action explicitly. As to possible removal of those links here on Misplaced Pages: I really can't see any reason for that; the Stiftung does not seem to object to deep linking. Additionally, you could make a name for yourself by presenting such a Köchel Verzeichnis with your links to the scores on a web site yourself. Michael Bednarek 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

BRILLIANT CLASSICS - MOZART COMPLET WORKS

I have the Mozart's complete works by Brilliant Classics (Catalogue number 92540 - www.brilliantclassics.com). This 170 CDs are organized by type of music (Synphones, concertos, sacred works etc...) I have organized the CDs according to the catalogue found in Misplaced Pages so that I can listen to the works in chronological order. There are some works in the CDs that were not in Misplaced Pages's catalogue. I can send you the file in Excel with that information so that you can double check it and post it, if you want. Maybe there are other people who want to listen to Mozart's work in chronological order. It is quite interesting to see the evolution of his music. Let me know at

inigo_de_angulo@mac.com

Thanks.75.40.193.153 17:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to enter missing numbers into the Köchel-Verzeichnis, preferably with articles. If you do so, you should also consider registering at Misplaced Pages - Misplaced Pages:Why create an account?. Michael Bednarek 03:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

KV deest

I heard a symphony named KV deest Symphony in G "Neue Lambacher". Why is it not on this list ? -PhDP 23:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain the list to me?

Not what it is but why it's here. First off do we really need to list every one of the 626+ compositions here in this article? Isn't a sampling sufficient to show how the numbering works? Wouldn't this be more appropriate to a "List of Mozart Compositions"? I'm really not understanding why list every single piece of music. padillaH _{(help me)} 17:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A complete list of compositions by any notable composer is needed on Misplaced Pages. This list is a chronological list of all of Mozart's compositions — with the added Kochel number, which is the standard shorthand used to quickly and briefly identify a Mozart piece (which may be known by many varying titles or an have an over-long title). The Kochel numbers also help to quickly identify a piece's place in the chronology of Mozart's output. The Kochel numbering is much more reliable with Mozart's works than an "Opus number" (which is the system usually used with composers of less prolific or less confusing output). If you prefer to have the compositions in a selective list, by genre, with commentary, see List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Hope that answers your question. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I understand the concept behind numbering and cataloging the compositions. My question is Do we really need to list every single one of Mozart's compositions? This question is made even more relevant with the revelation that there is already a complete list elsewhere on WP. I love Mozart, I have one of the "complete" collections, but to list all of his works, over and over again, in differing orders or groupings, just doesn't make sense to me. We need one list and we can give an example here of how the KV numbers work then link to that list for the entire list. At best this is duplication of effort. padillaH _{(help me)} 12:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Softlavender. My opinion is that Mozart, and the corpus of his works, are so notable that they easily deserve far more than one article (just like we have, beside the Mozart article, articles on his death, his compositional method and even his relation with catholicism); so I believe that this article - the Köchel one - may stay, both considering it as a longish article about a notable subject (after all it is a list of about 600 items, it is not as if in War and Peace article we gave the whole text of the novel) or as a kind of super-disambiguation page (to all "K. xxx" articles, say). ] (]) 17:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But it is, in point of fact, redundant. Unless you are saying that Mozart is so notable he deserves two articles on each topic. To give three or four examples of the numbering, "in action" as it were, is fine but why do we need another list of the same stuff, different day? padillaH _{(help me)} 18:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Several composers have both the list-by-category and list-by-catalog-number articles. (e.g. Schubert, Dvorak, Michael Haydn, Mozart). Many more have both lists spelled out, but in the same article because the number is smaller and both lists fit on one page (e.g. Beethoven, Vivaldi, Ravel). I don't see the problem here. DavidRF (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it is not redundant at all. One list contains the numbers in the catalogue -- and it only works if it has every number, since that is the point of having a catalogue -- and the other lists works by genre, with annotation. They are two different things, and have a different focus. You could theoretically stick both lists together, but the article would then become very, very long, and would be an obvious candidate for a split. Please look at the works list in the New Grove for a sample on the kinds of information that should go in here; imagine them not including every single piece of music -- do we not strive to be an encyclopedia on the highest possible level, just as do they? Antandrus (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So you are trying to say that two of the same thing is not redundant? I can't support that argument. And no, we are not trying to be a music encyclopedia. WP is trying to be a general encyclopedia and as such should have general knowledge in it. If someone needs the specifics that you are mentioning then the reference you have given seems to be a wonderful place for them to look. I don't believe WP is in the business of putting other encyclopedias out of business. To a point we need other encyclopedias since we need third-party sources. Taken to a logical extent I can think of at least 4 other lists we could make with these compositions (alphabetical, by key, by theme, by tone), and that's not even trying. Is your argument that these are suitable lists for articles? And the proposition the WP is responsible for listing the entire Köchel catalogue is silly. Yes, if we were the keeper of the catalogue then we'd need to list every entry. Since we are simply noting that the catalogue exists I don't see why the need to list every entry. WP also has an entry on Encyclopedia Britanica but we don't list the entire contents. Also, the assumption that if these two lists were combined they would remain at full length is yet sillier. They would have the information in them merged into a single list containing both sets of information (actually, seeing how the other list already has the KV numbers and most of the places this would almost seem a trivial task). I appreciate that there are those who must have everything about Mozart in every form imaginable. But the repitition of information over and over while adding nothing to it is the very definition of redundant.

DavidRF, your argument is "the rest of them are doing it wrong so why can't we"? Really? Understand, there was at one point an article for every single Pokemon character. There shouldn't be, but there was. Just because there is other stuff on WP is not a valid argument for keeping redundant information. padillaH _{(help me)} 19:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Three editors here disagree with you and think it should stay. How much are you interested in discussing this? Should we pose the question to the governing wikiproject (WP:CM)?DavidRF (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Padilla: (1) Where is another complete list of Mozart's works? (2) We need a list by genre, and a list by catalogue number. (3) Are you by chance a musician? It seems to me if you were, you'd understand this. If you are not, please bow out of the conversation and let those in the field who understand the necessity of both a chronological list and a genre list do their work. Thanks! If this article is of no use to you, simply do not access it. Softlavender (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• This catalogue is highly notable, and it is not unreasonable, in an article about the catalogue, to list the catalogue itself. It's not really duplication either, given that the classification method used in each list is entirely different. I fail to see the problem here. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject Classical music compositions task force articles
• WikiProject Classical music articles