Talk:Violin Concerto No. 3 (Mozart)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Classical music / Compositions 
WikiProject icon Violin Concerto No. 3 (Mozart) 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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Compositions task force.
 

Main Features[edit]

Should main features of the whole piece be placed in this article.

"It is a classic blending of his Italian-influenced simplicity and courtly charm and German awarness of counterpoint and polyphony" is plagiarized from Microsoft Encarta's article on Mozart, which states, "It is a classic blending of Mozart’s Italian-influenced simplicity and courtly charm and a profoundly German awareness of counterpoint and polyphony." Therefore I have removed aforementioned text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.1.71.147 (talk) 6:08, 14 March 2010

Straßburg[edit]

Could anyone explain/find out why the Rondo theme suggests Straßburg? That first sentence in the section "The third movement is a Rondeau Allegro, and opens with an orchestra theme which gave the concerto its nickname: 'Straßburg'." doesn't explain anything. Much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.104 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

http://www.violinonline.com/unit3_4.html: "because he used part of a dance tune from the city of Strassburg in the final, third movement of this concerto (the tune was apparently known as the 'The Strassburger')." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thrid movement description[edit]

The description for the third movement (and to a lesser extent, the description for the second movement) has many problems. Aside from several innacuracies, it has a general tone that is very informal, subjective and sounds as though the writer was giving his impressions of the music: for example,

"in a quite unusual thing for Mozart to do, the violin plays the main theme again, thus concluding the movement in D."

"the music goes from Allegro to an Andante in G minor, almost in the fashion of a scherzo-trio form,"

"The quick passages stop for the violin to play a more ceremonial theme played on the D and A strings, in the fashion of a Musette"

" Instead of ending the concerto in a pompous way, Mozart chose to end it instead with the lonely oboe theme in G major played piano, adding the feeling of a musical "disappearing"."

There are several instances of word choice that are either incorrect or not the proper musical vocabulary, for example:

The author uses the word "cadenza" to describe the improvised passages in the last movement. A classical period cadenza is the improvisational expansion of a 2nd inversion tonic chord (I 6/4) that ends in an authentic cadence. It usually leads into an orchestral tutti. However, the third movement of this concerto has two eingang, which start on the dominant, are much shorter than true cadenzas, and "play in" to the main theme.

"threesome up-and-down notes" are triplets.

"note-rest small melodic line"

Finally, there are a couple statements that are just wrong:

The closing tutti theme of the third movement is called the "lonely oboe theme" by the author. He says that it is a "lonely, short passage played by the oboes only." This is incorrect- it is alternated between the winds (2 oboes and 2 horns) and the strings.

The G minor episode is accompanied by pizzicato strings, not saltando strings. Saltando is performed by bouncing the bow while pizzicato is performed by plucking the string.

The only wikipedia edits that I have done have been small details. I am unsure if it would be best to rewrite the bulk of this article (which I can do), edit it, or remove most of the material. As such, I have not edited the article and have posted this. Someone more experienced with wikipedia can either fix it or respond to this and let me know, and I will rewrite it.

96.236.221.120 (talk)

As a temporary measure I have reduced the commentary on the third movement to its very bare bones. I agree it was not up to standard: it had been in that state for some 12 years. As you foreshadow, the article could do with a makeover. You shouldn't feel that your inexperience should stop you: experience in music, which you clearly have, is more important that experience in Wikipedia. Syek88 (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)