Template talk:Mozart violin sonatas

This template 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 template or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

new template

There was getting to be several violin sonata articles so I created a template. Moreso than almost any other group of Mozart compositions, I am not very happy with the ordinal numbering systems for these works. Because of this I'd like to try and stress the K-numbers and keys as much as possible here even if the wikipedia convention is to use the ordinal numbers for the article names. Any suggestions are welcome. Cheers. DavidRF (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to No. 34?

Like with the masses, it seems as if there's an oddly missing number, that shows as missing in multiple sources. Anyone know? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about this as well. Renegade78 (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got the numbers (with gap) from allmusic. Googling around, there was a mozartforum post about this as well. One of the old catalogues lists a spurious work in A major as "K. 524" (but K. 524 is the song "An Chloe"). I couldn't find many other places that used the ordinal numbers at all. And even then other discrepancies pop up (K10-15 are listed piano trios in some places, others include the known-to-be-spurious K55-61). I said this a couple years ago (see above) but I wouldn't mind dropping the ordinal numbers altogether for these works and simply using the K number in the title.DavidRF (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no other one can be confirmed, why is there a gap? Renegade78 (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Da Capo Catalog Of Classical Music Compositions uses them (ISBN 978-0306807015). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Do you know if there's any mention of a specific work that might be the 34th? Renegade78 (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically, which is why I asked originally. It does list K 570, which is an authentic piano sonata with a spurious added violin part, but at the end (as it's a higher K number than #36, K 547), but nothing specific about 34. Also the Adagio in c, K 396 which was completed by Stadler, but that's up between 28 and 29. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be possible it was a typo? Renegade78 (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a typo. These gaps are not that uncommon. Its because the ordinal numbers are so rarely used that nobody every discusses or writes about the gap.DavidRF (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well until a source actually indicating the nature of the gap can be provided, why not drop it? Renegade78 (talk) 09:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drop what? You mean to just make up our own numbering scheme? We're certainly not allowed to do that. You're taking an odd interest in this. These gaps are not uncommon. Some 19th century musicologist would introduce a gap because of some incipit found in a notebook which they hope to find the score for someday or because of some work that is know that ends up being spurious. There's gaps in Mozart's masses. Haydn's piano sonatas have two sets of ordinal numbers and both have gaps (in different places). There's gaps all over the Kochel and Hoboken catalogues. The real problem here is wikipedia's policy of trying to use ordinal numbers wherever possible. That's convenient in most genres including genres where catalog numbers are more common but ordinal numbers still exist (such as the Beethoven quartets). But in this case, its extremely difficult to find any musicologist who use ordinal numbers for the Mozart Violin Sonatas. Because Heartz, Zaslaw and others never use these numbers when they talk about these works then they don't comment on the gaps.DavidRF (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the question more directly... we have a source verifying the existence of the gap. That's what we need to abide by.DavidRF (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very much granted, though I take issue with your claim of my interest being an odd one, I'm simply curious. How then exactly would most people refer to these works? Using the Köchel numbers would seem rather laborious, and the key signature isn't always definitive as there are often multiple works that share some. Renegade78 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious too. I was just commenting on the number of replies. There's a lot of indents here. :-) No worries. People use the K. numbers almost exclusively for these. Check any number of recordings. Its very rare to find any of them that use the ordinal numbers. That's the main reason why I added the navbox, so people could at least see which ones were which. I would prefer titles like Violin Sonata, K. 547 (Mozart) but I haven't gotten around to making such a proposal to the other editors. The Schubert piano sonatas dropped ordinal numbers in the titles as well because of issues involving gaps and discrepancies on whether incomplete or fragmentary works should be included in the numbering. I'm a bit worried that this might spread to too many other genres though where catalog vs ordinal is more of a stylistic preference.DavidRF (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The missing work must be the B-flat Allegro (KV 372) completed by Stadler, as it appears in the Alte Mozart-Ausgabe (and is actually the only violin sonata in the AMA that isn't spurious that doesn't have a number in this system). In fact, if you put it in its rightful place as No. 24 in the numbering, and shift KV 376 to 481 up one, you have exactly the AMA numbering from 1 to 43 (cutting out the spurious KV 55 to 61). But part of me would argue that if one is going to number these works at all, the NMA numbering would be far preferable, cutting out those which are really piano trios, the spurious ones, and the fragments:

C major, KV 6 (Volume 1 begins here)
D major, KV 7
B-flat major, KV 8
G major, KV 9
E-flat major, KV 26
G major, KV 27
C major, KV 28
D major, KV 29
F major, KV 30
B-flat major, KV 31
G major, KV 301/293a
E-flat major, KV 302/293b
C major, KV 303/293c
E minor, KV 304/300c
A major, KV 305/293d
D major, KV 306/300l
C major, KV 296
B-flat major, KV 378/317d
G major, KV 379/373a (Volume 2 begins here)
F major, KV 376/374d
F major, KV 377/374e
E-flat major, KV 380/374f
B-flat major, KV 454
E-flat major, KV 481
A major, KV 526
F major, KV 547

Unlike (say) the symphonies, these numbers are not really used enough that we can't change them. Double sharp (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]