Talk:List of symphonies by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Notes

Other Symphonies

I have included in the able all the symphonies that I have scores for. If someone has access to the unnumbered symphonies and wishes them to be included then may I suggest contacting me on my talk page and discussing a way forward? joe is cool as my mom

Curious Readings

In Symphony 23, my score really indicates a g# in bar 3 note 11, but not on bar 3 note 4.

In my score, symphonies 8, 10, 13, 17 and 23 either have no tempo/dynamic markings or they are shown as editorial additions. Op47 (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the editors here use the NMA (Neue Mozart-Ausgabe) as the source for Mozart scores. What source are you using? I did find one discrepancy. The first movement of #40 is in cut time and not common time. (The incipit we already had on the page for #40 has the same problem).

The customary thing to do if the tempo marking is not in the autograph but is agreed upon by the editors is to put it in square brackets. I think NMA might use italics which is hard to make out because the tempo marking is the only word on the page. I'm not sure though. The German-language critical report for the symphonies may say more, but I don't know German. This isn't a big deal for the incipits. Presumably the tempo-markings are elsewhere.

The G and G♯ in bar three are in NMA as well. I believe that's just a key transition. In the first two bars, the strings are playing in D and in the fourth bar they've made it to A (at least for the cadence).DavidRF (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

For symphonies 1-38, I used whatever was available on www.imslp.com. For nos 39-41, I have the penguin miniature scores. The time signature in that score is really common time and not alla breve. I am sorry if I was not clear about tempos and dynamics, they are shown in my score in square brackets, which I interpreted as editorial invention and prefered not to include here. The notes were just a disclaimer that I had not forgotten to put them in. If there is overwhelming demand to do different then I will happily produce a revision. For now, I think that what I have done is an improvement over nothing and would prefer to focus on the next project. Op47 (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the presence of tempo markings. I was just answering that point. Sorry for the distraction. At some point, we might want an incipit of #40 that's in cut time (assuming we get consensus that that is correct), but otherwise the incipits are great and I've been adding them to all the individual articles.DavidRF (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

GA numbers for early Mozart symphonies

copied from the user talk pages of both users involved

There is a problem with both K. 98 and K. 111+120 being labelled as "48". Is one of them a typo for "49"? Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question about "No. 48". These old numbers originate from a very old edition (1877-1910) of Mozart's works Mozart-Werke (or "GA"). I haven't seen the GA numbers spelled out too frequently and many of the doubtful/spurious works have disappeared from modern books (or they don't use the GA numbers). I can't find the exact discrepancy on wikipedia that you are talking about but I can actually see it in APBrown's Symphonic Repertoire book. In one table on "authenticity status" (p. 327), he lists K.98/Anh.C.11.04 as GA 48 but on the page of "doubtful" works on the next page, he lists it as GA 56. His table on "overture symphonies" does not have a column for "GA" so I don't know if K120+111a has a "GA" number.DavidRF (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Change default order for table?

Since the sorting is still not really working well (how do I fix it?), I'm thinking that we should change the default order of the table to follow the chronology or Köchel number (and if so preferably stick to one edition of it whenever possible), instead of the old and inaccurate GA numbers. Double sharp (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

On the absence of other individual orchestral works

Some years ago there was a note on this article explaining this: it was removed by Melodia, saying "I'm sorry but what? "This not-symphony isn't included because it's not a symphony!")".

The only reason for that was that the Maurerische Trauermusik (KV 477/479a), Adagio and Fugue (KV 546), and the concert ending of the overture to Don Giovanni (KV 527) are included in Volume 10 of the symphonies in the Neue-Mozart Ausgabe. Now, that was admittedly not a good justification, and KV 546 and KV 527 do not really fit well in this list. Zaslaw lists the Maurerische Trauermusik, at the end of his book, calling it symphonic, and mentioning the reconstructed Meistermusik as a possible first version. There is OTOH Gunnar-Cohrs' hypothesis that it started out as the Agnus Dei for the Mass in C minor, KV 427. So even that is debatable. So I think the removal was correct.

As for the minuet KV 409/383f, it was listed as a symphonic minuet, and so I put it in here at the end. Double sharp (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Should the serenades be here?

As they are arrangements of other works by Mozart into symphonies, I think putting them here may introduce a problem – these are only the arrangements that are certainly Mozart's. What about KV 100/62a, for example, where we have a symphonic arragement that may not be by Mozart? And if we consistently remove them all, what about KV 385, created from a serenade?

If we include the overture-symphonies that Mozart edited to make new symphonies, why not include the Sinfonias of the early operas and oratorios, e.g. KV 35, KV 38, KV 50/46b, KV 118/74c...? And if not, what about KV 45, which later became the overture to KV 51/46a?

Zaslaw goes the route of including them all, to make a list of 98 symphonies that are or have been attributed to Mozart. I'm wondering if we should go that route. Double sharp (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of symphonies by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140105120133/http://mozartforum.com/ to http://www.mozartforum.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

"It was actually discovered that Mozart had written 52 symphonies"?

Very confusing wording here. I see that, in the list, Mozart's highest numbered symphony is 52 for K. 208+213c, but does that represent an accurate count of how many he wrote, or is it just based on the original ordering (including spurious symphonies) plus later additions? Because it seems like the latter, but when I read how many Mozart "actually" wrote, I expect the former. Plus, coming after a sentence about Mozart's lost symphonies makes it sound like 52 includes those lost symphonies.

Given how much uncertainty there is about how many symphonies Mozart actually wrote, there should be more clarity about what is and isn't being counted. 72.82.8.66 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)