Talk:Ch'io mi scordi di te?

Unclear History Section
The "History" section of this article starts off with contradictions about the origin of this composition. Perhaps someone that can read the German source document could clean up the opening. Specifically, the section starts off by saying that the aria was "originally composed in 1786 with different music and different text for the recitative as an insertion aria...", then it goes on in the next paragraph to say "written for Nancy Storace,". That is about as clear as mud. Should it perhaps say something like "the aria was originally written as an insertion aria for... ..., but was paired with different text and music for the recitative. Mozart entered the work on 27 December 1786 into his catalogue with the remark: "for Mlle Storace and me." This is a reference to Nancy Storace, and the work was probably intended for her farwell concert..." LadyIslay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC).


 * The aria, or scena, consists of a recitative and a rondo. The earlier work, K. 490, used a different text for the recitative and different music throughout; that work, K. 490, was used in a peformance of Idomeneo. This work, K. 505, the subject of this article, was written for Storace. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that, Michael, but I don't think the article is clear. I was hoping someone could clean it up, but I'm not sure that should be me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyIslay (talk • contribs) 05:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to, I would like to explain my understanding of the relation of this work, K. 505 ("Ch'io mi scordi di te?"), with the earlier K. 490 ("Non più! Tutto ascoltai"). K. 490 was written in 1786 (dated 10 March) as an insertion aria for the Vienna production of Idomeneo and the text for that opera was by Varesco; that includes K. 490's recitative ("Non più! Tutto ascoltai") and the aria/rondo ("Non temer, amato bene"). K. 505 was written especially for Nancy Storace on 23 February 1787 (entered into Mozart's catalogue on 27 December); its recitative has a different text, possibly by Da Ponte, although the NMA calls the author unknown. However, the text of the aria proper is the same as in K. 490, so it must be Varesco. I suggest to undo the above mentioned edits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cracow (last sentence)
1. I have deleted the "citation needed" at the end in view of footnote 2 and of the assumption by the NMA (loc. cit.) that everybody knows that these autographs were confiscated from their hiding-places by (competent) Russians in the closing stages of the war and subsequently given by them to (competent) Poles, who have long been taking very good care of them in the Cracow University library, where they may be freely inspected by scholars under the usual conditions. The estimation of each of these peoples for Mozart’s music is not inferior to that of the Germans, to put it mildly, and given that the whole world is Mozart's grave (to borrow a famous phrase of Thucydides), I am of the opinion that the Poles deserve the autographs more than does the curiously-named entity "Prussian cultural property trust" (Stiftung preußischer Kulturbesitz).

2. The last sentence of the Rondo link in the article deals with rondò, an italianisation of rondeau in the specific sense which includes the aria of this scena along with other great examples from Mozart’s pen, e. g. Fiordiligi’s Per pietà. I doubt that the linker read that article to the end. In any case I have changed all his rondos to rondòs. N. B.: scena and aria are not synonymous; Mozart's own title Scena con Rondò means ‘a scena containing a rondò [rather than some other type of aria]’.

3. When I have time I will look up the above-linked "German original" in accordance with the linker's kind invitation. I had no trouble of the type mentioned, but then a) I live in Germany and b) Nancy and I have for long been good friends. I now suspect that the German author has translated it himself. Admittedly I do that sort of thing too, but it seems to me that I have had more to do with German than he has with English. Pamino (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I switched it back to rondo. NMA uses that. DavidRF (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The NMA is, as often enough, wrong. Mozart discriminates in this respect, and the NMA displays here an ignorance which in view of the present discussion – sit venia verbo – seems to merit the theological epithet invincible. Pamino (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Everybody knows" is an unsustainable assertion; the cited NMA source says: "lost since 1945". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not so unsustainable: that NMA volume was published in 1971, when the existence of the Berlinka was still being kept secret. So the autograph may well be safe and sound in Kraków. Alan Tyson's Mozart: Studies of the Autograph Scores (p. 229) appears to mention the autograph of K.505, noting that it is on 10-staff paper: this seems to support Pamino's statement that the autograph found its way to Kraków. Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)