Talk:Köchel catalogue/Archive 1

K 371
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)
 * Mozart's birth year is now noted in the intro. Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2008 (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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia so that I can listen to the works in chronological order. There are some works in the CDs that were not in Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia - 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 (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While the "Alte Lambacher" Symphony KV Anh. 221 (45a) is a work by Mozart, the "Neue Lambacher" proved to be a work by his father, Leopold. It is therefore due missing on the list. AFAIK "deest" is from the Latin "de-est", "not present", i.e. the work is not included in the Köchel catalogue. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2008 (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 (review me)(help me) 17:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A complete list of compositions by any notable composer is needed on Wikipedia. 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 (review me)(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). Goochelaar  (talk) 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 (review me)(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 repetition 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 (review me)(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 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)


 * Thank you, Softlavender. I agree.  -- Padilla, had you ever heard of the New Grove before starting this argument?  Do you know what it is?  Have you ever used it?  Have you ever needed an encyclopedia to look up information a composer, needed to learn when that composer wrote a particular piece of music, and find out when it was premiered?  Do you seriously think that this is inappropriate information for an encyclopedia?  Please investigate the etymology of the word "encyclopedia" before answering.  And also please beware of strawman arguments, and do not attribute to people things they have not said. Thank you, Antandrus  (talk) 01:06, 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)
 * @DavidRF - Well, I can see by the personal attacks that an outside voice would be more than welcome. (I don't mean to intimate that you are making them, simply responding to your question)
 * @Softlavender - (1)The other list of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (I don't know who said complete, but I hope it wasn't me) is, oddly enough called List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Quirky title but it's catching on. (2) Says who? this is not a music encyclopedia, it's a general encyclopedia. This type of listing could even be construed as COPYVIO (you have, after all, reproduced the entirety of the list, which I believe is still a published work). (3)Does being producer and percussionist on an album count? I understand all the points you made, I don't understand the need for them here.


 * To repeat, the genre list (List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart) is NOT a complete list. This chronological list is the only complete list on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 09:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * @Antandrus - in case you are wondering, when Softlavender denigrated my input, because they thought I wasn't a musician, as a means of attacking my argument that's a strawman argument. What I did was point out the argument you were making that two lists containing the same information are not redundant. As I told SoftLavender, yes, I have seen and understand the need for all the things you brought up - just not here. This is not your one stop shop for all your composition needs, it is a general encyclopedia and doesn't need to stand up to the use and standards of New Groove or ASCAP or BMI or any of the many other music information / copyright services. And, as I said before, too much of this could be seen as a COPYVIO on sourced material from any one of those sources. Until someone can explain to me how two lists containing the same information is not redundant my argument holds. padillaH (review me)(help me) 05:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Padilla: See the box at the top of the page: This article is supported by the Composition Task Force. It's an invaluable article. There's no valid reason to merge it or to delete it, nor has any been put forth. The List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is NOT a complete list; this chronological list IS. The reasons for both the complete chronological list and the selected genre list have been explained. This is the same as with any great prolific composer: Beethoven, etc. Many have both genre lists and also chronological lists as well, as has been noted by others. There is no Copyvio at all -- the Koechel catalogue and numbers (like the Opus numbers for other composers) are in the public domain. Softlavender (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

K 544 missing from list
I noticed that K 544 is missing from the list: a "Small March in D" (“Ein kleiner Marsch”), written June 26, 1788, that has been lost. If this is a complete list, of all the Koechel entries, does this merit including? Softlavender (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, It doesn't look like other lost works are included, either. (e.g. K340, K470, K569, K615)  I don't have a strong opinion on this.  On one hand, it doesn't look like there are too many lost works in the catalogue, but on the other hand... they're lost. DavidRF (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe if they are not included in this Wikipedia list, we should add the word "extant" to the opening paragraph. Softlavender (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong opinion on this subject: The lost pieces should DEFINITELY be included. Mozart wrote them, and in some cases we have the incipit from his thematic catalog. For example, we know what the first few measures of K615 sound like even though the entire piece is lost. (I even made a short MIDI file of the K615 incipit so I could listen to it). This issue is a no-brainer. The Kochel list is a listing of what Mozart WROTE - not of every complete piece we've managed to FIND...

What if everything he wrote had been documented, but lost? Should we then make a list of zero compositions - a null list? It would be an insult to the man. It would be like saying, "Mozart was supposedly a great composer during the 1700's, according to Haydn and many others. Here's what he wrote: Nothing." How ridiculous.

(By the way, the K615 incipit is unusual in that it sounds "sickly sweet". It would be nice to have the entire piece, hear how it was supposed to sound in toto, and see how it fits into the opera it was written for. But all we have is a few measures, and the piece should be entered into the catalog just as Mozart entered it into his catalog.) Dave M 24.118.4.126 (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about "Mozart's catalogue". This is Kochel's catalogue which originally dates from 1862.  So your statement of "The Kochel list is a listing of what Mozart WROTE - not of every complete piece we've managed to FIND..." is wrong.  This isn't a list of every piece that Mozart ever wrote, its a list of pieces that the musicologist Ludwig von Köchel managed to find by 1862...  and pieces found since then eventually get inserted into the catalogue with special numbering.  Also, there were many mistakes in the 1862 catalogue.  Kochel included pieces that turned out to be written by someone besides Mozart (e.g. K. 17, K. 18 and many others).  These aren't listed on this page, either.
 * I have added the five aforementioned lost pieces that somehow ended up in Kochel's catalogue, though.DavidRF (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding those, DavidRF. What is listed in the article body are both K1 and K6 - and appropriately so. Even though Ludwig von Kochel didn't write K6, it is still referred to as "The Kochel Catalog". Tossing out the pieces not written by Mozart is probably a good thing since it's less confusing and more accurate. But not including pieces in the K6 list that Mozart DID write, but are lost, makes no sense. Therefore, including the lost pieces in K6 is the right thing to do. K1 is historical and unchangeable. K6 and beyond are more thorough and accurate. Dave M. 24.118.4.126 (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

List Merge Discussion
At the behest of others I have posted this RfC to see what other opinions out there are. My question remains: How is the information contained in this list different from the information contained in List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? I hold that the two lists are redundant and should be merged. i appreciate the need for the information in it's various forms but that seems a very specialized need and not really appropriate for a general purpose encyclopedia. padillaH (review me)(help me) 06:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See the box at the top of this page: This article is approved by the Composition Task Force. It complies with similar articles on composers such as Beethoven, who have both chronological AND by-genre lists. I'd be happy to explain more fully why both sorts of lists are necessary for the composers, although I'd personally prefer to do so on your or my Talk page, as this article Talk page is getting quite cluttered by this discussion. You've also had five editors explain why the list is present and necessary. No one has agreed with your wish to destroy the list, and so I'm not sure why this is so important to you. We have all explained why the list is useful, important, and necessary. Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there's been some misinterpretation. I never meant to insinuate the article itself should be gotten rid of. I am not stupid and have explained several times that I understand the need for the Köchel numbers and have no issue with there being an article to describe them and explain their importance. My issue is with the repetition of the list in it's entirety. The argument that the List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is not complete to me simply suggests that we get to making some edits and make it complete. I was thinking last night (I do that at times) and wondered if it would be acceptable, since the order of these lists seams to be of paramount importance, if a sorted table wouldn't be an acceptable way to go. That way the reader could sort it by K number or by theme/genre depending on what the reader wanted to see. This gets you your two different sorts and reduces the number of redundant lists. We should absolutely maintain the Köchel number article and I do not think there's any reason to remove the article at all. But I think it should be about the Köchel numbers and not simply a recitation of the list itself. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. We can cover specialist subjects, because we are not paper. It is just WRONG to say we are a "general encyclopaedia": if we were, we wouldn't have articles like Anna Maria Strada or Margherita Durastanti, would we? Moreschi (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how bios on notable people support the inclusion of redundant data. That's an argument I can't quite put together by myself. I see no problems with articles on notable singers. I don't see how that makes this a specialist encyclopedia. Are these singers works restricted to industry insiders? Is hearing their singing useful only to musicians? These lists, more to the point the different permutations of this list, are of use mainly to industry insiders as explained by SoftLavender and Antandrus. And as long as you are bringing up WP:NOT how about scrolling down the page a bit to WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Or WP:IINFO? Or, to a lesser extent, WP:NOTGUIDE? Just because we're not paper doesn't mean you get to put a list in 2 different ways simply because they are sorted differently. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I object to the fact itself that redundancy is in itself evil. It may, but redundancy is often good in communications, in technology, in daily life and in high erudition. For instance, it can make easier to find an information (or tu serendipitously stumble upon it), if it is done in a reasonable way (and I trust Mr Köchel as well as the editors of the other article about Mozart's works to have done their work in a sensible way), and so on. So I admit that there is redundancy among these two article, but I fail to see why removing this redundancy would improve WP. Goochelaar  (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Redundancy is not in itself evil, merely unnecessary (that being the definition of "redundant"). And if it is decided that this is the best method of presenting this information, then I guess I'm in the minority. But challenging the norm is also not, simply by its very nature, evil. And I resent being treated as such for simply suggesting that the replication of data unnecessarily was redundant. It has been put forth by another that the list in itself could be in a separate page from the article on the Köchel Catalogue. This is better since it would allow the article and list to stand on their own merits and allow for a more flexible handling of the list apart from the confines defined in the article. padillaH (review me)(help me) 14:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate indeed the usefulness of a multiply sortable list, and I might think myself about even more ways of building it (for instance, are hidden fields - or "hideable" ones - possible in WP?), but I still believe that separate man-made lists are superior. To give just a simple-minded example, in a chronological one we may insert remarks commenting about works of the same life period, while in a genre-based one we may compare, say, quartets of different years. And so on. Last but not least, we all know that redundancy is necessary in several fields (say, in order to have fail-proof complex system, or for a code to be able to detect and correct errors). This said, I do not intend to try to change your views. Happy editing, Goochelaar  (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you see the virtue of a chronological list of works by any composer or author (plus an annotated list by genre)? If not, you are going to have to object to a lot of articles about a lot of composers and authors, including Shakespeare, which have articles listing their works both chronologically and then also by genre. I don't know why you have isolated one artist (Mozart) alone for this complaint. The fact is, Wikipedia is bascially a one-tier encyclopedia -- it does not include lists which are sortable many ways at the click of a button for such long (650+ items) and incredibly complex lists of data, the parameters of which are far too many to accurately squeeze into a clickable chart. That is why lists/articles exist in both ways -- chronological and by-genre -- for so very many artists. I think perhaps your confusion is that you possibly believe that this article we are discussing is a sequential listing of Koechel numbers. It IS'NT: Take a glance at the article and you will notice that the Koechel numbers are all out of order. That is because this list is STRICTLY CHRONOLOGICAL, with the Koechel numbers (K1 and K6) provided as an additional source of reference, since they are the common way everyone refers to the vastly confusing array of similarly-titled and variously-titled works. Perhaps your desire then is that the article be renamed -- instead of "Koechel catalogue" perhaps you would rather see it called "Complete chronological list of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart," and then keeping the article on the Koechel Catalogue(s) as a separate article without the complete list. That's a valid suggestion and worthy of consideration. I think the original reasoning to combine the complete list with the article on the K Catologue is because the list does necessarily include the two commonly used K numbers, and these numbers needed to be explained. (I personally have no problem with the name of this article as it now is.) Next, I'll explain why the genre list is incomplete: It does not include, nor does it need to include, the unnumbered symphonies, and so forth. There is no intrinsic need for the genre list to be complete, for Mozart or for any other artist. Lastly, if your sole objection is that there exists on Wikipedia a chronological list and a by-genre list for Mozart or for any other artist, then you are wasting your breath. This is not going to change, as both are necessary. Softlavender (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't know this was personal to you. What brought up fears that I am singling out Mozart? Or do you think highly enough of me to believe I could raise an issue like this on multiple fronts and still pose cogent arguments on all sides? well, then thank you for that, but I can't. Being a singular person I'm stuck making singular arguments - it's a limitation, I know but I'm working through it. In all seriousness, if this isn't the list, by Köchel number than it is not only redundant but misplaced. You're giving an example of one thing by showing an entirely different thing? Does that not seem incongruous? Why is this not simply a stand alone list ordered by whatever chronology it needs to be? When you attach it to an article you give it significance within the context of that article. And this list now is redundant, too large, and doesn't fit the article context. If it's not a complete list then it doesn't add to the article any more than an even lesser complete list would. So yes, to move the list here to a separate article, named appropriately, would be a big step, in my opinion. As for wasting my breath, if it's such a waste what do you care? I'm a programmer by trade and see no reason to have redundant unsynchronized data like this when there exist other methods of organization. Having written applications that list no fewer than every car made by Ford Motor Company I take objection to your assertion that there is no way to organize this data. If it were viewed as an attempt to help rather than some invasion by an outsider to ruin your article, then it might have a better chance of getting somewhere. If all that's going to be presented is ownership and bad faith then you are, in fact, correct - any attempt to improve Wikipedia is doomed to fail. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You've misread several things I said; for instance, this is a complete list, fine like it is, offering all that readers of this particular list need to know. Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sample table
Something along these lines...

The above table should be sortable by whichever column you feel like clicking on. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting thought but it lacks a chronological listing, which is what is important. Not only that, but many works are known by varying names ("Sonata in F for Keyboard" is also called "Piano Sonata No. 12," just as one minuscule example). Many symphonies and other works are unnumbered, so to sort them by name would only end up with a confusing faux chronology listing the ones in the Key of A first and the ones in the Key of G last. Also, is the "Name" of the work going to be in English, Italian, German, or Latin? (This is solved completely in a by-genre article.) Those are just a few of many problems with the system. Too many problems with this sort of list: It lacks chronology, date, commentary, location, K6 (the only accurate K number), and accurately detailed and subdivided genres and sub-genres — all of which are covered in the two lists currently on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't explicitly state - this is an example, it's not complete. I thought you would have understood that from the length but I guess I need to be clearer. If the table lacks something, then let's put it in. I don't understand how you can be for several different disparate redundant lists but won't add a column to a table. You want a German name, add a column. You want chronology by date, add a column. You want commentary, add a column. you want subgenres, ADD A COLUMN. All of this is specialized information in any case. None of adds to the notability of the list. None of it proves the necessity of the multiple lists. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding extra columns can't provide section headers that give you a TOC. Also, If you create a subgenre column, you'd need the capability to sort on multiple columns simultaneously for it to make any sense.  With a single page with multiple columns, you can't fork off child articles when sections get too big.  Are you proposing we get rid of those child articles as well?  Please don't make it sound like the burden of proof is on people who disagree with you.  I like having reasonable discussion, but that kind of rhetoric is frustrating... especially when not a single editor has agreed with you yet.DavidRF (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True enough, this is not a panacea. There begins the question "What are we trying to cover in these articles?" If we are trying to present a list in Chronological or genre/subgenre order then we can accomplish that. (subgenre can be accomplished by simply prepending the genre to the subgenre: Symphonies:Childhood, Symphonies:Salzburg-era, Symphonies:Late, etc. Now when you sort the list it will sort all the genres together then by subgenre). If we are trying to get a comprehensive discussion of the entirety of works in one fell swoop then I'm forced to agree with SoftLavender, it can't be done this way. I'm not entirely sure a comprehensive discussion of the entirety of Mozarts works can be done to any desirable degree within the confines of a list format. That's probably more suited to an article of it's own. Or even several articles discussing each genre or division as seen fit. However, that is not what I am discussing. I am discussing the appropriateness of including this list in this article. I do not mean to push the burden of proof onto anyone but it is customary that when a person in a discussion asks a question it be addressed if not answered outright. "Because it's useful" has long been regarded as an insufficient argument. Being unfamilliar with any past discussion and knowing and appreciating the works of the composer I knew the value of such a list, that's why I felt an introduction as to why it's here and there was appropriate. Since then all I'm getting is wikilawyering and WP:OWN and WP:OSE. I think I've struck a bad chord and I know I've been misunderstood... What can I do to get a discussion of how to handle these multiple lists in a better manner and leave the analysis to articles much better suited for it's presentation? Or have I poisoned the well? padillaH (review me)(help me) 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Padillah, no table can give commentary, which is the essential ingredient to the genre list. Not only that, a table that included all of the non-commentary information that is necessary would be at least 10 columns wide, and approximately 1500 characters wide -- which would not be possible on Wikipedia and would exceed the viewing width of most screen monitors. Lastly, a list as long as this -- 650+ entries -- corrupts when placed into a Wikitable table. The article's table as it now exists is already Wikitable, but clicking the choices gives a corrupted and inaccurate output, not an accurate one, as anyone who has used the chart that way can see. The reasoning behind having both articles -- both of which are under the aegis of the Composition Task Force -- has been explained to you repeatedly by five different editors. If you have a problem, I suggest you contact one of that Task Force. Because as it is, you are currently creating disruption and not absorbing or comprehending what is being said to you. I'm not sure if that is a comprehension issue on your end, or a reluctance to have your ideas declined. In any case, cluttering up the Talk page with lengthy, repetitive insistence on changes that are not only completely unnecessary but unfeasible and destructive of information, is disruption. Your time on Wikipedia, if you wish to contribute, is better spent adding cited useful information to articles rather than challenging the existence of necessary articles. Frankly, if I may, if you are actually attempting to become an admin on Wikipedia, this is the complete opposite of the way to go about it, because your manic insistence on your own idiosyncratic way is counter to all Wikipedia principles, and frankly will cause many to question your mental health. I consider this conversation done. We have covered all salient points; you are free to go back and read them if there is any confusion on your part. Unless a member of the Composition Task Force wants to weigh in, I would personally advise that no further responses to Padillah be given here on this subject (all THREE sections/subheadings!). The Talk page is already cluttered enough with this as it is. Softlavender (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First I want to let everyone know that I have placed a notice at Wikiquette_alerts regarding your personal attacks. Disparaging remarks about a persons mental health are uncivil and completely out of bounds for this type of conversation. If you feel you cannot continue a civil conversation please leave the talk page and cool down.
 * If it has been explained to me repeatedly by five different editors than I missed it because all I've seen are you patronizing me, DavidRF bringing up WP:OSE arguments, Antandrus misusing "strawman argument" to make a strawman argument (the irony of that post was not lost on me), and Moreschi brought up singers for some reason. If that is your idea of "explaining" I don't know where to go from there. The closest I've gotten to any kind of discussion was Goochelaar and they bowed out. Oh, and DavidRF did have a good reply to the sortable table, sorry DavidRF. I've gotten nothing from you but ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. So, unless you have something to add to the discussion that's not dripping with personal venom, I'd appreciate it if you did leave the discussion. This page was created with the express purpose of talking about ways to improve Wikipedia in general and the subject article specifically so unless that's what you want to do you are invited to follow your own advice and stay away. padillaH (review me)(help me) 04:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Padilla, from the lead: "This is a complete list of the works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, listed chronologically. For a selective list of his works, grouped by genre, see List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart." That says it all, and describes perfectly why the two are distinct.  Please find another crusade, because your arguments here have now stepped over the line into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't think that justifies why there are two lists. I've heard it and responded to it, you're gonna have to do better than that. That argument was old when I started this. Thanks for the insinuation that I can't read but that argument is simply for the status quo and doesn't posses any logic at all. At least Softlavender explained why there were two lists. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To which I might as well addd WP:CLUELESS. This was not the way to go about passing RFA anytime before 2010. I like the way the old civility canard was invoked again once it had been shown you have no case. This really is a site-wide pattern. Moreschi (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What on God's earth are you talking about? There are 2.5 million articles on WP and I've got about 200 on my watchlist (of which I edit about 70). How can this possibly be a site wide pattern? BTW you might want to lookupWP:CLUELESS, since there's no such thing. (No, the irony of that post was not lost on me either.) padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, Softlavender
I would like to apologize to Softlavender. After doing some amount of research I found that the table has been sortable since at least Jan. 27th 2008. I never noticed and that's a failing on my part. I should have researched more. padillaH (review me)(help me) 13:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I hope we're done here. Just for the record, I did mention the table was sortable, twice to you, above. Softlavender (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

table sort

 * …and that feature seems perfectly useless to me and it should be removed again. Have you tried it?
 * The editor who added that "feature" made some inquiries at the time whether and how it could be made to work; he didn't get any satisfactory answer, but apparently forgot to remove it. I suggest to do so now. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its sorting by string and not by number. Unless that is fixed, the sort is pretty much worthless. DavidRF (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like User:Ilmari Karonen has just added hidden sort keys for the K-number columns. That's a big help.  Looks much nicer now (especially on the K6 column).  Thanks!  There are still minor issues with the sort of the "Place" column that can easily be fixed by moving question marks from the beginning to the end.  "?Vienna" vs "Vienna?".   I prefer the latter.  The date column needs significant work.  With the HS undefined template, it looks like we could add keys here as well, but some decision would have to sort vague and approximate dates (not to mention the sort of date-ranges).  I'm OK with leaving that column as "badly sorted" in the short term while we think about it.  DavidRF (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. User:Ilmari Karonen strikes again.  I didn't think that could be done so quickly.  Looks like any nits there can be fixed easy by hand.  Thanks!!! DavidRF (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow and double-wow. This is very impressive; that must be some regex expression & engine.
 * I have now humbly removed my comment on the lack of usefulness of the sorting feature from the page.
 * There is of course another aspect to this: TANSTAAFL. The size of the wiki markup text has increased from 68K to 96K (40%), the rendered HTML code from 229K to 306K (34%). Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Ilmari Karonen. Padillah (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Anh.
Could we spell out what "Anh." stands for in the introductory paragraph? I understand that it probably comes from the German word for "appendix" or "addendum" or something like that, but a more assertive translation/definition would be useful. DavidRF (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anhang, pl Anhänge Eusebeus (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

K. 401
Why is K. 401, a fugue in G minor for piano, not listed here? Is it spurious? I would add it (it's listed in the first of our external links, after all), but I don't know enough about this subject to be confident that it belongs here. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a fragment, but its in NMA, so I've added it. Thanks for catching this. DavidRF (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Same for K. 429, some Freemason music — could you look at this? Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another fragment, but also NMA, so I've added it. Thanks again. DavidRF (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another (I'm getting the K. numbers from this collection, which uses the original numbers) missing one — K. 198, an offertorium. I would try to add these from the link to the "Neue Mozart-Ausgabe" (assuming that it's what you mean by "NMA"), but I haven't found any lists there.  Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no "list" at the NMA site, but there's a search engine on the main page which links to scores and K6 numbers. Track lists for CD boxes are convenient, but aren't a canonical reference as they frequently are either not complete or they include spurious works.  In K6, this offertory has moved into the "Anhang C" section which implies that its likely spurious.  This particular work shows striking similarities to a Michael Haydn piece.  I'm going to hold off on adding this to the table here. Any others?DavidRF (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've found errors in this collection: I couldn't imagine why I couldn't find K. 227, "Alma Dei Creatoris", described here, until I ran a search for the name instead of for 227, and realised that it was a typo on the box for K. 277. I've not been using the boxes as my source for suggesting changes; instead, if there's a problem, I use it to find the listing at http://www.classical.net/music/composer/works/mozart and work from there.  I'm somewhat surprised by your saying that K. 198 may be spurious, since this website lists some as spurious but not K. 198.  Are all the Anhang pieces likely spurious then?  At any rate, I've not discovered any more missing bits.  Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Anhang itself doesn't imply spurious. Many pieces listed as Anhang in K1 got "promoted" to real numbers in K6.  "K6 Anh C" appears to be a collection of every piece which may at one point have been attributed to Mozart and includes many known spurious pieces.  See this and this.  I'm not 100% on the K6 Anh C definition though.  Anyone else know for sure? DavidRF (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

K 490 & K 505
K 490 is a Rondo, part of the 1786 Vienna revision of the opera "Idomeneo". In that ocassion, the role of Idamante was rewritten for a tenor, as is reflected also in the K 489, a duetto that replaces the original N. 20 of the opera. Both numbers were recorded by Karl Böhm (DG) and Nikolaus Harnoncourt (in the "Supplement" disc of his complete version on Teldec). This is the information that Dietrich Berke gives in he booklet of the latter:

"After several attempts to produce Idomeneo in Vienna during Mozart's period in the Austrian capital had miscarried, he managed to arrange a performance at Prince Auersperg's palace in 1786. However, as the date fixed fell during Lent, only a concert performance could be given, and Mozart thus had to make a number of changes, since the part of Idamante, conceived in Munich for the castrato Vincenzo dal Prato, was sung in Vienna by a tenor. Mozart made further major alterations to the Munich score in two places, not only out of consideration for the cast but also for drammaturgical reasons. He substituted for the first scene of Act 2 with Arbace's aria "Se il tuo vuol", a weak point of the Munich score from a theatrical point of view, the Scena con Rondo Ilia/Idamante, K. 490, which he completed on 10th March 1786, three days before the performance. (...) Mozart wrote the violin solo in K. 490 for his friend Graf Hatzfeld, who was involved in the performance, and was excellent violinist."

Later, Mozart adapted K 490 for the last recital of Nancy Storace, K 505, with the same text, but without the obbligatto for violin; instead, Mozart write the solo for himself at the piano (fortepiano I suppose). K 490 is very similar, in musical terms, to K 505, but they are two different pieces, the latter usually performed today by sopranos in recitals. The former remains a curiosity. For instance, in the recent DVD version of Nagano/Dorn, with a tenor Idamante, K 490 is omitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.241.70 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"K." vs "KV"
K = Köchel (number). KV = Köchel Verzeichnis = Köchel Catalogue (number)

Where is KV (as opposed to "K.") used? Is that European, German, or what? I find my CDs use KV. Any reliable sources so we can add it to the article? 62.78.198.48 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have *any* CD's that use K.? Most of mine use that, especially the older "classic" recordings.  Most of the authors I read (Rosen, Heartz, Sadie, Brown, Girdlestone, etc) also use K..  KV is not rare, though, and the article clearly states it as an alternative.  I don't think either of them are right or wrong, we just picked one (K.) to be the primary one used here because we thought having a mix would look tacky.  For what its worth the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe uses KV when viewed in German and K. when viewed in English.DavidRF (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite right. KV is the standard abbreviation in German. K. is more common in English. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ordering problems
Trying to sort on the first column, ascending and descending create different issues. (I was trying to work out what K61 became.) Rich Farmbrough, 13:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC).
 * The table is using hidden keys (Template: Hs) and they don't appear to be working as intended. User:Ilmari Karonen added these keys.  Does anyone else understand them?  I'll take a look when I get a chance but it won't be for a few days.DavidRF (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some problem in the sorting feature; at first, the 1st column sorts pretty badly (1, 1, 6, 7, 2), but after sorting on the "Place" column and then again of the 1st column, it seems OK. Baffled, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Size of Mozart's Catalog in Bytes?
I am curious about the size of Mozart's catalog in Bytes, and could that information make it onto the the Köchel catalogue page as well? Johnhabbott (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how one would quantify the size in bytes. It would depend on what format the scores were saved in.  You could do something like (bars of score)*(number of scored instruments) for each piece I suppose.  FYI, virtually all the authentic scores are available here.  Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Date
I cannot determine from the text whether date refers to the completion of the composition, or to the first performance. Pls advise. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I think it's the date of the composition, usually the date under which Mozart entered the work into his catalogue. I don't think there are any major gaps between composition and performance, or do you have a particular work in mind where there might be such a gap? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What actually triggered my question was the date given in this article for K527 (Don Giovanni), which is exactly 2 months before the date of the premiere mentioned in the article List of operas by Mozart; for other operas the dates given in both articles match. I don't think that opera companies in those days were given 2 months time to prepare a performance. Maybe the date given in this article is a typographical error? Francesco Malipiero (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct: it's an error. the work was probably started in Vienna in March 1787 and finished and dated in Prague on 28 October 1787; see Title page of the NMA. The premiere was originally planned for 14 October 1787, but was postponed twice (to 21 September, and then to the 24th) due to rehearsal difficulties and the illness of a female singer (p. IX of NMA vol. 17 ). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Complete?
The list claims to be complete. I have just heard a collection of piano trio movements presented as one trio under the number K442. That number does not appear anywhere in the list. Has anyone checked that all 626(?) numbers are included? EEye (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The three (unrelated) trios for violin, cello and piano, K. 442, are only in fragments by WAM – e.g. the 1st trio in D minor (allegedly in 1783, but more likely 1785) has 230 bars and only parts of bars 1 to 55 are by Mozart; of the 248 bars of the second trio in G major (ca. 1785/86), only parts of bars 1 to 151 are by Mozart; of the 228 bars of the third trio in D major (probably 1788, Mozart's last work in the genre), only parts of bars 1 to 133 are by Mozart. They were completed by Maximilian Stadler. Still, the catalogue might mention them, particularly because the NMA calls No. 3 "one of the greatest fragments of Mozart's chamber music." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

K. 412 / 386b 1782 Concerto for Horn D Major Vienna
This appears in the two references, but not in the article's list. I'm not sure I understand the sort sequencing / numbering, so could someone who does, please add it? Thanks,. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 21:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * K. 412 appears in this list between K. 594 and K. 609, and there is an article for it: Horn Concerto No. 1 (Mozart). The list is sorted roughly chronologically. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha, thank you. Perhaps it should be indexed at both K1 412 and 514 to avoid confusions such as mine. Some of us resort the list by K1 for updating our own disk catalogs. . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs)  18:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
Although I speak German, I do not pronounce Köchel as German.

I pronounce it the way I always heard it said on US National Public Radio 30+ years ago, and that was "Kershel", rhyming with "Hershel".

Is that in fact the accepted standard? Varlaam (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds close enough to German, so I think it should be OK. Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Köchel organisation
I know that you have the option to sort the current wiki table by K1, K6, name, date, place, and age, but what is the "default" table organised by? I can't determine a pattern, as it seems some uses have randomly put some K1, or K6 works with others. I was thinking of re-arranging the current table to be organised like that of other Köchel catalogues on the internet, such as arranging all pieces by K6 number. Thoughts? The current way the table is arranged does make it a bit cumbersome to add new works to the table.--ZSNES (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As can be gleaned from the article's hat note, the original idea seem to have been to organise the list chronologically. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would benefit this catalogue to arrange according to K6, as opposed to organising it by date. There are two main reasons for this. One being that many works share the exact same date. For example, two pieces being listed under 1778. Under the current system, the user would then use the K number to sort. For example, March in C, and March in D (K. 383F, and 385a respectively) are both listed under the year 1782; To sort, the user would first use the date, but after coming to the conclusion that the date it the same for each piece, they would then use the K. number to determine which would be listed first. This system currently contradicts itself by using a method that uses first date, then K. number to sort. Two being that a reasonable portion of the dates are not accurate. Take K. 588b, the date originally listed in the Köchel catalogue was 1790 (this date being a logical estimation), but it wasn't until 1993 that a manuscript re-surfaced, dating the piece to seven years prior (1783). Sorting by K.6 number would counteract this by giving a sorting method following a simple rule: list the alphanumeric character comes first. Of course this does not come without flaws, such as dramatic date spikes in a few pieces. One example is the "Kyrie in G", K. 196a (Anh. 16), as the K. numbering is quite low, the date on the the other hand is very high (1787–1789), opposed to the piece prior to 196a (K. 196) which was written on the 13th of January 1775. Although this system does have it's occasional error, it seems to give much more balance to the listings, as well as making additions to this catalogue much easier.--ZSNES (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the natural order of the list matters much, as long as the various sorting fields work. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it does, at least somewhat. For your average user, I think that they may not know how the sorting fields work, and hence when they come to the catalogue, it may be difficult to find specific pieces by K. number. Of course, to the more "advanced" (not really, just familiar) wiki user, they will be able to sort the table accordingly. Regardless on ease of use, I would think that the default sorting method could use somewhat of a clean up. By doing this, I would also be similtaneously checking HS undefined, as well as continuing my project to cross reference with the NMA. --ZSNES (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION
I think that there should be listings of other editions of this catalog, such as K2, K3, K4, and K5. Yuan Lin (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On CD-Covers, in works of reference and music publishers' catalogs normally use the original numbering or the most recent edition (K6), therefore this should be sufficient. K² and K³ are outdated and of interest for historical reasons only. K4 and K5 are identical with K³ anyway. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about K2 and K3, as they are slightly different from the rest. Maybe we could give them a mention if the works are absent or in the appendix of both K1 and K6. Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A list of works in the Köchel catalogue that are probably not actually by Mozart
First edition: KV 17 (Leopold?), 18 (Abel), 44 (Stadlmayr), 46 (unknown), 52 (Leopold), 55–60 (unknown), 61 (Raupach), 64 (Leopold), 91 (Reutter), 92 (Leopold?), 93 (Reutter), 98 (unknown), 104–105 (M.Haydn), 106 (unknown), 115–116 (Leopold), 122 (Starzer or Deller?), 140 (Wolfgang? NMA believes this authentic. Or Matthias Kracher?), 142 (Zach), 149–151 (Leopold), 152 (Myslivecek), 177 (Leopold), 187 (Gluck and Starzer), 197–198 (unknown), 221 (Eberlin), 226 (unknown), 227 (Byrd?), 233–234 (Trnka), 235 (C.P.E.Bach), 268 (Eck?), 289 (possibly Wolfgang, but doubtful stylistically), 291 (M.Haydn), 292 (possibly Wolfgang, but doubtful stylistically), 324–325 (unknown), 326 (Eberlin), 327 (Gasparini), 340 (unknown), 342 (Leopold), 350 (Flies), 351 (Wolfgang or unknown?), 444 (M.Haydn), 510 (unknown), 514 (Süssmayr). Double sharp (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Later editions (third unless specified otherwise): KV 16a (Mozart or unknown, probably the latter), 16b (Leopold?), (2nd ed.) 25a (Kaspar Beethoven), 43c (Leopold?), 74g (Mozart or unknown), 93a (Reutter), 93c (Eberlin), (6th ed.) 142A (Leopold?), 142c (Leopold), 196d (Danzi), 196e (Puschmann?), 196f (Fiala), 206a (Wolfgang? lost), (6th ed.) 269b (M.Haydn?), (2nd ed.) 271a (Wolfgang or unknown), 293e (Leopold or Wolfgang?), 297b (unknown: perhaps Mozart, or arrangement of Mozart?), 311a (unknown), 387d (F.J.Haydn), 404a (Albrechtsberger), 441a (unknown), 441c (M.Haydn), 485a (Attwood/Mozart), (2nd ed.) 511a (Beethoven? Kozeluch?), 528a (unknown), 535a (unknown), 562b (M.Haydn), 562d (unknown), 584a (Paisiello), (6th ed.) 623a (Wranitsky?). Double sharp (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate your listing of many spurious works by Mozart for use in further sorting for Wikipedia's Köchel catalogue; do not be mistaken, your efforts are again, greatly appreciated. At a later date, I will review the listings, along with a few other sources that are in my possession, and attempt to add either a "(spurious)", or "(spurious; x)" tag, x being the true, or speculated composer.
 * To note, the MozartForum is a fantastic resource, but information found there cannot always be taken as fact. For example, Ks. 271a, and 623a are stated as spurious. Indeed, their authenticity is to be questioned, but in reality, the information we currently have on each work is not conclusive. That leaves the answer whether the works are authentic or not up to opinion (a dangerous thing on Wikipedia :-)), so before listing certain works using the list created by Pajot, please do a bit of research on each work and see wether the authenticity is deemed spurious based on opinion, or factual information :).
 * Somewhat off topic, but I have been debating recently of adding two new sections to Köchel catalogue here, those sections would be: Anh., and Anh. C. You seem to be fairly dedicated to pursuits involving Mozart, so I ask: what is your opinion on this? I have gone to great lengths in the past to make sure this catalogue is ‘fairly’ accurate and resourceful, so a task as large as this one is certainly something I can consider. I personally believe that it would be a great addition, but it’s always nice to have a bit of feedback.
 * Again, thank you for your listings, I know that had to have taken a bit of time to do! Cheers. ZSNES (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's why I put question marks on those two. For those that are factually known to be spurious, I put the real composer's name without question marks.
 * Yes, I think Anh. and Anh.C is a great idea for an addition to make this piece complete. To be honest, I've been thinking about doing that for some time as well! (For one, it'd solve the problem of works that are only in K2 or K3 getting excluded from the list!) Double sharp (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be sure to get to work on that then! Would it be possible to pool our efforts into making the catalogue more complete? If you would like, we can collaborate on the catalogue; I have a few ideas that you may be interested in. I'd very much like working with an addition person on this. Is there another way that I can contact you in the future? I'd be happy to give you some of my information, such as e-mail, Skype, etc. Cheers. ZSNES (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Currently I'm more working on trying to get complete coverage on some genres, e.g. Mozart symphonies (now there's only five lost ones left to talk about!) Double sharp (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless I think the spurious works should be kept out of the main catalogue we present here, even if they're not actually in the Anhang. E.g. KV 52 (Leopold), KV 91 (Reutter). Double sharp (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I took them out. For the spurious works that have been proven not to be Mozart's yet have been in the Köchel catalogue, I think we should have a separate table for them. Double sharp (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

New revision of Köchel, edited by Neal Zaslaw?
Was there ever an attempt by American musicologist Neal Zaslaw to fix the renumbering issues that bedevil K6? Zaslaw’s 1997 essay on the webpage cited says so, but I see no evidence of it mentioned here. The Breitkopf und Härtel catalogue page lists the latest Köchel in a PDF (Books on Music 2006) as:


 * Chronologisch-thematisches Verzeichnis sämtlicher Tonwerke Wolfgang Amadé Mozarts (KV) bearbeitet von Franz Giegling, Alexander Weinmann und Gerd Sievers in Zusammenarbeit mit der Internationalen Stiftung Mozarteum, Salzburg und der Editionsleitung der Neuen Mozart-Ausgabe, Augsburg 1999, Nachdruck der 8. unveränderten Aufl. 1983, 1168 pp. (etc. etc. etc.)

Does anyone know if the Augsburg 1999 print is the same as the 8th edition of 1983? "Nachdruck der unveränderten Auflage" seems to indicate no change at all. Did Zaslaw propose a large number of changes that proved too controversial to be implemented?

Also, I suspect there are still some significant works missing from the list, so I’m going to take a copy away to a sandbox for a few days (probably over at IMSLP): any vast amount of editing to the list is probably not worth it... Regards, Philip Legge User Email Talk 06:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Nachdruck der unveränderten Auflage" does indeed mean unchanged reprint of the unchanged edition, i.e. there are no changes since the 6th edition of 1964. There are rumours that Neal Zaslaw is going to prepare the next forthcoming edition of the Köchelverzeichnis, but nothing has been published so far. I guess the reason is simply that a new revision of the Köchel will take years of preparation, so the publishers have opted for another reprint in the meantime. (BTW: "Augsburg print" is incorrect. The 1999 edition was published by Breitkopf & Härtel in Wiesbaden. The bibliographical record states only that the book was published "in collaboration with the International Mozarteum Foundation, Salzburg and the editors of the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe, Augsburg".) --FordPrefect42 (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite correct. My German is not as yours :) As 11 years have passed by since the cited essay (and one significant anniversary year gone as well, which might have been an opportune time to launch), I don’t imagine anyone’s in a hurry for this to be released.
 * The table has one or two minor bugs in it. The most awkward of these concerns K.205 (167A) which has been confused with K.185 (167a): the capitalisation is important. Several works (such as the Odense A minor symphony) are very doubtful indeed, and the only omissions I’ve noticed so far (e.g. the setting of the Kyrie, K.90, in NMA I/3) are very minor. Regards, Philip Legge User Email Talk 04:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Prof. Zaslaw gave quite a nice hour-long talk on his project at the 2013 conference of the American Musicological Society. He said that he was nearly ready with a revised Köchelverzeichnis that will be published by Breitkopf & Hartel in both digital and paper editions, in German and in English. This is, of course, a mammoth undertaking that has occupied him (and many other Mozart scholars) for many years. There seems to have been a snag in the project since then, however, since the B&H web page is still entirely silent about the project. It is my understanding that the existing K numbers will continue, with modifications where appropriate, rather than there being a complete overhaul.

Bmwilcox (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This may be of interest. As is this by Zaslaw: it's about K.Anh.C 9.07, but also mentions explicitly that yes, he is the editor of K9. Double sharp (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

K. No. & Op. (Opus) No.
Is their any relationship beween K. No. and Op. (Opus) No.? E.g., The cover of CD 13 (of 13) (recording CBS 1984; release CBS Masterworks 1985) of the Murray Perahai complete Piano Concertos lists "Piano Concerto In D Major after J. Chr. Bach No. 1" as K. 107/1; the media info ADDs that this is also Op. 5/2. Should this be 5/1 (media errors are common), is there a missing piece, or do opus Nos. not exist for Mozart works? If they do, addition of opus No. to the K. No. table would be very useful to aid correlation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.117.232 (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Op. 5 refers here to Johann Christian Bach's original sonatas (see Piano Concertos K. 107 (Mozart),, and ). Almost none of Mozart's works have been assigned opus numbers (see ). --FordPrefect42 (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wanted a list: K.6–7 = Op.1/1–2, K.8–9=Op.2/1–2, K.10–15=Op.3/1–6, K.26–31=Op.4/1–6, K.301–306=Op.1/1–6, K.376,296,377–380=Op.2/1–6, K.330–332 = Op.6/1–3, K.284,333,454 = Op.7/1–3, K.414,413,415 = Op.4/1–3, K.385,319 = Op.7/1–2, K.387,421,458,428,464,465 = Op.10/1–6. As you can see, there are so many duplicates in this list and so many works are not included that they are of at best questionable utility. Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (BTW this is missing some opus numbers, which I think are posthumously assigned, e.g. K.268 (which is probably spurious, hence my inference that this opus number was assigned posthumously) = Op.76, K.312 (a fragment, completed posthumously) = Op.148, K.334 = Op.61, K.335 = Op.95, K.338 = Op.57. Even counting those, however, most of Mozart's works don't have opus numbers, and opus numbers are certainly not a standard way to refer to Mozart's works.) Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Given the usual wait between authors' proofreading and publications, I might add the Prussian Quartets' opus numbers, K.575,589,590 = Op.18/1–3, to this list, since they were published in December 1791, the same month Mozart died. Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Köchel catalogue. 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/20131126031632/http://mozartforum.com/koechel%20main.htm to http://www.mozartforum.com/koechel%20main.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Divertimento in B flat KAnh. 227
Divertimento in B flat KAnh. 227, a delightful work, appears to be missing from the list of Mozart's works. As for its being spurious, I can only say that it certainly sounds like Mozart to me, beyond doubt! David Spector (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Very nice reference to Mozart's works
A nice reference work is the MusicBrainz Wiki. Page https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:CSG_Standard/Mozart not only catalogs Mozart's work, but contains within it four of his standard catalogs. David Spector (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

K. Anh. A22

 * Anh. A22
 * De profundis clamavi in C major
 * spurious (by Georg Reutter)

the existing link to Georg Reutter goes to the older composer who died in 1738. I think the link should be changed to Johann Georg Reutter who lived from 1708-1772 and would seem to me to be the correct composer. Also, section 6, selected recordings in that article mentions a recording of the De profundis as by Mozart/Reutter. Thank you. --FeanorStar7 (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)