Talk:Kegelstatt Trio

Reference re: the original publication: Alfred Einstein, Mozart: His Character, His Work, p 261, 1945 edition, English translation. Will write in standard format soon. Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Scoring
A while back an anon changed the primary scoring of this work to piano/violin/viola. I've always seen the primary scoring of this piece as piano/clarinet/viola. In fact, clarinetist Anton Stadler is said to have played clarinet at its first performance. I reverted the change, but thought I'd mention the revert here in case anyone wanted to object. DavidRF 15:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

apocryphal nickname story?
The following was posted without citation:
 * There has been some discussion that the nickname may have been misapplied - that the legend (if true) applies to a sonata written at roughly the same time instead.

Is this true? Anyone know? If we can find a citation, then we can move it to the article. DavidRF (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

repeats in chamber music
The following quote has problems: "among Mozart's chamber music, only the 'Posthornserenade' K. 320 doesn't have any repeats in the opening movement." K320 is a large-scale orchestral work. The problem is that the sentence is cited. Does anyone have access to the source paper? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote as it currently reads is "among Mozart's mature works other than symphonies, only the 'Posthornserenade' (K. 320) doesn't have any repeats in the opening movement." I just checked the clarinet concerto: it's clearly a mature work (the last Mozart completed), clearly not a symphony, and its opening movement does not repeat its exposition--or anything else. Apparently someone has thrown out the baby with the bath water. TheScotch (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, with some effort I've tracked down the paper cited ("To Repeat or Not to Repeat" by one Hugh Macdonald) in JSTOR and read it--the link does not take you to it. Here is the relevant passage: "To find both repeats missing in the first movements of mature works [by Mozart] other than symphonies is exceedingly unusual. I am aware of only two cases: the Posthorn Serenade K.320, which may have come into the concerto category or been influenced by the two overture-like symphonies which preceded it, K.318 and 319; and the curious Kegelstatt Trio, for clarinet, viola, and piano, K.498, curious both for its unusually structured Minuet and Trio and for the conspicuous lack of repeats in its opening Adante."

The bit about "the concerto category" refers to remarks the author makes much earlier in his paper in which he points out that concertos in the classical period do not generally repeat their expositions. Thus in the Wikipedia article we should have to add "and concertos" to "works other than symphonies".

There's another problem though. The author of the paper never actually says that the Posthorn Serenade and the Kegelstatt Trio are the only exceptions; he says they're the only two of which he's aware. That's a huge difference.

The general lesson to be learned is Do NOT trust Wikipedia citations. To fix this particular article, though, I think we'd better have it say just that the absence of first movement repeats is rare in Mozart pieces other than symphonies and concertos and leave it at that. (The citation can then stay.) TheScotch (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry to belabor this point to death, but I've just leafed through my Dover edition of all Mozart string quartets. The second and seventh have no repeat marks in their first movements. The tenth has incidental repeat marks, but neither its exposition as a whole nor its development/recapitulation section repeats. Since these are fairly early works, I've restored the qualification mature. TheScotch (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"Cut time"?
Re: "The last movement is written in the time signature of cut common time (or alla breve, similar to 2/2)....".

The last movement in my copy of the score (International Music Company, New York, copyright 1953, renewed) is in "common time" with a semi-circle as time signature; in other words, it's in 4/4, not 2/2. TheScotch (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The score at the NMA shows Allabreve2.png; see http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/objs/ed/ucb19_185_117.jpg -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see that the above link shows the third movement in 2/2, but what is "NMA", and how authoritative is it? My score is right in front of me as I write this, and I didn't err; it definitely says 4/4. TheScotch (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to have more evidence if possible, but tentatively it occurs to me that the time signature of this movement may be a matter of editorial dispute and it might be best for Wikipedia not to take a position at all--in other words the passage should simply be removed. TheScotch (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I just checked http://imslp.org/wiki/Trio_in_E-flat_major,_K.498_%28Mozart,_Wolfgang_Amadeus%29. It shows two editions with the Rondo movement in 4/4 (neither of which is my International Music Company edition) and one with it in 2/2. The autograph appears to be 2/2. This supports my supposition above, that the question is a matter of editorial dispute. (Scroll through the editions shown in the link to see what I mean.) TheScotch (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NMA is the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe and is the highest authority on matters concerning Mozart scores. That they and the autograph useAllabreve2.pngs, in my opinion, no doubt about the correct notation.
 * PS: Thank you very much for sorting out the mess regarding the repeats. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that editors from various publishing houses, at least one of which is clearly reputable, evidently do doubt that 2/2 is the correct notation, and for Wikipedia to prefer one edition over another would constitute Original Research. Three options occur to me: 1) The article can omit mention of the time signature altogether. 2) The article can point out that some editions say 2/2 and some say 4/4 (and, if you like, name some of them). 3. The article can try to finesse the matter by saying something like the measures of the movement have four quarter notes worth of time, which would be true of both 2/2 and 4/4.

Bear in mind that although one might suppose a good editor will take the autograph into consideration, there very well may be other factors or circumstances to consider. (I won't bother to list possibilities; presumably you can think of many yourself.) I did, by the way, eventually google NMA (after I queried you about it). My cursory impression is that it appears to exist mainly so as to allow people to see Mozart's music without having to pay for professional editions. This strikes me as analogous to Wikipedia's mission, and Wikipedia is inherently not a valid source for anything. That, of course, doesn't mean that NMA is not a valid source (just because two things are alike in one respect doesn't mean they're alike in another respect), but I'd be curious to see a valid source that says NMA "is the highest authority on matters concerning Mozart scores". If such a valid source exists, however, preferring NMA would still constitute Original Research. TheScotch (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no more scholarly edited version of WAM's scores than those at the NMA. There may be quibbles about minor aspects of some works, eg their use of ornamentation or their lack to access to some autographs which were held in former East Germany, but the detail of their Critical Reports is unmatched. No other publishing house calls their Mozart scores Critical Edition. Unlike Wikipedia, they conduct peer-reviewed research; that they publish the scores freely is neither here nor there. Would Grove become less authoritative if it became freely accessible? Did BMJ or The Lancet lose their status as reliable sources? Normally, a difference as the one we're discussing here might be worth mentioning in the article as you suggest, but given NMA's authority and your own observation of the autograph, this would be against WP:UNDUE and even WP:FRINGE. I suggest you remove . Lastly, the difference in notation is, in my opinion, rather marginal. I for one cannot hear the "> ." pattern of alla breve as opposed to the "> . _ ." of common time, especially in the piano part. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: "No other publishing house calls their Mozart scores Critical Edition."

So? Any publishing house could. I don't see what this has to do with the argument. I'm not saying NMA is not authoritative (after all, I'd never heard of it); I'm saying so far you seem to have presented exactly zero evidence that it is. Present some, please--and try, please, not to sound so ex cathedra. This is not a matter to be decided by decree.

Re: "Normally, a difference as the one we're discussing here might be worth mentioning in the article as you suggest, but given NMA's authority and your own observation of the autograph, this would be against WP:UNDUE and even WP:FRINGE."

NMA's putative "authority" is thus far merely a matter of your assertion. In any case, suppose, hypothetically, that there were equally good arguments for either time signature: An editor would still have to choose one or the other. Thus, no matter how Pope-like the publisher, his particular choice would not, in this case, be unequivocally "correct", and it would still be worth noting differences of opinion. WP:UNDUE warns against "minority opinions", and, according to my tally, 4/4 is actually the majority opinion so far. As for WP: FRINGE, International Music Company is obviously very far from fringe, and there's no reason to suppose out of hand that the other publishers supporting the 4/4 are fringe either.

Re: "I suggest you remove your citation request."

Why should I remove it when there remains no citation?

Re: "Lastly, the difference in notation is, in my opinion, rather marginal."

It sounds to me as if it's a matter of life and death to you; you won't give a micrometer. But if you don't consider the difference important, then why are you (apparently) opposed to deleting mention of the time signature at all? Be that as it may, however large or small a difference it is, it's currently in the article. When someone who owns the score comes to the article seeking more information about a piece he's preparing to play and discovers the discrepancy, he's not going to trust the remainder of the article unless the article can provide some sort of explanation--which was exactly my reaction. I won't be (and probably haven't been) the only one.

Re: "I for one cannot hear the '> .' pattern of alla breve as opposed to the '> . _ .' of common time, especially in the piano part."

For that matter, and contrary to popular mythology, the music would sound exactly the same if it were re-barred to fit a 7/8 time signature. It would just be much harder to read, and Mozart would be behaving in an extremely perverse manner. (See Walter Piston's Harmony sans Mark Devoto and Paul Creston's Principles of Rhythm for elaboration.) The practical difference in this case is that allegretto in 4/4 suggests a slower quarter note than allegretto in 2/2. If Mozart had supplied a metronome marking it wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, the metronome hadn't yet been invented. (This is not to suggest that this has any particular any bearing on what the Wikipedia article should say; I'm merely pursuing your remarks.) TheScotch (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what it takes to produce a "critical edition"; I'm not aware of any publishing house other than Bärenreiter claiming to publish a critical edition of Mozart scores. Thus, their score is the yardstick until challenged with a critical apparatus, scholarly research and peer review comparable to theirs. Unlike with clefs, I can conceive of no good reason to change a time signature clearly readable in the autograph.
 * This is not "a matter of life and death" to me; it was you who inserted the citation request, and that has been answered here, i.a. from a reliable, scholarly source. There's enough quotable material here to use in the article if you will, or simply to remove the request; after all, "you don't need to cite that the sky is blue". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
I checked out three editions of the Kegelstatt trio from the university library. One is Schirmer's, edited by Joseph Adamowski, copyright 1920. Schirmer, obviously, has arguably been for over a century the most prestigious publisher of classical music. This edition shows the last movement in 4/4. Another is a Kalmus edition which also shows the last movement in 4/4. The third is a miniature study score published by Editions Eulenburg, which shows the last movement in 2/2. (I'm not suppressing any evidence, whether or not it supports my position.) The library also has the International Music Company edition I mentioned above that gives the last movement as 4/4. Since I own this edition I didn't check it out, but I did neglect to mention above that its editor is Isidor Philipp. Thus among professional publishers we can actually name, in the sample we have so far, we are polling three-to-one in favor of 4/4. If we include the three anonymous editions I mentioned earlier and assume these are professional editions, we are polling five-to-two in favor of 4/4.

Re: "I'm not aware of any publishing house other than Bärenreiter claiming to publish a critical edition of Mozart scores. Thus, their score is the yardstick until challenged with a critical apparatus, scholarly research and peer review comparable to theirs."

Obviously, the second proposition does not logically follow from the first. (I have, by the way, lots of novels on my shelf that claim to be critical editions, and I have a Beethoven symphony score that claims to be a critical edition. Generally it means that historical criticism is appended.) Re: "Unlike with clefs, I can conceive of no good reason to change a time signature clearly readable in the autograph."

There are zillions of very obvious hypothetical possibilities that immediately come to mind, far too many to list here. (If you yourself really can't think of any, it's difficult for me imagine you should ever expect to be hired as a professional editor.) Before I furnish a sample let me admit that I was a bit rash in calling what I saw the autograph (sorry): It's an apparently hand-written version, and that's all I really currently know. When I get around to it, I'll see if there's more information about it at the site that shows it. Also: let me make it clear that I'm not saying any of the possibilities I list below are the case, so it would be silly to attempt to debunk them. The point is merely that the autograph is not necessarily the editor's only consideration. So: 1) there may be multiple autographs (or apparent copies) that disagree. 2) It may look as if the autograph was altered by another hand. 3) It may look as if the autograph was altered by the composer at a later time. 4) The composer may have disavowed aspects of the autograph. 5) The original publisher may have disagreed with the composer, and history may have sided with the original publisher. 6) The authenticity of the existing autograph may be in dispute. 7) A marking that means one thing at the time a piece was written may not have the same meaning centuries later. 8) A particular marking at a particular period in history may be thought equivocal....and so on. Also remember that just because an editor makes one decision, doesn't necessarily mean he thinks another might not be valid. He has to show the music in one time signature only, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to pretend the piece has never been published with another time signature. (Yes, I've said this before, but apparently it bears repeating.)

Notice that I have offered three compromise proposals and that you have summarily rejected all three and have offered none of your own. TheScotch (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You inserted a citation request; I provided one. You are most welcome to add a discussion of sources with variant notation to the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)