Talk:Piano Concerto No. 15 (Mozart)

This Wikipedia article is in great need of expansion.

Unfortunately, though, I had to delete a sentence that cited a journal article by Simon Keefe entitled "Dramatic Dialogue in Mozart's Viennese Piano Concertos: A Study of Competition and Cooperation in Three First Movements" from The Musical Quarterly. The sentence I deleted stated: "Keefe has also analysed the character of the dialogue between the soloist and the orchestra in the concerto's first movement." This article is not about Keefe but about the piano concerto. So the reader really needs to know what Keefe's interesting analysis was! Without that information -- about the concerto -- the sentence doesn't belong in the article. But somebody (perhaps I) should read Keefe's article and if Keefe's observations are truly interesting and not too arcane, they could be summarized within our article.

I also deleted a remarkably similar sentence that cited a 1947 journal article by Diane Mcveagh. Her journal article was delightful, but it has nothing useful to say about this piece per se other than that it provides (in her words, my emphasis added) "an example of the classical approach to the problem" of how to divide thematic material between soloist and orchestra. In other words, it is a typical classical concerto. In the case of her journal article, however, I was able to leave in a reference to the journal article, as it provides a handy reference for the (admittedly obvious) fact that the 1st movement is in typical classical first movement sonata form.

In the case of Keefe's journal article, I moved the reference to Keefe's journal article into the "Source" section -- although I am not sure it really belongs anywhere in the article unless its contribution is spelled out.

If we get a lot of content on this talk page, somebody should feel free want to delete my (this) Talk page entry, as it is probably much too detailed about minor editing matters of little importance. I just hated to delete other people's work without an explanation. David Couch (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, for what it is worth, that I completely agree with all of this. The article is about the K. 450. It is not (or, should not be) about a study of studies mentioning the K. 450. I made similar changes to the article on the K. 491 a while back. And yes, expansion of this, like many articles of its kind, is warranted. Syek88 (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)