Talk:Sinfonia Concertante for Four Winds

New article
I asked the folks at WikiProject Classical music to take a look at this new article. It's a difficult subject because of conflicting professional opinions about the authenticity of the composition. My intro notes to this copied discussion are in italics. Invertzoo (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are the replies, copied from the project talk page:


 * It might be prudent to mention post I made last year. ♫ Melodia Chaconne♫(talk) 14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is his previous post and a reply to it:


 * edit by DavidRF got me thinking about making the article, since I'm in the middle of reading Robert Levin's fascinating book on it. But it's a point on what to call it. Short history -- the original for flute, oboe, horn, and bassoon is lost without a trace. The current work that is well known and recorded for oboe, clarinet, horn, and bassoon was found by Otto Jahn shortly after Kochel was first published. Over the years, some have said they think it IS a transcription of Mozart's original, others have thought it spurious (thus it has a K3 number of 297b, thinking they are the same work, but a K6 one of C Anh. 14.01 for the current one and K279B (note the caps difference) for the lost one thinking they are different). Levin makes the very convincing case that the solo parts are a transcription from Mozart's original (based mainly on the work's form), done by someone else, and the orchestral music was also done by someone else. So the main question here arises -- title, and if there should be one or two articles. There definitely should be an article for such a relatively popular and controversial piece, but even 'Sinfonie' vs. 'Sinfonia' is an issue. So anyone have any thoughts on the issue? (And please don't just say "it's listed as X in Grove" as that's VERY unhelpful). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't know. I've seen it as Sinfonia Concertante for Wind and Sinfonie Concertante. I think at the end of the, it will take a bold editor who first creates the article to decide the name... much like the rules on American v British English. Centy  – [ reply ]• contribs – 03:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And back to the current discussion:


 * Melodia's post last year didn't seem to generate much discussion. Perhaps that means nobody has particularly strong feelings about it...? I've moved the article to Sinfonia Concertante for Oboe, Clarinet, Horn, Bassoon and Orchestra (Mozart) as this seems consistent with other articles on Mozart concertos.  With regards the instrumentation, I would think it best to stick with what we have, even if this isn't what Mozart originally wrote for, since this is the form in which the work is known today.  --Deskford (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

..........................

Thanks all, I wanted to consolidate all the commentary on this subject onto this page. Invertzoo (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Artictle title
Would it perhaps be better to rename the article "Sinfonia Concertante for Winds (Mozart)"? That would certainly simplify it a bit. Ross280 (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking st this page again and really, the lead as it stands needs to be changed -- we DON'T know if Mozart wrote the piece with the clarinet, but we DO however know he wrote one which may or may not be the same piece with a flute instead of a clarinet. So changing it to simply "for winds and orchestra" (or something) even if it's not quite the normal way of naming things IMO would be a good thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. The NMA quotes an 1988 article by Robert D. Levin named "Who wrote the Mozart Four Wind Concerto?"; following that phrase, the title could be "Sinfonia Concertante for Four Winds and Orchestra" which is used quite frequently in music literature. I would argue that the "and Orchestra" bit could be omitted in the page title as it is redundant. Further, there's no need for a disambiguator – Henri Lazarof apparently wrote such a work too, but I doubt we see an article on his work any time soon. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it's a book. A pretty comprehensive (and very convincing) one, at that. But ok, I'll move it to your thought for now (and fix the lead), and if someone argues the 'and orchestra' is needed later we can deal with it then. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the current solution, banishing Mozart as a disambiguation, because it's suspected not to be by him (even as my ears refuse to believe that). Double sharp (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added (disputed attribution to Mozart) to the article title as this is both factual and brings it into line with the other disputed or spurious maybe-Mozart works. I hope this meets with the approval of others who have taken an interest in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colgill (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The role of disambiguators for Wikipedia article titles is explained at WP:DAB and WP:Article titles. Disambiguators are additional descriptors. The previous name,  didn't mention Mozart, which was fortuitous. Adding "(disputed attribution to Mozart)" does not conform to Wikipedia standards for article titles. The move ought to be reverted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the page is about BOTH versions of the work, despite the fact one is lost. The original version is NOT disputed in the least. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The addition to the title brings this article into line with all the other disputed or spurious Mozart works. I do not see why this article should be any different. To leave out the attribution in the title would be an exception to the Wikipedia treatment of these works. I cannot see any justification for this exceptional treatment. Perhaps I am missing something. Could explain your view more? Colgill (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Which other articles are you referring to? I can find only one, Violin Sonata in D major (attributed to Mozart), and the disambiguator there is obviously needed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of material relating to the lost original work is surely necessary background to understanding the Otto Jahn score and the dispute surrounding it. Hope this clarifies my intentions and thinking. Colgill (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

OK I see my title change has been reverted! No problem. I am happy to abide by the majority decision. Colgill (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Authenticity
Surely, if we are going to mention the opinions of some scholars, we should mention what stylistic features they based their judgement on? (Personally, I'd be quite happy to have this work as an "adopted child" of Mozart, to follow his own language regarding the six quartets dedicated to Haydn. Even if Mozart did not write it, whoever did do so had a really good day. But that is my own opinion, and not notable for this article.) Double sharp (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. The long transitional athematic passages in this work are an experiment that I do not know of in any other works in the 1770s, but which Mozart returned to in the Coronation Concerto KV 537. (Admittedly in KV 297b they are repeated often enough that they may actually have become themes – in fact, this concerto seems to favour melody over harmony. Though given the added mass needed for such a quadruple concerto, like in Martern aller Arten from Die Entführung, this seems necessary; the definitive solutions in the Classical style would not be stumbled upon until the great string quintets KV 515 and 516 were written.) Additionally, the triple exposition seems to be a perfect solution to the problem of how to make sure everybody gets adequate soloistic favours. The entry of the instruments, cutting into what would be the last bar of the tutti, is quite like that in KV 450. Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Page needed?
I mean, [re: Levin] literally the whole book is about the piece, most of it analysis. So...all the pages? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The article cites two specific issues that Levin raises. Asking for page numbers doesn't seem extravagant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Additions to this article
I have made a number of additions to this article as it seemed short on facts and rather unbalanced in the presentation of the conflicting opinions. I have added reference to Otto Jahn, Tovey, and Staehelin and expanded the views of Alfred Einstein, Stanley Sadie, and Robert Levin. Also refs to Mozart's letters. I hope this has improved the information in the article and also the objective reporting of the arguments. Colgill (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have re-organised the top section of the article with additional material on the lost Mozart work and the circumstances it was written in. I have added two additional section headings in the hope that these will help readers understand the sequence of events and the origins of the current Sinfonia Concertante. Please feel free to revert if you are not happy with this change. Colgill (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am contemplating the last few sentences of the 'Authenticty' section starting 'Mozart displayed prominence and affection for wind instruments....'. It seems to me this is an important section which should have its own Section Heading. I can't think of a concise form of words though. Maybe Comparable Mozart Wind Instrument works or Mozart passages for wind instruments for comparison

any ideas, suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colgill (talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Colgill (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Something like that would need a reliable source or two making said comparison. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)