Talk:Viennese Quartets (Mozart)

Links to String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn)?
It looks like there is some disagreement in the literature as to whether Mozart knew of Op. 20. The Op. 9 and Op. 17 quartets were in print, so surely Mozart encountered those, On the other hand, the Op. 20 quartets which had been written in 1772, were not to be published until 1774. Mozart could have heard them in concert, perhaps, but scholars disagree on that as well. Rosen mentions an influence as does Heartz, but Brown argues vehemently against stating that they both composed to please the same audiences. The Brown rebuttal is mentioned in the Haydn and Mozart article.

I don't know much this should be discussed here, but I have to take Heartz back to the library and I'm noting this here while I still have the book.DavidRF (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Popularly?
That is a strange way of putting it. Mozart's early quartets are not very popular, unless you discount KV 157, whose shapely, memorable C-major first subject appears to have won over the hearts of many a string ensemble who decided to reinstrument it for string orchestra. Indeed KV 168–173 are often so called, but I doubt that popular nicknames can exist for unpopular works.

It is a shame that these are not popular works. These quartets really show how much Mozart was awed by Haydn's Op.9, 17, and 20, to the point where even such a graceful composer as he unintentionally showed how much work this required – see for example the slow movement of KV 171. The highlight of the set is probably KV 173, the one that most betrays Mozart's discomfort in the face of Haydn's Op.9 No.4, and most starkly prophesises the later great quartet in that key of D minor – KV 421. I imagine one could write a pretty good section on the critical reception of these early works, starting with Keller's scathing contempt for everything except KV 156 (I agree it's the best of the lot, especially with the original adagio: but I daresay KV 173 belongs in that exalted company too: even Keller has a few good words for it), and moving to today's more nuanced appraisal. Double sharp (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What term do you suggest should replace "popularly" in "these are popularly known as the Viennese Quartets"? Please answer succinctly, keeping your opinions about the relative worth of the individual pieces to yourself. TheScotch (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Citation style
I have just reverted the change to this article's citation style made by User:Esprit15d, invoking WP:CITEVAR. In my edit summary, I specified that this change was made "regretfully", because I do personally prefer SFN style to the established full-footnote one, mainly because SFN results in an alphabetical list of all the cited sources (more important for longer article with more citations, but the principle still stands). Because CITEVAR requires discussion and consensus before changing the citation style, I propose that Esprit15d's changes be restored. If there are any editors who disagree with this, do please give your reasons.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt at all your intentions to adhere to policy. For the sake of this discussion, the policy says, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." In other words, to make these handful of edits, I would need to consult with the article principle editors.  If you look into the article's history, you'll see that this article hasn't been edited in two years (except for a bots and script edits). The one correctly formatted citation was added NINE YEARS AGO, and the other one was incorrectly formatted (that I spent quite some time this morning finding complete information for). Additionally, the policy you quoted says, "If all or most of the citations in an article consist of bare URLs, or otherwise fail to provide needed bibliographic data – such as the name of the source, the title of the article or web page consulted, the author (if known), the publication date (if known), and the page numbers (where relevant) – then that would not count as a "consistent citation style" and can be changed freely to insert such data." This was the case with the article. It doesn't even remotely have a consistent editing style.  You can clearly see that for yourself.  As with all articles, while we put forth quite some effort to not create conflict with editors and prioritize consistency, to revert an article to preserve only two references for the sake of an editor that hasn't touched the article in nine years would mean whatever some random editor did in a stub article would stand for perpetuity, which is not standard practice.  Additionally, I fully plan on bringing this article up to an improved state (It's something I'm working on with a friend of mine) and all future edits will be made to improve the quality of the references.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not think there is a serious likelihood of objections being raised. It seemed to me that it would be best to follow protocol, in order to avoid anyone raising objections later on procedural grounds. (Some editors have long memories.) I would say that if no objections are raised in five to seven days, we can fairly assume that we have a consensus to change to SFN format. Sorry to be a hindrance, especially since I agree with you completely about the change.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It looks like you are the sole exception to Esprit15d's observation about lack of editorial activity on this article in the past two years. What say you on the matter of citation format?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the change to SFN format. Double sharp (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)