Wikipedia:Peer review/Mozart piano concertos/archive1

Mozart piano concertos
Would be grateful for review of length, style, content etc!

--Grahbudd 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I really liked your piece - fascinating, enlightening, well written.

I would have nothing to say about it if you hadn't asked for a peer review. That kind of obligates me to make some kind of criticism, so here goes:


 * I think the lead paragraph doesn't really focus on the main stuff. I would take all the information about the history of analysis, and move it into a separate section.  Instead of it, I would write something about the importance of these concertos to the history of piano concertos - something like, "With these concertos, Mozart created a new mold that changed the way composers would handle piano in an orchestral context."


 * In the section 1786 you write that "... a set of variations, is commonly called "sublime": it is a work that even Glenn Gould, not known for being a great supporter of Mozart, expressed some reluctant admiration for." First of all, if you use quotation marks, it means a quote.  Who are you quoting?  In any case, a statement like that requires attribution.  Secondly, the part about Glenn Gould is painfully awkward.  How about something like, "... that even Glenn Gould, not known as a great Mozart supporter, admired."


 * There are a few other places where you make value judgments like the one above, without attribution, but I was so carried away by the content that I forgot to mark them. So you will have to find them yourself.

Thank you for an enjoyable read. --Ravpapa 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A good article. It provides lots of useful information, but it only has one image. Perhaps a scan of the sheet music of one of them? - E2MB the museblogger 23:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit
This is in many ways a very good article. I have played the piano for twenty-five years (even a Mozart concerto!) and I learned a lot from it. What needs to be done is to make sure that it complies with the most important policies at wikipedia. The language in many places could also be more precise. Here are my suggestions for improvement.

Lead: The lead is not a standalone summary of the article per WP:LEAD: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." I would aim for 3-4 paragraphs for this article, as recommended in the guidelines. Be sure to include a mention of all of the major topics the article addresses.
 * The Mozart piano concertos are piano concertos by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791). - A bit redundant don't you think? The piano concertos are piano concertos? The Mozart concertos are by Mozart? I realize you want Mozart's full name in there, but there must be a better way.
 * These works, many of which Mozart composed for himself to play in the Vienna concert series of 1784–86 held a special place for him - "held a special place for him" is vague and awkward - can you be more specific?
 * These works, many of which Mozart composed for himself to play in the Vienna concert series of 1784–86 held a special place for him; indeed, Mozart's father apparently interrupted him composing a "harpsichord concerto" at age 4. - I don't see how the "indeed" logically follows.
 * For a long time relatively neglected, they have come to be seen as containing some of his greatest achievements. - awkward and unspecific - Can you say "Neglected for [time span], they are now considered some of his greatest works" or something like that?
 * Tovey championed them in his Essay on the Classical Concerto in 1903, and later came the famous books by Cuthbert Girdlestone and Arthur Hutchings in 1940 (originally published in French) and 1948, respectively. Hans Tischler published a structural and thematic analysis of the concertos in 1966, followed by the important works by Charles Rosen, and Leeson and Robert Levin. - too detailed for a lead - I would give only the first or most important "champion".
 * In recent years, two of the concertos have also been covered in the Cambridge Music Handbook series. - unnecessary in a lead
 * The first complete edition was not until that of Richault from around 1850; and since then the scores and autographs have become widely available through the publications of eg Norton, Eulenberg (edited by Friedrich Blume) and Dover. - too much detail for the lead - perhaps mention the first edition and then say it is currently widely available without listing all of them? That kind of list can come in the article itself.

Sources: The article needs to be cited to reliable sources (in this case, books and articles by musicologists). Your list of references looks good, although I am sure it could be expanded. Use those books to provide the reader with inline citations (footnotes) so that s/he knows where each piece of information is coming from. See citations and reliable sources. Here are some examples of sentences needing citation:
 * The next concerto, KV. 449 in E flat major, ushers in a period of creativity that has certainly never been surpassed in piano concerto production. - Statements like this are considered "point of view" (WP:NPOV) unless they have a reliable source backing them up.
 * The final work of the year, No. 25, KV. 503, sometimes referred to as "Mozart's Emperor Concerto" - We need to know where this is coming from.
 * The prelude is invariably rich in thematic material, with as many as six or more well-defined themes being introduced. However, the concertos fall into two rather marked groups as to what sort of themes they possess.
 * The genius of Mozart's mature movements, therefore, is to be able to manipulate a mass of thematic material without compromising the broader scale conception; and the listener, rather than being given the impression of "fiddling" with all the themes, instead is left with the ritornellic impression: Mozart truly uses "art to conceal art". - Quotations in particular must be sourced.
 * Girdlestone considers the slow movements to fall into five main groups, i.e. "galant", "romance", "dream", "meditative" and the "minor" ones. - Any ideas attributed to a specific writer must also be sourced.
 * Today, at least three of these works (nos 20, 21 and 23) are among the most recorded and popular classical works in the repertoire
 * For example, a search on Amazon.com for "K. 467, Mozart" (No. 21, by far the most recorded of the concertos, especially its slow movement) will give almost 600 hits - Eek! Why not use a reputable publication that lists all of the recordings?

General comments:
 * Instead of moving backwards in time in the "Origins" section, why don't you move forward? It is a little difficult to follow the way it is now.
 * Linking of individual years is usually discouraged, unless you are linking to something like "1776 in music."
 * Can you make the KV links clearer by perhaps including the KV in the linked phrase? Sometimes the typography becomes confusing. You do this sometimes in the article, but not always.
 * It is standard practice to link something the first time it appears in a section (Beethoven is linked later in the "First movement" section, for example.)
 * In the "Second movement" section, I would suggest listing only the types and explaining what they are rather than giving the reader the detailed list.
 * I do not mind your long paragraphs, but if you intend to go for GA or FA with this article, you might think about breaking them up. I have noticed a distinct preference for short paragraphs among wikipedia editors.
 * I would focus the "Discography" on famous and influential recordings rather than complete recordings or at least add a section on famous performances and interpretations of the Mozart concertos.
 * The "Piano concertos in films" section seems superfluous to me. As it is only a list, I would create a "Mozart piano concertos in popular culture" page and put it there. Those pages seem to be only lists of these kinds of things.
 * Can you include more sound clips?
 * I would add bullets to all lists to make them easier to read.
 * I would cite the Henle editions of Mozart's concertos - they are generally regarded as superior to Dover editions.
 * Again, if you want to submit this to FA, you will probably need to add more categories and more images (I added one of a fortepiano.)

One consistent problem that I saw in the article's prose was a tendency to make vague claims. Here are some examples of what I mean:
 * The next two, Nos 7–8 (KV. 242 and KV. 246) are generally not regarded as demonstrating much of an advance - an advance in what?
 * although No. 7, the concerto for three pianos, is quite well known - why is it well-known?
 * it is often described as "Tyrolean", and stands some comparison with the later A major concerto, KV. 488 - Why can it be compared with the later concerto?
 * The last of these three, No. 13, KV. 415, is an ambitious, perhaps even overambitious work, that introduces the first, military theme in a canon in an impressive orchestral opening: the last movement is considered to be the best. - Why "overambitious"? Considered to be the best by whom?
 * The advance in technique and structure from the early Vienna examples is marked from the very first of this mature series. - What specifically are the changes in technique and structure?

Another problem is that the writing at times assumes that the reader has a lot of specialized knowledge. Here are some examples:
 * so that some older works (e.g. Girdlestone) - Who is this? A scholar or a bibliographer? Be as clear as possible - perhaps something like "some older lists of Mozart's works, such as [first name] Girdlestone's"
 * KV. 451 is a not very well known work (Hutchings appears not to have liked it particularly, although Girdlestone ranks it highly). - Who is Hutchings?
 * His later concertos are truly described as concertos for "piano and orchestra" rather than the more obviously "piano" concertos of the nineteenth century (e.g. that of Grieg etc). - Tell the reader Grieg's entire name and eliminate the "etc." or fill in other examples (such as Franz Liszt).
 * Beethoven was clearly impressed by them, even if the anecdotal story about his comments to Ferdinand Ries about no. 24 is legendary - what anecdotal story?

Prose:
 * Early keyboard concertos were written by, among others, C.P.E. Bach, J.C. Bach, Soler, Wagenseil, Schobert, Vanhall and Haydn. - It is a good idea to include first names for each composer the first time you mention them, as a courtesy to the reader.
 * the tradition of Baroque operatic arias, from which the first movements of Mozart's piano concertos inherited their basic ritornellic structure - It is a good idea to explain basic concepts that are important to the topic at hand in a phrase even if you have the word linked. Users can only click so many times.
 * Mozart also wrote three arrangements of piano sonatas by J. C. Bach (Op 5. No. 2 in D major; Opus 5. No. 3 in G Major and Opus 5. No. 4 in E flat major, all composed by 1766), catalogued under KV. 107/1, 2 and 3 respectively. These works were written in 1771–1772, based on handwriting analysis of the autographs. - Confusing - they were written by 1766 or in 1771?
 * was his first real effort in the genre, and one that proved enduringly popular at the time - "enduringly popular" seems to contradict "at the time"
 * The final concerto Mozart wrote before the end of his Salzburg period was the well-known concerto No. 10 for two pianos - Perhaps you could mention at the beginning of the paragraph/section that this is considered Mozart's Salzburg period?
 * The next concerto in B flat, KV. 456, was for a long time considered to be written for the blind pianist Maria Theresa von Paradis to play in Paris - Is it no longer considered to be written for her? Confusing.
 * In the works of his mature series, Mozart created a unique conception of the piano concerto that attempted to solve the ongoing problem of how thematic material is dealt with by the orchestra and piano - vague
 * He strives to maintain a mean between a sort of symphony with piano solos stuffed in here and there, and a virtuoso piano fantasia with orchestral accompaniment; twin traps that later composers were not always able to avoid - "stuffed in here and there" is colloquial language
 * The form of Mozart's piano concerto first movements has generated much discussion, of which modern instances were initiated by the highly influential analysis provided by Tovey in his Essay. - awkward
 * ending in a shake in the dominant (for major key concertos) or the relative major (for minor key concertos) - I have never heard the word "shake" before in reference to piano music - what does it mean?
 * To express it in another way, in sonata form, the first group of subjects is linked to and generates an expectation of the second group, which would tend to detract attention away from the piano entry - a point that, as Tovey points out, was only grasped by Beethoven rather belatedly. - wordy
 * In other concertos, such as No. 16, there is no such thing. - "no such thing" is colloquial
 * In the earlier concertos, such as the not totally successful No. 13 in C major, and even more so, perforce, in the concertos for two and three pianos - "perforce" sounds stilted
 * However, two of his most important finales, that to KV. 453, and to KV. 491, are in variation form, and both these are generally regarded to be among his best. - Would this not be "theme and variation" form?
 * In addition, three more concertos, KV. 450, 451 and 467 can be regarded as being in rondo-sonata form - wordy
 * All of Mozart's mature concertos were concertos for the piano and not the harpsichord - wouldn't this be fortepiano? Awadewit | talk  04:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Review by Verisimilus
A fine article. It would be easy to get bogged down in Wikipedia's style guidelines but I've always valued readability more highly - and this is a pleasure to read in its own right, a rare thing in the often over-formalised Wikipedia!

There are just a couple of points which I'd personally have avoided; most strikingly, the abundance of lists and listy sentences. From a readability perspective, I found myself skimming over lists containing more than three or four terms. Perhaps some lists (e.g. origins) could be abbreviated; elsewhere the information may be better conveyed as a table, which would also go some way to break up large blocks of text. I'd query how essential the list in, for example, the "second movenemt structure" section is with regards to this article.

Further, the "first movement structure" section is very long; Maybe consider adding sub-headings, or failing that, something else to break up the daunting-looking page of text.

The other thing I was going to mention was the lead. It gives a good introduction but not much of an overview. I'd mirror the previous comment with just a note that with such a long article, it may be ambitious to cram everything into 3 paragraphs whilst maintaining a readable style and capturing the reader's interest... it often boils down to a matter of personal choice which side of the fence one falls!

Verisimilus  T  22:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)