Category talk:Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus

It's nice to have the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe available, but it is copyrighted and it does not offer the same freedoms as the public domain does. People should still contribute to this page, in my opinion. Both collections can complement each other. Gus 2007-02-25 16:00

Actually, large sections of the NMA is indeed in the public domain in Canada; this would include all of the volumes first published before 1982 (not inclusive). The same is true for all countries implementing the Berne Rule of the Shorter Term (which should mean many of the EU countries).

The "real" reason (for the lack of a better word; not that the other one was fake) I said to not submit NMA scans was that it would be a duplication of effort; the Internationale Stiftung Mozarteum is the authority on Mozart... so any attempt by the IMSLP to reach the same level of quality would fall short. That said, I do admit that I find it hard sometimes to find a piece on that site...

In any case, I would agree with you that people should still contribute to this page... and I actually didn't mean to say "do not contribute" when I put the category on "low priority"... it is just to say that there is already the entire NMA up, so that if you have a choice between a Mozart piece and a piece by someone else, it might be better to do the latter... :)

Incidentally, musicologists have notified me that there are Mozart works that (surprisingly) are considered better edited in the AMA (old edition) than the NMA... so maybe that is another reason to keep submitting? :)

In any case, thanks for bringing this up! I hope that I have clarified my intent as much as possible :) --Feldmahler 16:32, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I wish somebody could find the Gran Partita and the oboe and flute concertos, then all of Mozart's major works would be available. I have tried finding a version legal for the page but my search hasn't been successful. --Bartok fan 15:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

um...no. The operas are almost entirely missing.Snailey _{Yell at meEmail me} 18:53, 21 November 2008 (EST)

changes 00:11, 28 sept

i have fixed the category page alittle, i have also mentioned that it is permissible to submit pre-1982 publications on imslp. --Funper, Stockholm, 2007 _talk

Hi.

Would anyone be interested off a retypesettings of Mozart Kv 10-15, the sonatas for violin or flute, piano and, according to The Mozart Database , opt. violoncello?

I´ve only seen the first one, in B flat, without the cellopart, but the other are probably also charming. even if they are not exactly masterpieces.

Daltorps.

20,41, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Filing spurious and dubious works under X

There are a number of works which are not actually by Mozart (well, Wolfgang in particular) that should perhaps be in this category for some sort of completeness; however, it seems to me they should not be included in the general run of Mozart's actual compositions. I discovered the very confused work known as the Piano Sonata in B flat, KV Anh. 136 lurking as an "Allegro in B flat, K.498a" with no indication that this work had originally been in the Appendix (Anhang) in the first edition of the Köchel-Verzeichnis, and has been firmly relegated there by the second and third revisions of KV⁶.

So this work, along with the Leopold Mozart and CF Abel Symphonies, have been given a sort field that looks like this: [[Category:Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus|X KV ... Dubious, probably not by Mozart]]

This results in the spurious and dubious works being sorted under the letter X. I will be happy to reverse this, when the category pages can be sorted better to allow these sorts of works to be suppressed. Would it possible to arrange for an intersection, either to show spurious or dubious works, or to omit them? Philip Legge _{@ © talk} 19:56, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

I find it a bit confusing to put under "X" works of doubtful authenticity. I noticed two things when I looked at this page: some symphonies seemed to be missing, and it took me a little while to find that nos. 2 and 3, for example, were present after all - just not where I expected to find them; and also I noticed that works whose names didn't begin with "X" were listed under "X", and I couldn't figure out why.

If this arrangement is kept, I think a note should be included explaining why - perhaps close to the "X" marking that section, or else at the top of the page. Could I "be bold" (as Wikipedia call it) and just do it myself? I am a little more restrained in editing here, since I'm not sure if this site works exactly the same way as Wikipedia does. (And we should just hope that a Mozart work with a title beginning with "X" doesn't one day show up.) M.J.E. 03:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Note added. Go ahead and edit next time!-- Snailey _{Talk to Me Email me} 03:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mozart Tower

Are these recordings legal? They sound very similar to the philips complete edition of Mozart's works.

If they are legal, then www.mozart-archiv.de is a better link (has them in MP3 format rather than a windows format).

I suppose they are legal, as I can't imagine something like this existing in the EU for very long if it were not. There are MP3 files at Mozart Tower as well, you just have to navigate their rather odd directory. They've been doing this for a number of years, which is why I am fairly sure they must have paid the appropriate fees in order to operate. I understand the EU is more reasonable in this regard than the USA - where it is basically impossible to webcast recordings of classical works. Carolus 06:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I double checked, at least the Piano Trios are definitely from Philips collected works of Mozart. What also made me cautious is that Wikipedia originally had the link (to mozart-archiv.de) but subsequently removed it which I wondered why they would do such a thing.

Anyway, if you are indeed right (which I trues and hope you are) incredible (in the most credible way) resource! (Where's Beethove's! (etc.))--Yagankiely 13:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia (or an individual editor, that is) does link to this from their article on the Kegelstadt trio. Still, just because they've paid the appropriate fees doesn't mean it falls under NCRecordings status. Pity. :( Eric 23:59, 7 November 2012 (EST)