Wikipedia

Talk:List of masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

What's with the numbering?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

No idea if anyone's even watching this page, but anyway. On this page, No. 8 is skipped, and Requiem is given No. 19. On the normal works page, it doesn't skip No. 8, and Requiem has no number. Normally I'd just fix this page chalking it up to error, except in my large work of many composers' works, the same scheme as this page (skipping 8, Requiem is 19) is also given. I just wonder where this info came from, and if No. 8 is a spurious work or if it's really a mistake? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just changed the numbers. You're right, there's no. 8 on the main compositions list, so, I don't see why this one should be different. If anyone knows a reason why number eight shouldn't be included, please, say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.19.71 (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Very confusing. I'd almost prefer that we remove the ordinal numbers and stick with Kochel only for this genre.DavidRF (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
As I said, the list here seems to be correct as I've seen it elsewhere (like here for instance, though that one puts K 186h (194) as No. 8 instead of 9. Very very odd... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree with DavidRF's sentiment: why should there be such a list of ordinal numbers? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
If there was a clear reason for the discrepancy and the use of the numbers was relatively common then we could include this. The piano sonatas have an issue like this. Sometimes K533/494 is included in the numbering and sometimes its not which causes some disagreement with how 545/570/570 are numbered. This is a known issue which is easily explained. But this discrepancy with the masses just makes me really curious every few months because I can't figure it out.  :-) And because the use of ordinal numbers here is *much* less common, its hard to find many data points at all. DavidRF (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Always best to tackle confusion head on, I think. Surely many different numberings have been used since Novello and could be described and sourced. Even the spurious Mozart's Twelfth Mass deserves a mention. Sparafucil (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move. Andrewa (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply


List of masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart → List of Masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart – It's a list of musical Masses, not physical masses. If we will not have a list of Leopold's Masses, just Mozart would be enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sounds fine to me. I think we just didn't know that liturgical/musical Masses must always be capitalized. If that's the caes, then go ahead.DavidRF (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Agree to the capitalisation, but is his full name really needed? Why not just List of Masses by Mozart? Jenks24 (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
For the same reason all the other lists use his full name. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I would be ready to drop the full name, especially since he used Amadeus only if he was funny or very serious, but then would also say Wolfgangus, s. Autograph of the Great Mass in C minor, otherwise he used Amadè, s.a. Mozart's_name. We could start here to reflect that, just say Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. The word mass is clearly used generically. Do we have List of Novels by Barbara Cartland? No. See List of novels by Barbara Cartland. The fact that mass in physics is uncapitalised is no reason for mass in music to be capitalised. Both are common names, in normal use. Type "List of symphonies by" into the search field at the top right of this page. Any capital "S"? No. Nor should there be.
It's different when we speak of "the Mass" (singular); that is a set, standardised liturgy (compare "the Bible"), not a compositional form or genre in music.
NoeticaTea? 02:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose – specific names of works that include the word "Mass" can capitalize it, but if you look in books, you'll find that most use lower cases for "masses" by Mozart or anyone else. Dicklyon (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose—sorry, the plural gives it away as a generic noun straight away. Please let's put a stop to this rampant abuse of capitalisation: it's not German. (I don't mind changing it to WA Mozart, but that's not a deal-breaker.) Tony (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Question: do we agree that it is the Mass in liturgy? I would think that leads to the Mass (music) when the same thing is set to music, I would think further that the plural of a capitalized noun is also capitalized, no? - The difference to symphonies is that there are no physical symphonies. But learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Looking at the Wikipedia article Mass (music), it's not handled consistently there, but more capital than not, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Now I looked at List of Roman Catholic Church musicians, which needs a clean-up, and found more Masses than masses, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • OK, they all need to be downcased. WP doesn't take orders on style by external writers, who are free to make their own decisions (or to follow unthinkingly what was bad style in the first place). Your argument about upcasing the term for the liturgical ritual "Mass" doesn't hold water, in my view. We do not want a raft of internal inconsistencies, which is why we have an in-house guide. Tony (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why no Missa brevis No. 5?

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago22 comments5 people in discussion

I can work out why the numbering of the missae breves is no longer chronological (they were originally numbered in what was then believed to be their order of composition, but later research has caused some re-ordering, but the original numbers were too widely used to be changed now).

However, I've just been tweaking the ordering of the category Masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and what hits me in the eye is the absence of anything called "Missa brevis No. 5". All the others from 1-4 and 6-10 are there, but no No. 5, and no redirect from or to a differently-titled work (cf. the Missa brevis No. 10 (Mozart) redirects to Sparrow Mass). What ever happened to No. 5? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nobody I know calls them by numbers, - rather by key and K. number, see above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Then we would need to change all their titles, Gerda. That's doable if it's appropriate. But I'm still curious about Missa No. 5. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Allow me to delurk a minute....but don't you mean No. 8? Or you mean the fifth missa brevis? I don't see anyone numbering the brevis masses specifically, only the masses as a whole. And again, there's a whole thread above that I started about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well, by "Missa brevis No. 5", I mean the 5th missa brevis, surprisingly enough.
"I don't see anyone numbering the brevis masses specifically" - nobody, except Wikipedia, that is. Please see Missa brevis No. 1 (Mozart), Missa brevis No. 2 (Mozart), Missa brevis No. 3 (Mozart), Missa brevis No. 4 (Mozart), Missa brevis No. 6 (Mozart), Missa brevis No. 7 (Mozart), Missa brevis No. 8 (Mozart) and Missa brevis No. 9 (Mozart). What's missing? Missa brevis No. 5 (Mozart). Do you see the issue now? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

There's considerable discussion not here where you might expect it, but at [[1]] Sparafucil (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Needs a more general treatment. See my remarks in this respect at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#Bach cantatas and comma — Mozart's masses, which for your convenience I copy here:

Some issues regarding Mozart's masses:

Anyone care to help out with this?--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Missa brevis and Missa solemnis as Latin terms should not be treated to English language capitalisation, consistently. (Compare French Petite messe solennelle.) - We should probably have the current Missa brevis numbers somewhere in the list, even if they don't make sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
(e.c., @ Gerda:) Whether "brevis" should generally be lower case I don't know but the cited rationale ("Latin is somewhat like French") is of course an abomination. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization of generic names:
I drew some ngrams, trying to avoid Britten's Missa Brevis, e.g.: "Missa Brevis in C" was more popular in English literature in the period 1990-2008 than "Missa brevis in C" [2]
Of course the list should give the usual missa breves numbers in one of the columns, obsolete or not. When they're used in concert programs or on vintage recordings etc, people might be looking for more info on them by that number. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
(ec, reply to the above, hijacked or not) I didn't say Latin is somewhat like French. I know no other language than English doing a different capitalisation in titles, - look at German, Italian, Spanish, for examples. If you ask me, all foreign language titles should preferably be styled the way that language does. I spent already some time in this encyclopedia removing capital letters from verbs in German titles mentioned in articles. - If Missa Brevis in C is a common name, it should be treated as such. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Britten's Missa Brevis is in D, Mozart wrote a few in C (minor and major), so Missa Brevis in C is most likely not including many 20th century compositions, a.k.a. the preferred spelling for missae breves from around the time when they were bread and butter for hired composers like Mozart. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I copied C from above. It could be any 20th century composer's work. If said composer would say Missa Brevis that's their choice which I would follow, in italics. - I don't know what Mozart would have written. The socalled Great Mass has just Kyrie on top, no title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Not sure whether many were composed in that period, and if so, whether they would be usually be named by key, e.g. I couldn't find a single reference to Bernstein's Missa Brevis by its key. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Re. "If you ask me, all foreign language titles should preferably be styled the way that language does" still impossible for Latin, which was already a dead language when missae breves were composed (or are we going to capitalize everything and write V's for U's like in Cicero's time?) The only thing we can do is look in English literature and how the term is capitalized there. This points towards Missa Brevis.
The only other thing that's still possible is to look at the habits in the time and/or region where these compositions were made, and how they were written there and then. If Mozart's and Beethoven's compatriots wrote Missa brevis and Missa solemnis, well, that's probably the German language influence (not capitalizing adjectives), applying English influence over the dead language is as justfied for well, English wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
BTW, Missa Solemnis more popular in English literature than Missa solemnis, since the 1870s
BTW 2, de:Missa Solemnis (Beethoven) nl:Missa Solemnis (Beethoven) it:Missa Solemnis (Beethoven) es:Missa Solemnis (Beethoven) etc. - only fr:Missa solemnis (Beethoven) - no we shouldn't follow French habits on this one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Re Latin: it was a written language in all capital letters, - capitalisation impossible ;) - It's de:Missa solemnis (the term in general), but de:Missa Solemnis (Beethoven) (a specific work with a specific title), and we could do something similar. (score title) - For Mozart: the addition of brevis and solemnis seems mostly an editor's addition, and some are both, as explained in the comments, - perhaps better to be avoided in article names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

When the numbering systems are unraveled (including the elusive missae breves numbering system) I suppose we could do something like this:

Piano sonatas (2 hands) by Franz Schubert
Preceded by AGA, Series 10 (15 sonatas)
No. 10 		Succeeded by
Preceded by Wiener Urtext Edition (21 Sonatas)
No. 13 		Succeeded by
Preceded by 21 Sonatas numbering system
No. 13
23 Sonatas numbering system
No. 15

(succession boxes system for the confusing numbering systems of Schubert's solo piano sonatas)

But that still doesn't solve the problem which mass by or associated with Mozart was ever numbered as "Missa brevis No. 5"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

See #Jack's riddle: the solution below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Page naming

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I propose page moves along the lines Mass in C, K 220 (196b) (Sparrow). Arguing capitalization of brevis seems beside the point when the numbers seem to be made up. Sparafucil (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

That falls foul of several disambiguation guidelines and the common name of that work is Sparrow Mass. If that current title is to be replaced for the sake of "consistent naming of a series", and I don't think it should, Missa brevis, K. 220 would suffice.
A more general point: unlike content, Wikipedia's style is not determined by precedent or reliable sources but by consensus. That's why we have spaces between initials; that's what governs the use of dashes and straight apostrophes and quotation marks; that's why we have La bohème (and not La Boheme or similar), Káťa Kabanová (and not Katya Kabanova). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

However I would propose:

Re. "unlike content, Wikipedia's style is not determined by precedent or reliable sources but by consensus" — nonsense, Wikipedia's content, as much as its style, is determined by reliable sources, as much as both are also determined by consensus when reliable sources contradict. We never had a "BWV" or "BWV." discussion, while external sources never use "BWV."; We had such discussion on "D" vs. "D" while reliable sources may use either. Exactly the same discussions as content discussions, as well regarding content/style of pages as of their titles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Numbers in the table

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I suggest - seeing more and more columns with numbering systems - to get the latest K number to column I, followed by the titles, and move all these numbers (+ the confusing old K number) to the last positions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The K numbers are without doubt the most useful, but I think I like having them next to the title and with the parentheses/without separate columns for each superscripted Köchel revision.. Sparafucil (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Renaming proposed

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago34 comments5 people in discussion

Following the NMA numbering:

  1. Missa brevis No. 1 (Mozart) → Mass No. 1 (Mozart)
  2. Missa solemnis in C minor → Mass No. 2 (Mozart)
  3. Missa brevis No. 2 (Mozart) → Mass No. 3 (Mozart)
  4. Missa solemnis in C major → Mass No. 4 (Mozart) or Mass No. 4 "Dominicus" (Mozart)
  5. Missa brevis No. 6 (Mozart) → Mass, K. Anh. C 1.12 with Mass No. 5 (Mozart) as redirect
  6. Missa in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis add Mass No. 6 (Mozart) as redirect
  7. Missa brevis No. 3 (Mozart) → Mass No. 7 (Mozart)
  8. Missa brevis No. 4 (Mozart) → Mass No. 8 (Mozart)
  9. Sparrow Mass → Mass No. 9 (Mozart)
  10. Missa longa in C major → Mass No. 10 (Mozart)
  11. Credo Mass (Mozart) → Mass No. 11 (Mozart)
  12. Missa brevis No. 7 (Mozart) → Mass No. 12 (Mozart)
  13. Missa Brevis No. 8 (Mozart) → Mass No. 13 (Mozart)
  14. Missa Brevis No. 9 (Mozart) → Mass No. 14 (Mozart)
  15. Coronation Mass (Mozart) → Mass No. 15 (Mozart) (note Coronation Concerto is a redirect to Piano Concerto No. 26 (Mozart) - why should masses be different?)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I propose to use K numbers instead of the NMA numbers. They come in almost the same sequence but give those familiar with Mozart's work a feeling for the time of composition, while the different numbering schemes seem confusing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
(ec) Because nobody ever calls it the "Mass No. 15", that's why. The colossal confusion about the numbering of the masses, well demonstrated above and elsewhere, is a strong argument for NOT using a number where there is a reasonably well-established title, and the "Coronation Mass" is certainly that. With the piano concertos, there is a fully-accepted numbering system, even if the 2- and 3-piano works are incorporated along with the solo-piano works, and even if the early concertos are not original works by Mozart at all but arrangements by him of the works of others. The masses are a very different kettle of fish, so your analogy does not hold water. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 23:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  1. Missa brevis No. 1 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in G Major, K. 49
  2. Missa solemnis in C minor → Missa solemnis in C Minor, K. 139 "Waisenhaus"
  3. Missa brevis No. 2 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in D Minor, K. 65
  4. Missa solemnis in C major → Missa in C Major, K. 66 "Dominicus"
  5. Missa brevis No. 6 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in G Major, K. 140
  6. Missa in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis → Missa in C Major, K. 167 "in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis"
  7. Missa brevis No. 3 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in F Major, K. 192
  8. Missa brevis No. 4 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in D Major, K. 194
  9. Sparrow Mass → Missa brevis in C Major, K. 220 "Sparrow"
  10. Missa longa in C major → Missa longa in C Major, K. 262
  11. Credo Mass (Mozart) → Missa in C Major, K. 257 "Credo"
  12. Missa brevis No. 7 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in C Major, K. 258 "Piccolomini"
  13. Missa brevis No. 8 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in C Major, K. 259 "Orgelsolo"
  14. Missa brevis No. 9 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in B-Flat Major, K. 275
  15. Coronation Mass (Mozart) → Coronation Mass, K. 317
  16. Missa solemnis (Mozart) → Missa solemnis in C Major, K. 337
  17. Great Mass in C minor → Mass in C Minor, K. 427 "Große Messe"

source (with a few modifications) — would something in that vein work? Note: for recognisability the older K. numbers would work best I suppose (I'd prefer the most recent ones for better chronology, but article titles are rather about recognisability)

Anyhow, I'd try to get rid of the numbering scheme that only involves missae breves (and for which we haven't traced a source yet afaik)

Jack's riddle: the solution

edit

FWIW: my guess is that the illusive Missa brevis No. 5 is K. 116/90a, Missa brevis in F major, reattributed to Leopold Mozart (it was published in the Alte Mozart-Ausgabe under Serie XXIV No. 33 and also never got exiled to the "Anhang", so older systems would usually list it as a work by Mozart) - but as long as we don't have the list from which the missae breves numbering originated that's only a somewhat educated guess. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, my not so educated guess was wrong, and the info was right under our noses:
  • Here's how the info got introduced in the list in 2009, apparently based on David Humphreys, "Sacred Music" in The Mozart Compendium: A Guide to Mozart's Life and Music, H. C. Robbins Landon (ed.), New York: Schirmer; London: Thames and Hudson. 1990. pp. 312 - 314. [3]
  • Here's where the info went lost a year and half ago [4]
Happy to announce I created Missa brevis No. 5 (Mozart) as a redirect to Sparrow Mass, updated the intro of that article, redirected Missa brevis No. 10 (Mozart) to the list page, where I'm going to update the table re-introducing the Missa Brevis numbers in a separate column. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. In that lead and others, can we avoid starting the article with the confusion about the numbers but first mention key, character, commission, first performance, and only then mention that the piece was numbered differently in different systems? Needless to say that I would prefer something like this (still for the present name), to help our readers getting key facts. Compare this Mass No. 5, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Just a suggestion: add AMA/NMA info in the box, something like this (still for the same mass):
AMA Serie I No. 8
NMA I/1/1/2 No. 9
(for Schubert that would be AGA/NSE, numbers given in the on-line version of the Deutsch catalogue, and the AGA version as published mostly linkeable to the IMSLP page, NSE to NSE website) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)#Reply
There is no box. There was one Easter 2013, and an edit war that a principal editor couldn't make improvements. Then we had a box for several months. Discussion is on the talk. - I added the numbers to the project space box. Good ideas for the template itself, {{infobox musical composition}}, please raise them at its talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Continued after intermezzo

edit
Minor point: The words "flat", "sharp", "major" and "minor" in key signatures should all be in lower case. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 02:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm used to C Major and d minor myself ;-) but Francis' last list seems very good to me. Sparafucil (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
This is probably the greatest bugbear for an editor who edits music-related material. "d minor" is a confusion between 2 incompatible systems: (A) D minor and (B) just plain "d". System B's convention is that upper case letters denote major keys ("D" = D major) and lower case letters denote minor keys ("d" = D minor), and the words "major" or "minor" are redundant (Grove and some other sources use this system). System A, which Wikipedia uses, has the following features:
  • ALL key letter names are upper case (D major, D minor; never d anything)
  • the words "flat" and "sharp" are lower case (D-flat major; never D-Flat major, or anything else)
  • the words "major" and "minor" are lower case (D-flat major; never D-flat Major, or anything else); the word "major" can sometimes be omitted depending on the context; the word "minor" virtually never
  • where "flat" or "sharp" are used, they are preceded by a hyphen (D-flat major; never D flat major, or anything else)
This is covered @ Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Accidentals and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Major and minor. I'm sure it's mentioned elsewhere as well. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Jack that the rules about the spelling of musical keys must be followed. As to the proposal: I am opposed to include the names (e.g. "Waisenhaus") in the title; that's what REDIRECTs (Waisenhausmesse) are for. Further, I think all articles which are currently using names don't need to be moved: K. 167, K. 220, K. 257, K. 317, K. 337, K. 427. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oops for the M/m...

  1. Missa brevis No. 1 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in G major, K. 49
  2. Missa solemnis in C minor → Missa solemnis in C minor, K. 139 "Waisenhaus"
  3. Missa brevis No. 2 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in D minor, K. 65
  4. Missa solemnis in C major → Missa in C major, K. 66 "Dominicus"
  5. Missa brevis No. 6 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in G major, K. 140
  6. Missa in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis → Missa in C major, K. 167 "in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis"
  7. Missa brevis No. 3 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in F major, K. 192
  8. Missa brevis No. 4 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in D major, K. 194
  9. Sparrow Mass → Missa brevis in C major, K. 220 "Sparrow"
  10. Missa longa in C major → Missa longa in C major, K. 262
  11. Credo Mass (Mozart) → Missa in C major, K. 257 "Credo"
  12. Missa brevis No. 7 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in C major, K. 258 "Piccolomini"
  13. Missa brevis No. 8 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in C major, K. 259 "Orgelsolo"
  14. Missa brevis No. 9 (Mozart) → Missa brevis in B-Flat major, K. 275
  15. Coronation Mass (Mozart) → Coronation mass, K. 317
  16. Missa solemnis (Mozart) → Missa solemnis in C major, K. 337
  17. Great Mass in C minor → Mass in C minor, K. 427 "Große Messe"

The other nicknames I would prefer as I added them because they show up in categories without needing to double the entry by categorizing the redirect. It is the "Dumbarton Oaks" exception as recorded in WP:NCM (Concerto in E-flat "Dumbarton Oaks") and is a clear improvement of recognizability as required by the WP:RECOGNIZABLE policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the energy you put in this. Please change Flat to flat. The source needs to make the pieces recognizable by many attributes, - this is a website. Therefore my first change would be to make article names short and consistent and have "Piccolomini" and such as redirects, - they will be found. One approach to simplify would be to drop "brevis" and "solemnis", which are often dubious as said above and in the comments of the article. The next would be to use the system which has C for C major and c for C minor, which is perhaps also better understood internationally. We would arrive at for example Missa in B-flat, K. 275. I would not change Great Mass in C minor, as a common name for Mozart's greatest achievement in the field, unique and known with the key that became part of the name, and less known by the K number. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
By all means let's have the nicknames visible in category listings. If brevis and solemnis can be done without, why not just "Sparrow" Mass in C minor, K. 220, "Weisenhaus" Mass in C minor, K. 139, Mass in C major "in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis", K. 167 &c.. Sparafucil (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's "Waisenhaus".--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
They are not in at present. More important would be a good navbox, compare {{Beethoven piano sonatas}}, with all the nicknames the category doesn't show. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • The only recording I have of K. 427 has "Mass in C minor K427" ... no "Great" or "Große" mentioned anywhere. So imho the K. number is definitely needed in the page name for minimum recognisability.
  • Sorry about the F/f/lat
  • "they will be found" is not part of the WP:AT policy. Recognizability is. This is a very important point to understand about Wikipedia's article titling policy. WP:MUSICSERIES is an allowable exception to some of WP:AT. But if we can't follow the standard series format, well, yeah, for lack of recognizability, we shouldn't smother recognizability just because we're frustrated about not being able to follow the standard format.
  • All "Mass" sounds good to me.
  • Starting a page name with quotation marks is however not so good (technically, in Wikipedia - advised against per WP:AT), and also not how the alternative name is usually added (see e.g. source).
  • "Short" form of key signatures: no, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Accidentals

Goes Forth

edit

Putting this all together:

  1. Missa brevis No. 1 (Mozart) → Mass in G major, K. 49
  2. Missa solemnis in C minor → Mass in C minor, K. 139 "Waisenhaus"
  3. Missa brevis No. 2 (Mozart) → Mass in D minor, K. 65
  4. Missa solemnis in C major → Mass in C major, K. 66 "Dominicus"
  5. Missa brevis No. 6 (Mozart) → Mass in G major, K. 140 "Pastoral"
  6. Missa in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis → Mass in C major, K. 167 "in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis"
  7. Missa brevis No. 3 (Mozart) → Mass in F major, K. 192
  8. Missa brevis No. 4 (Mozart) → Mass in D major, K. 194
  9. Sparrow Mass → Mass in C major, K. 220 "Sparrow"
  10. Missa longa in C major → Mass in C major, K. 262 "Missa longa"
  11. Credo Mass (Mozart) → Mass in C major, K. 257 "Credo"
  12. Missa brevis No. 7 (Mozart) → Mass in C major, K. 258 "Piccolomini"
  13. Missa brevis No. 8 (Mozart) → Mass in C major, K. 259 "Organ solo"
  14. Missa brevis No. 9 (Mozart) → Mass in B-flat major, K. 275
  15. Coronation Mass (Mozart) → Coronation Mass, K. 317
  16. Missa solemnis (Mozart) → Mass in C major, K. 337 "Solemnis"
  17. Great Mass in C minor → Great Mass in C minor, K. 427

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I'm still not completely comfortable with 6, 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16. Better ideas? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I don't like the quotation marks at all, some in Latin, some in German, some in English. We don't have Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) "Moonlight", for a reason, "Mass in C ... Missa longa" should be avoided, also "167 in honorem" and "Mass ... Solemnis". Mass in B-flat major, K. 275 works fine for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Again, try to differentiate between standardized WP:MUSICSERIES, with recognizable number and composer names (...Beethoven's piano sonatas), and OTOH where we can't follow that format for lack of recognizability of the numbers (...Mozart's masses). In which case WP:RECOGNIZABLE re-enters in full force, there's no "guideline allowed" diminishment of recognizability any more in that case, so the policy takes over. Panicy attempts to force some serialization that on the whole lacks the same amount of recognizability as the "by ordinal number" series is just not a solution. I'd rather have them by unrecognizable serial number then (which was my first proposal above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
I simply doubt the value for recognition of Piccolomini, Orgelsolo, etc, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
A doubt not shared by Brilliant Classics, except that they used "Spaur" instead of "Piccolomini". I'd be comfortable with Mass in C major, K. 258 "Spaur", and since that (probably) has greater recognizability, that's probably what we should do. There's no right or wrong on a conceptual level for recognizability: it's just what an unsuspecting reader would most easily recognize. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

... and Fifth

edit
  1. Missa brevis No. 1 (Mozart) → Mass in G major, K. 49
  2. Missa solemnis in C minor → Mass in C minor, K. 139 "Waisenhaus"
  3. Missa brevis No. 2 (Mozart) → Mass in D minor, K. 65
  4. Missa solemnis in C major → Mass in C major, K. 66 "Dominicus"
  5. Missa brevis No. 6 (Mozart) → Mass in G major, K. 140 "Pastoral"
  6. Missa in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis → Mass in C major, K. 167 "in honorem Sanctissimae Trinitatis"
  7. Missa brevis No. 3 (Mozart) → Mass in F major, K. 192
  8. Missa brevis No. 4 (Mozart) → Mass in D major, K. 194
  9. Sparrow Mass → Mass in C major, K. 220 "Sparrow"
  10. Missa longa in C major → Mass in C major, K. 262 "Missa longa"
  11. Credo Mass (Mozart) → Mass in C major, K. 257 "Credo"
  12. Missa brevis No. 7 (Mozart) → Mass in C major, K. 258 "Spaur"
  13. Missa brevis No. 8 (Mozart) → Mass in C major, K. 259 "Organ solo"
  14. Missa brevis No. 9 (Mozart) → Mass in B-flat major, K. 275
  15. Coronation Mass (Mozart) → Coronation Mass (Mozart)
  16. Missa solemnis (Mozart) → Mass in C major, K. 337 "Solemnis"
  17. Great Mass in C minor → Great Mass in C minor, K. 427

--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your energy on this is impressive, Francis, if a little hard to keep up with sometimes.
I'm liking where it's at, except for the location of the K numbers in some cases. Shouldn't they always come last:
Or, if they precede a sub-title, shouldn't the sub-title be in brackets:
Thoughts? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ideally the "recognizability flag" is just the name, so what the page name starts with, and a parenthical disambiguator at the end, if needed, as a sort of secondary recognizability flag.
If we agree that Credo is more a recognizability flag than K. 257, I'd not have it in the middle of the article title: first word or last word seem the most preferable options to me. That's also how it is usually done in publications, e.g. either Trout Quintet or Quintet for piano, violin, viola, cello & double-bass in A major D667 "The Trout" (I'm quoting actual examples here), and the examples on the Brilliant Classics website I linked to above.
That's why I'd avoid your first solution.
The second seems overelaborate: quotation marks and parentheses. It exceptionally happens in real life: A Comparative Study on the Published Completions of the Unfinished Movements in Franz Schubert’s Sonata in C Major, D. 840 (“Reliquie”) (PDF) but seems too far from WP:CONCISE and too far from the usual parenthical disambiguator format for use in Wikipedia, and also not how it is most often done (in other words, fails "common" in WP:COMMONNAME). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

On a related note, I'd also start this disambiguation page: Mass in C (Mozart), with this content:

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed several masses in C major and a few in C minor. Most of them Missa brevis and/or solemnis:

===Masses in C major===
===Masses in C minor===

{{disambig}}

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looking good, Francis, except that 1) I don't see why the Coronation should lose its K. number, and 2) Spaur is new to me, Piccolomini is familiar. I also think that a bunch of dab-by-key pages needlessly duplicate this page's sortable table… Sparafucil (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Seems you prefer the proposal in #Goes Forth then, and make Mass in C (Mozart) just a redirect to the list page. Anyone else preferring it that way? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think I'm happy with that version. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
And thanks to everyone concerned for clearing up the Mystery of Missa brevis No. 5. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Move contested

edit

I'm not completely happy with this page move that moved Great Mass in C minor to Great Mass in C Minor, K. 427. The K number is fine, but, as discussed above, the word "minor" is always in lower case. I tried to move it to Great Mass in C minor, K. 427 but could not, as it now requires admin intervention.

Can anyone assist here, or do we need to take it to WP:Requested moves? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, my bad, I requested a speedy delete of the page with minor capitalized, so that the page can be moved to the correct place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Capital fellow.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_masses_by_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart&oldid=1207941750"