I agree that Divertimento in E-flat (Mozart) would be a far better title. Michael Bednarek ( talk) 15:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Do you think there is a chance, this might happen any time soon? On the other hand, I'm not fanatical about omitting the disambiguator even Divertimento in E-flat (Mozart) would obviously be better than the current title. Even if an article about the Haydn work, or any other, would be written, the situation could easily be solved with hatnotes and/or disambiguation pages. As there is currently no other article named Divertimento in E-flat, it is not necessary. Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC) I think Wikipedia rules require a disambiguator only when necessary, not when in doubt. When in doubt, I'd think, include the composer's name. Not-to-mention that initially double concerto for violin and cello first was about a work by Lou Harrison when there are so many works for that combination. From another angle, I always found it strange that Concerto for Two Violins and String Orchestra is about Malcolm Arnold's work, not about the more famous works by Bach or Vivaldi, for instance.
When in doubt, anyway, include the composer's name. Anthony theme is derived is also in E-flat, and that may be worth an article as may some other divertimentos in this key besides this one by other composers, for other combinations, with musical merit. I disagree that the disambiguator is superfluous, since I seem to recall that the divertimento attributed to Haydn from which the St. Michael Bednarek ( talk) 06:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Schissel | Sound the Note! 15:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Name As to the article's name: I also think that the current name is incorrect, unnecessarily long and contains an entirely superfluous disambiguator I suggest Divertimento in E-flat which would be close to the title printed in the NMA. They are nowhere near of the same scale in any sense, but again there is a folly in claiming "firsts", I believe. 81.154.242.13 ( talk) 13:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Īlso as to earlier works in the medium: Carl Abel's six trios opus 16 are for violin, tenor (viola, I _think_?) and cello and seem to have been written and published before Mozart's. The piece is known as Divertimento, not Trio. So no, the Mozart isn't the earliest (that the Divertimento for String Trio (Mozart)- the best title for this article, I still maintain- is the greatest of trios- is another tale entirely and a POV one *g*) Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC) I second Schissel's proposed name for the article. Pichl's opus 7 are for violin, viola and cello ( ) and the set was published in 1783 (see the DOC file ), before even Mozart's KV453. (Quite a few of his contemporaries wrote string trios, but I suspect many of the others were also for two violins and cello Viotti's sets were, for example. Of course putting aside works not originally written for the medium and probably not authentic (I gather that's the judgment on Haydn's string trios), as to other actually earlier string trios: Boccherini had written many trios for two violins and cello by that point, however (though they've been performed and recorded by the more standard setup), so it's not use of trio-string texture without continuo support that may be new, but viola in it. It is not only Mozart's only finished composition for string trio - it also appears to be the first such work by any composer. This article is supported by Compositions task force.
0 kommentar(er)
