Talk:Piano Sonata No. 16 (Mozart)

Song

Is there a conscious connexion with the song that goes "you with the stars in your eyes"? 'cause the tune I remember is very similar. 142.177.127.144 19:28, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Redirect?

Is Piano Sonata No. 15 (Mozart) supposed to redirect here? It is an entirely different piece from the Piano Sonata No. 16 (Mozart). Homo sapiens 04:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sonata 16 is actually K570 in Bb Major. WilliamH 14:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. Depends on whether one counts K533/494 (and I'd go with yes). Then if K457 is n° 14 as seems to be, K545 is n° 16, K 570 is n° 17, K 576 is n° 18. Schissel | Sound the Note! 05:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In this recording from 1955 by Guiomar Novaes, K 545 is listed as No. 15. That's all I know. Noliscient (talk) 10:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

"Any further additions"

I have to dispute the following sentence, which seems to be absolutely groundless:

The movement is a lot slower than the first - ironically indicated in the notes by the presence of more of them; in Mozarts' [sic] day tempo and dynamics were left up to the performer, so any further additions are "probably" those of the publisher.

On what documentary basis are we insinuating that details of K. 545's slow movement are not Mozart's? And what is this weasel word "probably" (in quotes, no less) all about? There is a lot of stuff in this article that I cannot source, although it seems fairly legitimate musical analysis stuff (unless it is original research which would not be appropriate); I did source the first paragraph's documented historical facts. But this one about "any further additions" is unacceptable, in my opinion, unless someone can find some support for it. --MollyTheCat 13:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Difficulty

I think defining the difficulty of the first movement with grade 5 and the second with grade 6 is okay. But the rondo is in my opinion easier than the second movement. The second part of the second movement is very challenging for the left hand, as you have to change notes more often and with more black keys, than in the rondo. The rondo looks difficult, but is not that much. Additionally, the rondo is the shortest movement here, so it is easier to learn. I think ABRSM grade should be about 5 and not 7. p.s. My english is not perfect, sorry. --84.151.57.203 (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this piece really so difficult? I can't believe it is considered grade 5+. Personally I think the rondo is the trickiest part for an aspiring pianist. The timing of the semi-quaver runs between the hands is difficult, and the overall tempo makes for a challenge. IMHO the 2nd movement is possibly the easiest, mainly because of the slow pace; the 1st movement is tricker than it looks to play precisely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunstar hero (talk • contribs) 19:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I played the whole thing as an examination piece for Associated Board Grade 8. It was a while ago though. I'll see if I can find a more reliable source than my memory. Qwfp (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've memorised the whole piece and I'd have to say that the last movement is very easy, as is the middle movement. The first movement, on the other hand, with its arpeggios and fast scales for the LH, is considerably harder. I think the first movement would be sixth grade in Australia, and I'd be surprised if either of the other two movements would be as difficult. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Rosen Comment and Recapitulation

The article now states: "The recapitulation begins, unusually, in the subdominant key of F major; according to Charles Rosen, the practice of beginning a recapitulation in the subdominant was 'rare at the time [the sonata] was written,' though the practice was later taken up by Franz Schubert."

First off, the quotation is actually wrong. Rosen says "the recapitulation of Mozart's C major Sonata K. 545, which begins in the subdominant, sounds neither witty nor surprising but conventionally satisfactory, although it was a rare a form as any of the others [i.e., other keys than the tonic to start the recapitulation] at the time it was written." In other words, Rosen is saying it is somewhat unusual, but not anymore unusual than other keys. Moreover, Rosen implies that it sounds "conventionally satisfactory," i.e., it doesn't stand out to his ear.

But even if we get the Rosen quote right, he's just a bad source for opinions here, since he is notorious for holding a biased negative opinion toward beginning recaps in the subdominant, which he later uses as an insult toward Schubert. Later, he calls it "a form that was to become a lazy mannerism only after 1800," presumably lazy because it allowed a full transposition of the exposition without any modification. (Notably, Mozart doesn't do that here.)

A more rational source to turn to for an informed opinion about recaps that start in IV is Hepokoski and Darcy's "Elements of Sonata Theory," which is much more recent than Charles Rosen, and their examination of sonata form movements is much more exhaustive than Rosen's anecdotal and opinionated discussions. H & D state: "Although infrequent, recapitulations starting on IV turn up consistently enough in the eighteenth century that we consider it a lower-level default option within the genre, not a deformation" (264). In other words, it was common enough before 1800 that composers thought of it as a viable option, not something that sounded weird or unusual.

Rosen is simply wrong here. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the heads up on Hepokoski and Darcy. I agree the Rosen quote was inserted awkwardly... took me a while to see that the words "as any of the others" were omitted. Although I disagree with your interpretation of the quote. I thought the point was to say that it was rare compared to using the tonic. Plus, the points here are a bit subtle. "Infrequent" vs. "unusual". Varying from the norm to be witty or "unsatisfactory" (offbeat?) vs. varying from the norm more seamlessly (sounds like any other recap, just starts in a different key). I think the Rosen quote was just added to note the different key and Rosen's still a respected enough source that H & D spend two and half pages defending their rebuttal of his remark. I certainly agree that H & D are much more thorough. We can change the phrasing and citation for this passage. This article is not intending to discuss the merits of subdominant recaps, just that its not the most common. Anyhow, anyone who wants to check out H&D, the google books has it available here. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sound File

The files for the second and third movements are MIDI. This makes it sound artificial and it is obvious that there is not a real pianist playing. Maybe we should upload a recording of an actual player, which usually sounds better.E-sub-n (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Typical time

Schiff plays it for 10 minutes; Gould 6 minutes; Baruda-Skoda 12 minutes; Richter 13 minutes. Other players I can find on Spotify usually play it for a little more than 10 minutes. I wonder where does the "typical play time is 14 minutes" come from. Do we have a reliable source for that claim? Ahyangyi (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering that Gould will always be a singular outlier in most of the works he plays, what do you think the article should say? And how come the sound files provided last 2:14 + 3:41 + 1:22 = 7.11? No repeats? I can't bring myself to listen to movements 2 & 3 because they are so awful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)