Mozart - String Serenade No.13 "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" in G Major, KV525 - 2nd Movement
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- Mozart - String Serenade No.13 "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" in G Major, KV525
2nd Movement: Romance
Orchestra - Leipzig Philharmonic Orchestra.
Conductor - Rudolf Wellenstein
This will always be the song that I imagine fine arts museums play 24/7.
You feel the mellowness of life through this piece, but it also makes you conspicuously aware that the time is passing away and passing away fast; it attempts to let the time of happiness freeze and stay, but it is slipping away and slipping away unremittingly.
One of my favorite pieces of the entire classical era, it just has such beauty.
Eine Kleine Nacht Musik is a masterpiece beyond time and space.
The most satisfying thing about classical music like this is the realisation that there was a time when this only existed inside one person's head. It helps restore one's faith in humanity to know there have always been people out there who strive to create something beautiful rather than just exploit and destroy everything.
When I listen to Run Klein nacth Musik.. I "conduct" it with my eyes closed. Especially the first movement..
I can better feel his energy and power of the piece.. it's incredible...
A sublime sound that could only be created for one of the best classic composers and one of the best musicians of this planet. Thanks for posting!!!!!
Mozart's pieces all sounded so elegant and effortless. It was even reflected in his manuscripts.
...Dies hier ist mein Lieblingsstück vom lieben Wolfgang.🎻🎼🎵🎶🌑🦚🌹
Wonderful i love Mozart his music.
me too omg
How can someone dislike it? :/ I love all his works
For anyone interested, Mozart’s complete catalogue entry for 10th August 1787 reads: “Eine kleine NachtMusik, bestehend in einem Allegro, Menuett und Trio. - Romance. Menuett und Trio, und finale. - 2 Violini, Viola e Bassi”.
No optional double-basses, nothing to say why it should not be played by orchestral strings.
Note that “Bassi” (Mozart’s generic term for cello and/or double-bass) is in the plural. Further proof that a string quartet (without double-bass) is not intended.
THIS IS SO HELPFUL, this is one of the pieces that are required for me to listen for my history exam
Such a calming gem in this troublesome world; I rate it as beautiful as the slow movement of Beethoven's Emperor Concerto.
The one and only mozart. So beautiful.
Thanks for the posting.
Whew, I can breathe again. Thx.
Beautiful, like always..
Spent about half hr looking for this as heard it on films but didnt know who by or title. Found it on one of these "100 classical pieces you know but don't know the name" videos, thanks again youtube
From the movie "Alien", the commander of the star vessel Nostromo, is listening to this piece.
THIS IS SO HELPFUL, its a piece that's required for me to listen for my history exam.
Ah, Mozart videos, where intellectual arguments take place :)
Kamil Faizi meu cu
what do you mean? :)
No
(Argue with me)
@@ideklmao5636??
HA!
This is a piece I’m learning on piano recently
Yeah, it's fun to play
thank you.
Love it
Loved it
1] Mozart kept a catalogue of his compositions, noting a few details such as date, place, movements, instrumentation etc. “Eine kleine Nachtmusik” appears in Vienna, 10th August 1787. He gives 5 movements for 2 violins, viola, and “Bassi” (his general term for cello & bass). He probably meant just 5 solo instruments : “viola” is in the singular, but this alone is not enough to rule out a string orchestra. “Bassi” (plural) shows that it is not for quartet.
How 19th century German musicians may have played this is a different matter. The double-bass (not the cello) was the standard bass instrument in 18th century Viennese serenade ensembles. Mozart specifically calls for both, allowing (I conjecture) his double-bass player to follow the well-documented practice of simplifying the bass part. Of course it can be played as a quartet, but this goes against Mozart’s instructions. String quartets and serenades are really two different musical traditions.
Thank you for uploading. :)
Hello Zurich.geige. Thank you for your generous remarks. Glad the comments have been of interest.
The missing movement is a well-known mystery. Mozart’s catalogue lists a 1st minuet & trio between the opening “allegro” and the “Romance”. The loose leaves of the manuscript are numbered. Folio 3 is missing. As 40 years went by between composition & publication, what happened to the movement is anyone’s guess: removed deliberately (by Mozart or someone else), or simply lost.
Nice to read some refreshing comments on what is one of Mozart’s most exquisite small-scale masterpieces. We had hoped to open a discussion on interpretation, but seemed to get a bit bogged down ! As you will have gathered, the evidence suggests that Mozart intended just 5 instruments, although we mustn’t be dogmatic about this. A rather quicker tempo probably is called for, judging by the combination of “andante” and “barred C” time-signature.
When William Stryker injects his mind control serum into you and asks you to talk about Cerebro
Mozart Nobody does it better. My 2 favourites Mozart and Sam Cooke Strange bedfellows. A classical composer from the 17th century and a soul singer from the 60s . Yet they seem to strangely fit together
Nick : thanks for your message. To answer your first question, a group of my students “hijacked” this pseudonym... As we received quite a lot of interesting enquiries, we decided that I should keep it open for the time being. I’m not really called Mervyn Teak, nor am I 65 yet ! There’s quite a bit of detail already on this page, but I’ll try to sum up the main points that were under discussion (it’ll need a few separate postings, if I can try to prepare them and send them in reverse order!
Greate can't wait to study this for my gsce
great! thanks for uploading - most videos only have the Allegro.
3] The use of cello & double bass together is often considered to be more characteristic of orchestral strings than a group of soloists. I’m not so sure. I suspect that Mozart intended the cello to play the written part and the double-bass to “simplify”, just underlining the harmonic bass. This was standard practice in the 18th century (and into the 19th). None of this excludes the possibility of orchestral performance, but Mozart probably intended just a quintet.
Thanks, dziady1. You really fell for it ! We’ve had a BRILLIANT laugh. We ? Yes, this was a set up by my 1st year students. Got all their facts right, though. Basic musicology; simple enough. Way over your head. Felt a bit sorry at one point (ah, nice story about Spohr... pathetic!) No pity to waste on the inveterately rude and arrogant. The gag about “I speak from knowledge” was pure GENIUS ! We’ll leave you to get back to your “air heads” and “sawing”. We’ll perhaps pop up again somewhere!
Indeed there is no title in the manuscript: “eine kleine Nachtmusik” is merely Mozart’s catalogue entry. “Sérénade” appeared on the first edition (mid 1820s). Leopold Mozart wrote “divertimento” at the head of all other works that W.A. referred to as “Nachtmusik”. Mozart’s instructions could not be clearer: 2 violins, viola, cello and double-bass, repeated at the beginning of each movement except the finale. No “ad libitum”. Only the use of one or more of each instrument is open to doubt.
this song appeared in bill n nye the science guy when bill hurt his foot
If it is of help, I quote Mozart’s nomenclature in my reply to dziady1. I do think that 5 solo instruments were intended rather than an orchestra, but the evidence is not sufficient to be categorical. I have recently been working with one of my groups on this piece. Solo strings bring up interesting points about the two bass instruments on the same part, especially the role of 18th century double-bass players. Whatever, the work is a gem, and it’s always good to rethink one’s preconceptions.
I see the player you mean.
PLAYERNAME?
Yes. Take care. It has reached a higher level now. It can read our thoughts.
That doesn't matter. It thinks we are part of the game.
I like this player. It played well. It did not give up.
It is reading our thoughts as though they were words on a screen.
That is how it chooses to imagine many things, when it is deep in the dream of a game.
Words make a wonderful interface. Very flexible. And less terrifying than staring at the reality behind the screen.
They used to hear voices. Before players could read. Back in the days when those who did not play called the players witches, and warlocks. And players dreamed they flew through the air, on sticks powered by demons.
What did this player dream?
This player dreamed of sunlight and trees. Of fire and water. It dreamed it created. And it dreamed it destroyed. It dreamed it hunted, and was hunted. It dreamed of shelter.
Hah, the original interface. A million years old, and it still works. But what true structure did this player create, in the reality behind the screen?
It worked, with a million others, to sculpt a true world in a fold of the [scrambled], and created a [scrambled] for [scrambled], in the [scrambled].
It cannot read that thought.
No. It has not yet achieved the highest level. That, it must achieve in the long dream of life, not the short dream of a game.
Does it know that we love it? That the universe is kind?
Sometimes, through the noise of its thoughts, it hears the universe, yes.
But there are times it is sad, in the long dream. It creates worlds that have no summer, and it shivers under a black sun, and it takes its sad creation for reality.
To cure it of sorrow would destroy it. The sorrow is part of its own private task. We cannot interfere.
Sometimes when they are deep in dreams, I want to tell them, they are building true worlds in reality. Sometimes I want to tell them of their importance to the universe. Sometimes, when they have not made a true connection in a while, I want to help them to speak the word they fear.
It reads our thoughts.
Sometimes I do not care. Sometimes I wish to tell them, this world you take for truth is merely [scrambled] and [scrambled], I wish to tell them that they are [scrambled] in the [scrambled]. They see so little of reality, in their long dream.
And yet they play the game.
But it would be so easy to tell them...
Too strong for this dream. To tell them how to live is to prevent them living.
I will not tell the player how to live.
The player is growing restless.
I will tell the player a story.
But not the truth.
No. A story that contains the truth safely, in a cage of words. Not the naked truth that can burn over any distance.
Give it a body, again.
Yes. Player...
Use its name.
PLAYERNAME. Player of games.
Good.
Take a breath, now. Take another. Feel air in your lungs. Let your limbs return. Yes, move your fingers. Have a body again, under gravity, in air. Respawn in the long dream. There you are. Your body touching the universe again at every point, as though you were separate things. As though we were separate things.
Who are we? Once we were called the spirit of the mountain. Father sun, mother moon. Ancestral spirits, animal spirits. Jinn. Ghosts. The green man. Then gods, demons. Angels. Poltergeists. Aliens, extraterrestrials. Leptons, quarks. The words change. We do not change.
We are the universe. We are everything you think isn't you. You are looking at us now, through your skin and your eyes. And why does the universe touch your skin, and throw light on you? To see you, player. To know you. And to be known. I shall tell you a story.
Once upon a time, there was a player.
The player was you, PLAYERNAME.
Sometimes it thought itself human, on the thin crust of a spinning globe of molten rock. The ball of molten rock circled a ball of blazing gas that was three hundred and thirty thousand times more massive than it. They were so far apart that light took eight minutes to cross the gap. The light was information from a star, and it could burn your skin from a hundred and fifty million kilometers away.
Sometimes the player dreamed it was a miner, on the surface of a world that was flat, and infinite. The sun was a square of white. The days were short; there was much to do; and death was a temporary inconvenience.
Sometimes the player dreamed it was lost in a story.
Sometimes the player dreamed it was other things, in other places. Sometimes these dreams were disturbing. Sometimes very beautiful indeed. Sometimes the player woke from one dream into another, then woke from that into a third.
Sometimes the player dreamed it watched words on a screen.
Let's go back.
The atoms of the player were scattered in the grass, in the rivers, in the air, in the ground. A woman gathered the atoms; she drank and ate and inhaled; and the woman assembled the player, in her body.
And the player awoke, from the warm, dark world of its mother's body, into the long dream.
And the player was a new story, never told before, written in letters of DNA. And the player was a new program, never run before, generated by a sourcecode a billion years old. And the player was a new human, never alive before, made from nothing but milk and love.
You are the player. The story. The program. The human. Made from nothing but milk and love.
Let's go further back.
The seven billion billion billion atoms of the player's body were created, long before this game, in the heart of a star. So the player, too, is information from a star. And the player moves through a story, which is a forest of information planted by a man called Julian, on a flat, infinite world created by a man called Markus, that exists inside a small, private world created by the player, who inhabits a universe created by...
Shush. Sometimes the player created a small, private world that was soft and warm and simple. Sometimes hard, and cold, and complicated. Sometimes it built a model of the universe in its head; flecks of energy, moving through vast empty spaces. Sometimes it called those flecks "electrons" and "protons".
Sometimes it called them "planets" and "stars".
Sometimes it believed it was in a universe that was made of energy that was made of offs and ons; zeros and ones; lines of code. Sometimes it believed it was playing a game. Sometimes it believed it was reading words on a screen.
You are the player, reading words...
Shush... Sometimes the player read lines of code on a screen. Decoded them into words; decoded words into meaning; decoded meaning into feelings, emotions, theories, ideas, and the player started to breathe faster and deeper and realized it was alive, it was alive, those thousand deaths had not been real, the player was alive
You. You. You are alive.
and sometimes the player believed the universe had spoken to it through the sunlight that came through the shuffling leaves of the summer trees
and sometimes the player believed the universe had spoken to it through the light that fell from the crisp night sky of winter, where a fleck of light in the corner of the player's eye might be a star a million times as massive as the sun, boiling its planets to plasma in order to be visible for a moment to the player, walking home at the far side of the universe, suddenly smelling food, almost at the familiar door, about to dream again
and sometimes the player believed the universe had spoken to it through the zeros and ones, through the electricity of the world, through the scrolling words on a screen at the end of a dream
and the universe said I love you
and the universe said you have played the game well
and the universe said everything you need is within you
and the universe said you are stronger than you know
and the universe said you are the daylight
and the universe said you are the night
and the universe said the darkness you fight is within you
and the universe said the light you seek is within you
and the universe said you are not alone
and the universe said you are not separate from every other thing
and the universe said you are the universe tasting itself, talking to itself, reading its own code
and the universe said I love you because you are love.
And the game was over and the player woke up from the dream. And the player began a new dream. And the player dreamed again, dreamed better. And the player was the universe. And the player was love.
You are the player.
Wake up.
2] Mozart’s manuscript has survived, but is incomplete. It is written on unbound, numbered sheets. The 1st minuet is missing. On three of the movements, Mozart indicates the instrumentation. Again, “viola” is always singular, but “violoncello e contrabasso” makes it clear that both instruments are required (there is no “optional” double-bass). Mozart’s widow sold it to the publisher J.A.André in Offenbach around 1800, but the music was not published until about 1825-27.
A beautiful masterpiece!! Though it's best enjoyed (for me) listening at 1.25x speed.
It's definitely worth sitting through the garish first movement to get to the second.
Also heard in the 1989 Batman movie (the scene when Kim Basinger's Vicki Vale character enters the museum).
Exactly !
There's a lot of Mozart in the Batman movies... I like that
+Craig Vanes, yes of course.
Vigo Kovačić what other pieces are in batman films
Manuel Alvarado meu toba
Animated graphical score: ua-cam.com/video/5dxjLtkV5l8/v-deo.html
If I were to compare this to the second movement of Haydn's Military Symphony...
This one is softer and beautiful while the other one is more heroic.
Hi Mervyn.Teak! Whoever or whatever you are, your musicology is first-class! Checked all your comments & references. 100% spot on. Well argued. Can’t understand dziady1. Nothing interesting to say, facts all wrong. Completely beaten by you, carries on saying he’s right. Horribly rude. Anyway, thanks for all your interesting information on the „eine kleine”. More please! By the way, I don’t believe it’s students with your level of scholarship!
Creepshow's "Father's day"!
-"Where's Dallas?"
-"In the shuttle."
The mediums are String quartet with double bass, or chamber orchestra
This song appears in The Shield in a faster version 03:45 this part Season 1 episode 6 Cherrypoppers.
Hats off to the Creepshow comment. And ALSO, featured in 1975 David Cronenberg short "The Italian Machine".
@jasonc0218 You're right except for the fact that he was a classical composer not a Romantic one. Classical composers include Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. Romantic composers consist of the likes of Dvorak, Tchaikovsky and Brahms.
Han kunde han vår käre Mozart.Underbart är ordet.
Hi dziady! This is one of my favourite songs. I’ve always heard it on orchestra, but you say Mozart wrote it for string quartette. You seem to know your stuff, but those other guys don’t seem to agree. I couldn’t follow all that stuff about Mozart’s signature and a catalog. Quartette seems a nice idea, but I can’t find anyone who can tell me if it’s right or wrong. Thanks for your info.
Hi Mervyn.Teak. Are you going to let us in on this story about a professor and his students?
Good stuff about Mozart. Dziady1 just withered away!!!
Gg grande
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT
You misunderstand me. I really am happy to hear arguments that force me to rethink my ideas. I was genuinely looking forward to that. I am indeed on shaky ground because I recognise that the ground is shaky (there is so much that we don’t know). When I am proved wrong (as I all too frequently am), I learn. But to tell me you have read things in manuscripts that simply are not there has not helped. I shall continue to search and to ask questions. I do not pretend to know all the answers.
Mozart uses “kleine” for a number of works in his catalogue. What does he mean by “eine kleine kantate” (f.3v) or “eine kleine klavier Sonate” (f.17v)? It surely has something to do with scale. This “Nachtmusik” is “kleine” presumably because it is shorter than his other works in the genre, and includes no wind or timpani. As an argument for using single strings it is simplistic, for excluding larger string forces it is valueless. That it can be cited as proof of either is far from “obvious”.
Ah, poor dziady1. You try so hard. But we’ve read enough of your comments to know exactly what they mean. That’s why we’re not even sorry for you.
Anyway, the laughs should keep us going for a good while.
P.S. Brilliant teacher by the way. Probably good enough for you to call him “brainless” or an “air head” (like all the others).
We do not know for whom Mozart wrote his little “Nachtmusik”, and there is no record of a performance in his lifetime. Spohr may well have played it as a quartet, but this could not have been before the late 1820s, using André’s edition. Adapting pieces to circumstances was common enough at this time (witness the numerous chamber arrangements of Mozart, Haydn & Beethoven symphonies). This adds nothing to our understanding of Mozart’s intentions.
With the artist's picture it feels like this is the original version..lol
This should be played at a fancy place or restaurant like the titanic
No it doesn’t. I also have a complete copy of Mozart’s handwritten thematic catalogue in front of me. It gives “2 Violini, Viola e Bassi”, exactly the same indication as the string parts for, say, the last three symphonies, with the sole difference that the symphonies have “Viole” in the plural. That one word is not enough to eliminate definitively the possibility of using larger forces, and certainly does not tell us WHY we should not use them (or label as “ignorant” those who do).
That’s the whole point. André’s first edition didn’t appear until c.1827, by which time Mozart had been dead for 35 years or so (and the manuscript had lost one of its movements). So what Spohr (7 years old when Mozart died) may have done, using an unreliable text, 40 years after the composition, has no bearing on Mozart’s intentions, which are abundantly and irrefutably clear in the composer’s own hand. Quartet performance is possible, but it is NOT what Mozart wrote the piece for.
mozart me llama, su hermosa melodia me llama por las noches, y yo la acepto.. y yo vuelo con ella
I Just Realized This Was Made In 2010
no what the heck
Hey, thanks “Mervyn” ! That’s pretty clear. So where did dziady get his stories about quartet ? He seemed sure of himself - started this off by giving a lesson about it being for quartet, even saying that anyone who disagrees is ignorant. He says he’s seen the manuscript and read “basso optional”. Is there any way of checking this ? Last question : I’ve heard of Spohr, but don’t see where he fits into this story.
I use the term “demonstrable facts”. For example, Mozart’s autograph indicates “violoncello e contrabasso”. This is a verifiable fact. At the other extreme, there are “demonstrable falsehoods” (“Mozart’s autograph says basso optional” can also readily be proven wrong). In between, there are various degrees of conjecture. I am convinced that the weight of evidence favours solo strings rather than orchestra, but this does not authorise me to call others “ignorant”.
There are published facsimiles of the “Nachtmusik” manuscript and of Mozart’s catalogue, although they could be difficult to get hold of. Otherwise, you’ll certainly find the odd page through google. Where dziady1 got his stories is of no interest : he’s wrong. What he claims to have read in the manuscript is pure fantasy. Most scholars now agree that “eine kleine Nachtmusik” is for 5 solo instruments, but none would accuse conductors of being ignorant for using a string orchestra.
although i prefer beethoven, mozart sure knows how to use fire aswell
Afterthought... When I said that Mozart’s instructions were clear, I ought to have said “unusually” - perhaps even “uniquely” - clear. He usually just puts “Basso” or “Bassi” on his bass lines. Some have internal indications to show that both cello & double-bass are required, but I can call to mind no other manuscript on which Mozart specifically marks his bass line “violoncello e contrabasso”. So if there is one point on which no doubt is possible, it is that he intends both instruments.
Shipping forecast this Evening
Finally...I have defeated the Ender Dragon!
Who heard this as a sample in The Place To Be by RMB?
Thanks. Curious ! What do you think ? Why would Mozart remove it himself (if that’s one of the possibilities) ?
Is there any clue as to the whereabouts of the missing minuet ?
To get things straight, this discussion began with one simple point about “eine kleine Nachtmusik”. You said it was “written for quartet”. We politely referred you to Mozart’s manuscript indication “2 Violini, Viola, Violoncello e Contrabasso”. There is no further indication concerning the instrumentation. From there on you became offensive, but never answered our question.
So, here it is again :
Is “eine kleine Nachtmusik” written for quartet ?
Clue: the answer is either YES or NO.
Not nitpicking, just pointing out that you are wrong! The autograph clearly reads “2 violini, viola, violoncello e contrabasso” (I have a copy in front of me as I write). Nowhere does it say “optional”. This is your invention which you then use to demonstrate my “limited musical understanding”! I asked how you justify your comment about using an orchestra being to do with the “ignorant discretion of the conductor” and invited your thoughts on other interpretative issues such as tempo.
Hi Mervyn! I’m not sure who you are with all those stories about students. I wrote to dziady1 asking about this song, but he didn’t want to answer. He said it was for quartette and you don’t seem to agree. I’ve always heard it on orchestra. Who’s right? You talk about manuscripts and things, but I’m not a music student. Can you explain, please? Thanks.
To follow on from the remarks below, it does seem strange that simple, pertinent questions about Mozart’s “eine kleine Nachtmusik” should solicit only remarks concerning the state of mental health of those who ask. Your concern is much appreciated, but could you please share some of the knowledge upon which you claim to draw and answer the question : is Mozart’s “eine kleine Nachtmusik” written for quartet ? You wouldn’t want people to think you can’t cope with that, now, would you ?
Hi again Mervyn.Teak! Could I just follow up my message below with a question?
You say somewhere that „the manuscript had lost one of its movements”. I’ve seen the catalogue entry that you quote. What’s the story behind this? Thanks.
0:01 to 6:44
How is this G Major!?, it sounds C major to me!
The first movement is in G major, while this is the second movement.
Not much of a story! As zurich.geige guesses, I am a musician & musicologist. Some of my students invited me to write a few comments about “eine kleine Nachtmusik”. When it became clear that dziady1 had abandoned all semblance of musical discussion, they took over (the change of style is all too obvious). A bit naughty, but they wanted to express their indignation in the face of so many offensive comments about well-known, and often very fine, musicians.
I need to learn the first violin part of this for an audition. Does anyone know about how hard this is in comparison to Concerto in A by Bach? Thanks!
Late reply Cindy and I do hope the audition went well. Thought I would point out this channel that I am sure you will enjoy, it's Ann Fontanella's channel who is herself a concert violinist. ua-cam.com/users/Annfontanella
This is our work hold music!!! I had to pause after 4 seconds!! Fail!
Sorry if my comment interrupted yours, but that can’t be helped. So far, Mozart’s own words correct your mistake about the double-bass. What Spohr may have done gives an interesting glimpse of music-making in 19th century Germany, not Vienna in 1787. If the catalogue entry (which I quote in full) tells us categorically why we should not use orchestral strings, then I do indeed need “putting on the right track”. But please try to support your claims with demonstrable facts.
Rereading these exchanges, there’s something I can’t grasp. You describe the use of orchestral strings as “the ignorant discretion of the conductor”, although the evidence is inconclusive on this point (even if I happen to believe that solo strings are intended). You then defend the use of string quartet omitting the double-bass, which (however attractive) is demonstrably in contradiction with Mozart’s very clear indications. Our personal preferences do not make facts (or vice versa).
長友から来たのは俺だけかな？
Mozart could have removed it to make it more concise or because he was in need of a minuet for another work ! But anyone could have removed a single sheet of paper from an unbound bundle. In view of the time-scale, simple loss is as likely as anything (the story that it was “ripped out” is incorrect). There’s no clue as to its whereabouts. Einstein put forward the theory that it became part of a hybrid piano sonata (K.498a). Attractive, but with no solid basis. Sorry, I’ve no better idea.
Anyone know what conductor and orchestra?
orchestra is the many of the isntruments play one song i think
@@thepianist9795 ?
Wrong! It is written for 5 instruments. Even if cello & double-bass play together, that is not a quartet! What do you call “the original”? What are your grounds for saying it is not for orchestra? There is no record of a quartet (or anyone else) playing this work in Mozart’s time either. What justifies the statement “ignorant discretion of the conductor”? How are you so sure of the “original sense of sound and meaning” being destroyed? What about other matters such as tempo?
Candy uuu
dumb textbook it lied to me
Don’t get me wrong. I should be very happy for you to “put me on the right track”, but you seem to be further off it than I am. So far, everything you have said has been either blatantly wrong (“written for quartet”, “basso optional in the autograph”), irrelevant (stories of Spohr - even Beethoven was probably dead by then) or tenuous conjecture (“the string section of an orchestra destroys its original sense of sound and meaning”); and now this fanciful theory about the word “kleine”...
Magneto in plastic prison!!
Bates motel:'(
« Mervyn Teak » is a pseudonym, just as « dziady1 » is a pseudonym. The musicians you insult are not using pseudonyms. We use one and so do you. We do not, however, use it to call celebrated musicians “air heads”, “brainless” or “fiddle hacks”, however much we appreciate - or not - their artistry. That is a cowardly form of defamation.
If you are not flustered, then why don’t you wish to answer such simple questions about Mozart’s instrumentation ? You do, after all, “write from knowledge”.