# Why no Mozart no. 37?



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Was transferring some Mozart onto my mp3 player earlier and I have the last 5 Symphonies on Philips 2 CD set. I was just wondering why there was no 37.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._37_(Mozart)

which Mozart symphonies is that? who is the conductor?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Cyclops said:


> I have the last 5 Symphonies on Philips 2 CD set. I was just wondering why there was no 37.





Gustav said:


> which Mozart symphonies... who is the conductor?


Don't tell me- let me guess: Academy/St. Martin-in-the-Fields-- Marriner. (I have that set, too.)


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

www.mozart-archiv.de

It is the Philips collection of Mozart. Good quality regardless of the kbps. I have no idea to the legality, I have emailed them to no avail. But I find it hard to believe it is up there without the legaity... anyway.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Yagan Kiely said:


> www.mozart-archiv.de
> 
> It is the Philips collection of Mozart. Good quality regardless of the kbps. I have no idea to the legality, I have emailed them to no avail. But I find it hard to believe it is up there without the legaity... anyway.


Thanks for the link, Yagan. I'd been wanting to listen to K.466 w/ Brendel and ASMF...just the first movement, actually. Looking for torrents, I found whole sets hundreds of MB in size, but never the single concerto.


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> www.mozart-archiv.de
> 
> It is the Philips collection of Mozart. Good quality regardless of the kbps. I have no idea to the legality, I have emailed them to no avail. But I find it hard to believe it is up there without the legaity... anyway.


yes it is that set. What's that about 'legality'?


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Cyclops said:


> yes it is that set. What's that about 'legality'?


It is illegal, simple as that.


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Gustav said:


> It is illegal, simple as that.


What's illegal? I mush have missed something.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Cyclops said:


> What's illegal? I mush have missed something.


downloading copyright protected music without paying for it.


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Gustav said:


> downloading copyright protected music without paying for it.


Oh I got it now! Its not always easy to follow all the threads on my PDA(still getting used to it)
But I thought it was nigh on impossible to d'load tracks for free these days? The restrictions are really tight now(rightly so too-same for movies. My partner works at Blockbuster and movie piracy is jeopardising her job so we take a dim view of it)


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Cyclops said:


> Oh I got it now! Its not always easy to follow all the threads on my PDA(still getting used to it)
> But I thought it was nigh on impossible to d'load tracks for free these days? The restrictions are really tight now(rightly so too-same for movies. My partner works at Blockbuster and movie piracy is jeopardising her job so we take a dim view of it)


that has a little to do with Piracy, those old fashioned Blockbuster type of stores, that rents out DVDs are a bit out-dated in my opinon. Nowadays, internet speeds have become so fast, it is more efficient to download movies, then drive to a blockbuster to rent it, not mentioning the operation costs involved. So, there are lots of websites that offers Legal download of movies, they are probably restricted however.


----------



## Morigan (Oct 16, 2006)

Legal or not, immoral or not, thanks for the link.


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Gustav said:


> that has a little to do with Piracy, those old fashioned Blockbuster type of stores, that rents out DVDs are a bit out-dated in my opinon. Nowadays, internet speeds have become so fast, it is more efficient to download movies, then drive to a blockbuster to rent it, not mentioning the operation costs involved. So, there are lots of websites that offers Legal download of movies, they are probably restricted however.


Yes well it just happens to be my partner's job and main source of income so we'd like keep the rental market going a bit longer(you know, I've been told there's no rental market in France, it doesnt exist! People just go to the cinema instead!) 
This still doesnt answer my question, why no 37.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

I don't think Mozart numbered his symphonies, it's probably done by the guy who compiled all of his works. So, obviously, someone made an error in the process.


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Hmmm I wonder if looking at the Koekel numbers would help.


----------



## Morigan (Oct 16, 2006)

Well, these numbers have probably been around since before Köchel's time. The "fake" symphony No. 37 was traditionally attributed to Mozart, and they removed it only later when they found out it was actually M. Haydn's. I guess they didn't want to change n° 38-41 because the numbers are so representative to us now.

Anyway, if you ever get a complete set of Mozart's symphonies, you'll notice there are almost 15 symphonies without a number. They're not very well known.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Morigan said:


> Anyway, if you ever get a complete set of Mozart's symphonies, you'll notice there are almost 15 symphonies without a number. They're not very well known.


And there are others which are sometimes _referred to_ by a number greater than 41. http://www.mozartproject.org/compositions/ca_13.html


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> It is illegal, simple as that.


There is still no proof of that. Do you have proof? Yes it is copyright, but not necessarily illegal.



> downloading copyright protected music without paying for it.[/quote[Don't generalize. The entire New Mozart Edition (scores of all his works) is up online, still in copyright and completely legal. Creative Commons is still copyright of sorts. BBC released recordings of the entire Beethoven symphonies free, yet they still own the copyright.
> 
> 
> > So, there are lots of websites that offers Legal download of movies, they are probably restricted however.
> ...


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Morigan said:


> Well, these numbers have probably been around since before Köchel's time. The "fake" symphony No. 37 was traditionally attributed to Mozart, and they removed it only later when they found out it was actually M. Haydn's. I guess they didn't want to change n° 38-41 because the numbers are so representative to us now.
> 
> Anyway, if you ever get a complete set of Mozart's symphonies, you'll notice there are almost 15 symphonies without a number. They're not very well known.


Yea I also have a disk of his first 5 symphonies(Naxos), and one of them, number 2 I think, is marked Attrib. Haydn


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Yagan Kiely said:


> There is still no proof of that. Do you have proof? Yes it is copyright, but not necessarily illegal.


yes, i have proof, as long as you can buy the music commercially, it is therefore copyright protected, search Amazon, or jpc, you'll likely find the recordings on there. THerefore, it's illegal, very simple, i don't know why your mind can't grasp this simple concept.



Yagan Kiely said:


> hah *cough*piratebay*/cough*.


No, I don't think piratebay is legal either, Bittorent is/ and has never been/or will ever be legal. THe website i was thinking about is more like Netflix, which "rents" the movie to you, for a fee.



Yagan Kiely said:


> If you wish to be perfectly safe, http://cocoa.fbk.eu:8282/ is PD recordings. And Gustav, there are PD recordings...


I am not scared of anything, i am merely point out what you are doing, and some other people are doing, is immoral, unethical, economically damaging, and you should stop. I am not interested in depriving artists of their hard earned money, do what i do, get a job, and pay for your music!

Plus, this might be the most important reason of all, the bitrate is low, i don't know how some of you can even stand listening to all that.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> yes, i have proof, as long as you can buy the music commercially, it is therefore copyright protected, search Amazon, or jpc, you'll likely find the recordings on there. THerefore, it's illegal, very simple, i don't know why your mind can't grasp this simple concept.


I can purchase the bound edition of NME commercially, but it is still free on the internet. As I said before Creative Commons works *ARE* copyrighted. I can purchase a DVD of a TV show on the national TV service in Australia, but it is also offered free to download - still in copyright. Just because it is copyright does not mean it it can't be free. These boards are copyright, yet they are free.

You have no proof what so ever. You clearly do not have much of a grasp of copyright law.



> I am not scared of anything, i am merely point out what you are doing, and some other people are doing, is immoral, unethical, economically damaging, and you should stop.


For the purpose of this argument I will assume the Mozart is illegal (which you have _no proof of_)It is certainly not economically damaging. Record companies simply don't make as _much_ as a whopping profit, they still make a huge profit. Why say unethical and immoral, they are practically the same thi8ng. Tautologies are pointless. Now, morality and ethics are extremely subjective. Is is immoral to accidentally have the GM seed of Monsanto in your crop and then be sued for breach of copyright? Is it unethical for people in Africa to have free recordings of works? There are many MANY reasons that could make it ethical I put the most obvious ones just for you.


> I am not interested in depriving artists of their hard earned money, do what i do, get a job, and pay for your music!


Haha, this is one of the most ugliest arguments. All people on the doll are bludgers right? People on the street are scum? haha.



> Plus, this might be the most important reason of all, the bitrate is low, i don't know how some of you can even stand listening to all that.


the Mozart site or cocoa? If Mozart, the performance is Academy of St Martin in the Fields etc.... hardly shabby. The bit rate is low, but the quality is reasonably high. If CoCoA, some recordings are historical, they have Toscanini and various others. You expect historical recordings to be perfect quality? You want the last castrati to be a good recording? Sorry, but you expect too much. Also some people can actually ignore the quality and just listen to _the music_.



> No, I don't think piratebay is legal either, Bittorent is/ and has never been/or will ever be legal.


Do more research before you talk_. There have been many many legal battles between _with the two forwarding services. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent%2C_Inc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Bay
and I quote: *"In Sweden, torrent trackers have not been found to be illegal."*


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

You mean that you _actually_ think that copyright material can't be free.

Sorry to trouble your _amazing_ intellect, but explain how http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/start.php?l=2 is free and still in copyright? The owners of the copyright are the owners of the website for your information.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Okay, for some odd reason my previous post was deleted (without even telling me as to why)?!! Did the moderator do this? Why? Are fascists running this place? for some reason, the right of freedom of speech is not something that they condone? shame on you! (whoever deleted my previous post)


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

This is going to be a long post, so i am going to separating it into 2 parts, now PART I

PART I



Yagan Kiely said:


> I can purchase the bound edition of NME commercially, but it is still free on the internet.


what kind of silly logic is that? If someone posts something and free for share, then it is "free" and legal? is your head messed up, or you just have no regard for the law?



Yagan Kiely said:


> As I said before Creative Commons works *ARE* copyrighted. I can purchase a DVD of a TV show on the national TV service in Australia, but it is also offered free to download - still in copyright. Just because it is copyright does not mean it it can't be free. These boards are copyright, yet they are free.


In that special case, that's true, but the recordings in question is neither Australian, nor was it INTENTED to offered to the free domain. Instead, some idiot just uploaded them onto his/her own site, and decided for him/herself that he/she has the right to distribute copyright-protected recordings world-wide. Plus, you didn't even pay for it.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Just because it is copyright does not mean it it can't be free. These boards are copyright, yet they are free.


That's absolutely true! But it doesn't apply in this case, you are dodging the issue! The recordings on there (or on most other file-sharing sites) are not "Free". It is likely that you can buy them from Itunes, and ONLY from websites that have the RIGHT to let you download those recordings. Otherwise, it's against the law. You are basiclaly taking stuff that don't belong to you, and pay absolutely nothing for it.



Yagan Kiely said:


> You have no proof what so ever. You clearly do not have much of a grasp of copyright law.


Silly, silly, I proved much already, and I am not done yet. As for grasping copyright law, i dunno, since when is downloading music illegally a sign of understanding the workings of copyright law. You are basically taking stuff from others, without any form of agreement, payment, none whatsoever, how can anyone, in his/her right conscience say that it is "legal" or "right"? You sicken me, how you even manage to sleep at nights!



Yagan Kiely said:


> For the purpose of this argument I will assume the Mozart is illegal (which you have _no proof of_)It is certainly not economically damaging. Record companies simply don't make as _much_ as a whopping profit, they still make a huge profit. Why say unethical and immoral, they are practically the same thi8ng.


You have no clue, don't you? Mozart is not what matters here, it is the recordings which I am talking about. The artists, companies that produce these recordings. In case you haven't noticed, Mozart is DEAD! for a long time too. But, the recordings are made by most living artists, and companies that are still in business. They own the right to do whatever the wish with the recordings, after all, it's theirs, they made it.

Economics 101, I guess you are not in college yet, but let me help you to grasp some concepts of economics anyways. Since you display none of it. In any economy, the basic goal to sustain a robust growth, is to increase aggregate demand, in plain language, that means to SPEND. The more money people spent, the higher Aggregate demand, and that drives up productivity, making the economy move forward.... in your case, you'd rather NOt pay for the music (which are own by other private individuals and companies), therefore they will not get any money from you, and if everyone do this, the companies will be out of business. And as for the artists, because they are making less and less from CD recordings, then, there is good reason for them to stop making recordings altogether! if performing live for instance, make more money. People like you are like leeches, who sucks the blood out of a healthy economy.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Now, morality and ethics are extremely subjective. Is is immoral to accidentally have the GM seed of Monsanto in your crop and then be sued for breach of copyright? Is it unethical for people in Africa to have free recordings of works? There are many MANY reasons that could make it ethical I put the most obvious ones just for you.


Morality and ethics are different, and can be subjective. But that's doesn't justify your act of basically robbing artists/companies of what would be their money. You don't live in Africa, it is reasonable for me to assume that you live in a well-off, western nation? So, your African nonsense doesn't apply. Your lack of ethics is in your blissful unawareness of the potential damages that you might incur on others. Think about it, if you stop to contribute to the artists, where will the artists get their money? their motivation to make more music? Surely, you might say that not all the people do what you do (downloading music illegally), but if there is no law to forbid this activity, sooner or later, other people will find out that they should download everything for free, since there is no law to punish them .



Yagan Kiely said:


> Haha, this is one of the most ugliest arguments. All people on the doll are bludgers right? People on the street are scum? haha.


Don't you haha me:angry:

Don't accuse my argument being "ugly" just because your don't understand it. Seriously, dude, this has be the 3rd time that you intentionally use an example that doesn't apply to you at all. Are you on the street by the way? if so, my condolences.

That said, no matter how poor or how rich someone is, it doesn't justify breaking the law. Sure, a homeless person might be too poor to buy an Album by Solti, but he doesn't have to download it illegally. He could borrow it from libraries, and do other things, "legally" get the music he wants. If everyone in hte world can get what they want without doing anything for it, can you imagine what it will be like? Chaos! Anarchy!



Yagan Kiely said:


> the Mozart site or cocoa? If Mozart, the performance is Academy of St Martin in the Fields etc.... hardly shabby. The bit rate is low, but the quality is reasonably high. If CoCoA, some recordings are historical, they have Toscanini and various others. You expect historical recordings to be perfect quality? You want the last castrati to be a good recording? Sorry, but you expect too much. Also some people can actually ignore the quality and just listen to _the music_.


128kbps??!! are you kidding me? you must have really cheap equipments or something. 
Historically recordings are different, because you can't get a "better" quality, since they were recorded by inferior technology. But i wouldn't want to say that Marriner is a historical figure. Again, you are bringing irrelevant information, sure, the last castrati is a fascinating thing to hear, despite it's low quality. but there was no choice, the recording technology back then were so inferior, that they even made an recording has to be hailed as a miracle. But, the recordings you mentioned were mostly from the post stereo era, and settling for 128kbps is just ridiculous for anyone who is remotely interested in good sound.



Yagan Kiely said:


> Do more research before you talk_. There have been many many legal battles between _with the two forwarding services. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent%2C_Inc.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Bay
> and I quote: *"In Sweden, torrent trackers have not been found to be illegal."*


No thank you. I do my research at my university, and anyone of its 24 libraries on campus. I do not use wikipedia to back my arguments. Knowing that they were written by common individuals, and sometimes, idiots. I'm not that surprised that your source of information came from the wiki, judging from the lack of sophistication of your arguments.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

PART II



Yagan Kiely said:


> You mean that you _actually_ think that copyright material can't be free.
> 
> Sorry to trouble your _amazing_ intellect, but explain how http://dme.mozarteum.at/DME/nma/start.php?l=2 is free and still in copyright? The owners of the copyright are the owners of the website for your information.


Again, you are using facts that are completely irrelevant to your case. Of course, i am aware of the life-expectancy of copyright-protected materials. But, this has nothing to do with sharing of music. The website you gave me obviously has the right to the music they are sharing with the public, and they probably signed an agreement with the artists/company that produced the music so that it can be accessed freely. That's fine, but what you did is not, since the one who shares Mozart's music for free on that website DID NOT get the permission from the Record Companies to offer their music for public for free. If you don't trust me, i can e-mail the record companies and tell them about the site, I have their e-mails addresses. Is that something you would like to see? Cause i can make them to write to you about the perils of file-sharing.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Okay, for some odd reason my previous post was deleted (without even telling me as to why)?!! Did the moderator do this? Why? Are fascists running this place? for some reason, the right of freedom of speech is not something that they condone? shame on you! (whoever deleted my previous post)


It is because it was a personaly attack with no purpose of being here. If you are going to comment later, then do it.

1: You didn't even check the files on CoCoA. They say 128 on the site but they aren't all that.
1:You didn't check the rest of the mozart site.
3irate bay is legal in Sweden.
4:Using File Sharing is not necessarily illegal.
5: IMSLP will be put on a torrent server.
6: Microsoft released a file sharing software with office.



> Again, you are using facts that are completely irrelevant to your case.


Provide me with a link to say where they upload edit without permission. For all purposes I do suspect it is illegal, but there is no proof YET.



> 128kbps??!! are you kidding me? you must have really cheap equipments or something.


You have really cheap ideas.


> Historically recordings are different, because you can't get a "better" quality, since they were recorded by inferior technology. But i wouldn't want to say that Marriner is a historical figure. Again, you are bringing irrelevant information, sure, the last castrati is a fascinating thing to hear, despite it's low quality. but there was no choice, the recording technology back then were so inferior, that they even made an recording has to be hailed as a miracle. But, the recordings you mentioned were mostly from the post stereo era, and settling for 128kbps is just ridiculous for anyone who is remotely interested in good sound.


Most people aren't is wealthy as you. Most people enjoy the music rather than the quality of the recording. If you can't ignore the quality to listen to the music, you are not a classical 'fan' at all.



> No thank you. I do my research at my university, and anyone of its 24 libraries on campus. I do not use wikipedia to back my arguments. Knowing that they were written by common individuals, and sometimes, idiots. I'm not that surprised that your source of information came from the wiki, judging from the lack of sophistication of your arguments.


Do you have any idea how stupid that argument is? How old are you 72?



> Don't you haha me:angry:
> 
> Don't accuse my argument being "ugly" just because your don't understand it. Seriously, dude, this has be the 3rd time that you intentionally use an example that doesn't apply to you at all. Are you on the street by the way? if so, my condolences.


I do understand perfectly, I'm not idiotic like _someone_. I've been talking about this conversation with lecturers,friends and various colleagues. They laughed uite a bit when they heard your simplistic argument. Every thing's black and white eh?

That said, no matter how poor or how rich someone is, it doesn't justify breaking the law. Sure, a homeless person might be too poor to buy an Album by Solti, but he doesn't have to download it illegally. He could borrow it from libraries, and do other things, "legally" get the music he wants. If everyone in hte world can get what they want without doing anything for it, can you imagine what it will be like? Chaos! Anarchy![/quote]That really makes you sound like an ********. Are you?



> in your case, you'd rather NOt pay for the music (which are own by other private individuals and companies)


 I LOVE it when you make crap up.  I never said that, I said that I can't afford it. If I could I would. That's really funny. 

It is INCREDIBLE how ignorant you are to law and other human beings. just because you are doing well. EVERYONE else must follow your diligent road to morality. Are you Jesus? I thought Jesus would have been a kind, understanding person while you are a simplistic arrogant person who can't see past his nose. I feel sorry for you. Have a good day. And tell me when your 73rd birthday is.


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Yagan Kiely said:


> It is because it was a personaly attack with no purpose of being here. If you are going to comment later, then do it.
> 
> 1: You didn't even check the files on CoCoA. They say 128 on the site but they aren't all that.
> 1:You didn't check the rest of the mozart site.
> ...


Are you freaking serious? You replies were of pretty poor quality the first time around, and this time all your main points were that i am somehow "72" and an "********" (is that how you say that down there? we use "A-hole" or "*******" btw) and an assortment of personal attacks. I have seen this plenty of times, people usually resort to personal attacks when they lose the argument, so i can't say i am surprised. 
As for replies to your "arguments", i don't feel it is even worth it anymore, they (your main points) are so pathetic anyways. Btw, since when did i say that i was "Rich"? Where did you get that idea? I am just a hard-working college student, who tries to learn a profession, so i can make decent money after i graduate. Every cd i buy came from the money i made. Which is not whole lot, that's why i save up money on CDs, and audio equipments. Btw, it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to get decent sounding equipments!
Your lack of maturity makes any further comments from me, really a waste of time. Let me just say this, in the United States, people actually come AFTER you if you download things illegally. Several students at my university was just handed lawsuits because they shared music illegally. So, don't think i told you this to **** you off, it was more of a warning, you can do what you want to do, but you have to be responsible for your actions.


----------



## Cyclops (Mar 24, 2008)

Gustav said:


> Btw, it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to get decent sounding equipments!
> .


absolutely. I got my Denon amp from my brother for free, and a pair of very nice Sony APM speakers from my other brother for a tenner(£10/$18)


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Are you freaking serious? You replies were of pretty poor quality the first time around, and this time all your main points were that i am somehow "72" and an "********" (is that how you say that down there? we use "A-hole" or "*******" btw) and an assortment of personal attacks. I have seen this plenty of times, people usually resort to personal attacks when they lose the argument, so i can't say i am surprised.


No, I was just responding to your personal attacks.  Tit for tat. And "********" is actually English, ******* is an American spelling error. I never said you were an ********, I said that your statement made you sound like one, I asked if you were.



> As for replies to your "arguments", i don't feel it is even worth it anymore, they (your main points) are so pathetic anyways.


I gave up, because you have no idea what you are talking about.



> Btw, it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to get decent sounding equipments!


What are you talking about? I have a good system.



> Your lack of maturity makes any further comments from me, really a waste of time. Let me just say this, in the United States, people actually come AFTER you if you download things illegally.


Sorry, but the RIAA (etc.) just try and make a point with a few people to scare the rest. 



> Several students at my university was just handed lawsuits because they shared music illegally. So, don't think i told you this to **** you off, it was more of a warning, you can do what you want to do, but you have to be responsible for your actions.


Thank you sooooo much for your pointless warning. It's fun egging you on. You are quite predictable. Every one of your arguments are cliched and out of date.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

And now, returning to our program ... 

The original thread topic was:



Cyclops said:


> Was transferring some Mozart onto my mp3 player earlier and I have the last 5 Symphonies on Philips 2 CD set. I was just wondering why there was no 37.


----------



## Daniel (Jul 11, 2004)

Gustav!

Please have a close look on your post #23, if you don't feel the need and wish to edit it.

And now, returning to our program... 

Kind regards,
Daniel


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Yagan Kiely said:


> No, I was just responding to your personal attacks.  Tit for tat. And "********" is actually English, ******* is an American spelling error. I never said you were an ********, I said that your statement made you sound like one, I asked if you were.


Yeah right, like i haven't heard that BS before, if you have the balls, atleast insult me directly, it seems you don't even have that....



Yagan Kiely said:


> I gave up


I accept your surrender.



Yagan Kiely said:


> What are you talking about? I have a good system.


A good system + 128kpbs music downloaded illegally online=x

no, let's re-write the equation, so it makes more sense.
 -128kpbs music= probably not a good system



Yagan Kiely said:


> Sorry, but the RIAA (etc.) just try and make a point with a few people to scare the rest.


Making points, or not making points, it doesn't matter, those people had to pay off 4 -5 grands so that the RIAA will drop the lawsuit. It's not likely to happen, but what if it happens?



Yagan Kiely said:


> Thank you sooooo much for your pointless warning. It's fun egging you on. You are quite predictable. Every one of your arguments are cliched and out of date.


Pointless? didn't you read anything i wrote? Believe me, I am having a spectacular time "talking" with you, and hte only perdictable person here is you.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

Hello??? Again ... The thread topic is about Mozart's No 37 ...

Returning to our regularly scheduled thread program ...


----------



## Gustav (Aug 29, 2005)

Krummhorn said:


> Hello??? Again ... The thread topic is about Mozart's No 37 ...
> 
> Returning to our regularly scheduled thread program ...


Don't worry, the thread will be back. There is no rush is there?

I don't know what else to say about Mozart's 37th, i think we pretty much covered it, that it wasn't really by Mozart, so, what else is there to talk about?


----------



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

No 37? Really? Hmm


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

LarryShone said:


> No 37? Really? Hmm


No. 37 was withdrawn by Mozart after it was found that he had plagiarized Brahms.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Gustav said:


> No thank you. I do my research at my university, and anyone of its 24 libraries on campus.


What, a library? Reading books without paying for them? You are robbing the authors! :devil:

Copyright is often not a black or white issue, which is why we have so many rich lawyers. Personally I have no use for copyright law at all. I have a feeling though that our personal choices here won't matter - thanks to the web, copyright law is becoming ever more difficult to enforce and is thus becoming irrelevant, whether we like it or not. One cannot legislate reality out of existence.

Back to the topic at hand, it's a funny thing, but I have never really thought about what Mozart's 37th sounds like. Presumably it lives in the shadow of the last four. Anyway, as others have pointed out, the numbering of his symphonies are traditional rather than an accurate representation. Even the Köchel numbers are subject to revisions and footnotes. That's what happens when composers churn out ridiculous amounts of music.


----------



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

Ill be Bach, funny!


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

Reminds me of Schubert's symphonies. I don't think #7 exists. I Googled this once and I think there might be an unfinished #7 that someone else completed centuries later. It's not popular at all, so effectively it doesn't exist.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

Absolutely fascinating question!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Schubert's 7th Symphony was once thought to be an 1824 work written in Gastein but "lost." Schumann thought the Grand Duo was a reduction of the lost symphony, and asked Joachim to orchestrate it to reproduce the symphony. The result is actually pretty good, except for the last movement which seems kind of trivial to me. Abbado recorded it.

Today the name more often refers to an unfinished score from 1821.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

spradlig said:


> Reminds me of Schubert's symphonies. I don't think #7 exists. I Googled this once and I think there might be an unfinished #7 that someone else completed centuries later. It's not popular at all, so effectively it doesn't exist.


I've read extensively on this topic and you're mostly correct. It's a point that's often argued but I do own three collections of his "complete or completed" symphonies.

One is SCO/Makerras which contains his 7th in D (D708A), his 10th in D (D936A), and an unnumbered in D (D615)
Another has 10 symphonies St Martin/Marriner and lists D729 as his 7th and D708 as an unfinished fragment
The third Louvre/Minkowski has what we know as his unfinished 8th (D759) listed as his 7th and his 9th (D944) listed as his 8th

Additionally, the Marriner recording has a completed, 4 movement version of his 8th (D759), using the overture from Rosamunde as the finale. So apparently, even my iTunes library cannot agree on this topic.


----------



## mikey (Nov 26, 2013)

iirc, only the introduction is by Mozart, the rest is Michael Haydn.

Of course there's always this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._37_(Mozart)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

37 is a significantly unlucky number in some Eastern cultures. Mozart was informed of this during his visit to Italy, in a private audience with the Pope.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

How did a question about Mozart's 37th symphony turn into a debate about morality and ethics? This site sometimes...I swear... 

Anyway, it wasn't included because it's a symphony mis-attributed to Mozart. Mozart wrote an introduction to a Michael Haydn symphony that got called his 37th.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Tristan said:


> How did a question about Mozart's 37th symphony turn into a debate about morality and ethics?


You need to go back six years to find the answer to that.


----------



## LarryShone (Aug 29, 2014)

Yes my alter ego started it!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'll take a stab at it. Mozart didn't want any symphony of his associated with Casey Stengel? His number when he managed the Yankees and Mets was 37.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I'll take a stab at it. Mozart didn't want any symphony of his associated with Casey Stengel? His number when he managed the Yankees and Mets was 37.


Looked it up. Mozart actually did write a Symphony No. 37, but it was *so bad *that it was banned by an international convention in the Hague in 1923.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Looked it up. Mozart actually did write a Symphony No. 37, but it was *so bad *that it was banned by an international convention in the Hague in 1923.


Anything bad by Mozart is still better than the Brahms Double.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Tristan said:


> How did a question about Mozart's 37th symphony turn into a debate about morality and ethics? This site sometimes...I swear...


Actually, these unexpected twists and turns in a thread are part of the charm of message boards. I am just about as fanatically anti-copyright as some others are in favour of it, so you can see why the score of the 37th symphony ended up getting burned in the flame war.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

So Mozart's Jupiter is really #40? Wassup with that?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

hpowders said:


> So Mozart's Jupiter is really #40? Wassup with that?


Nope, #2 and 3 weren't by Mozart either! On top of that, to make it even more confusing, there are a number of symphonies that may or may not actually be by Mozart that have been numbered with numbers higher than 41!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Nope, #2 and 3 weren't by Mozart either! On top of that, to make it even more confusing, there are a number of symphonies that may or may not actually be by Mozart that have been numbered with numbers higher than 41!


One would think that a definitive analysis would have settled this appalling situation once and for all, by this time.


----------

