When the arpeggios start, Mozart has a quarter followed by a triple four times in the measure.

I I-I-I I I-I-I I I-I-I I I-I-I

Try to cut down a little on the weed.

Shrink advice.

...love this scene

That, and the scene where he forces the players to practice without music. Two of my favorite scenes.

Heck, it's one of my all time favorite movies in general!

Surprised that nobody answered my question.

Four quarters plus four triples is greater than one. Apparently one quarter plus a triple equals a quarter or something like that but doesn't anyone know the answer?

That's just because your "I I-I-I" notation was distracting.

The measure you're asking about (m.18) is in two voices; in this case, one in each hand. For each separate voice, the note values add up to 4/4.

It's actually the exact same thing that happens in the first measure of the piece. There are a total of 8 eighth notes, a half note, and 2 quarters. But that's combining the notes from two separate voices.

I had no idea that was what you meant. I thought you just meant it was uninteresting because the same thing kept happening.
And really I thought the IIIIII.... and your saying "triples" (which isn't really a term) meant you were either kidding or mildly impaired at the moment.

Sorry.
Jason gave you a good answer.

This scene ("too many notes") is one of my faves too, and I often use the phrase about other things including as a metaphor for things having nothing to do with music.

I don't remember that other scene. BTW I'm sure he didn't really make them play without music, just without the score.

My other favorite scene: When he and Salieri meet, and he plays back Salieri's march immediately by memory but not without dissing and 'correcting' it.
Great lines in it:
"That doesn't really work, does it?"
"And the rest is just the same, isn't it."

If that scene really did occur, then Figaro's most famous aria in Le nozze di Figaro was just Wolfie's improvement on Salieri's little march......

Never figured it did but it "works."


True!!
(It basically is!)

I'm not sure what all this I I-I-I- (etc.) means. If you are considering that the "arpeggios start" at measure 18, nothing could be more strictly regular.

In the right hand :
- beat one : quarter note,
- beat two : sixteenth rest plus three sixteenths, (equalling one quarter note)
- beat three : quarter note,
- beat four : sixteenth rest plus three sixteenths, (equalling one quarter note)
= total of four beats, each beat the equivalent of four sixteenths or one quarter, however you wish to count it.

In the left hand :
- beat one : sixteenth rest plus three sixteenths (equalling one quarter note)
- beat two : quarter note,
- beat three : sixteenth rest plus three quarter notes (equalling one quarter note)
- beat four : quarter note
= total of four beats, each beat the equivalent of four sixteenths or one quarter, however you wish to count it.

Where are there "too many notes"?

Regards,

He was thinking of Liszt or Rachmaninoff.

Why aren't the 16th notes triplets?

It makes sense. Thank you.

"Triplets" aren't just any 3 note group; they're when the notes have a different length than the indicated note value.

Like, if three 16th notes were a triplet, all together they'd be only as long as two regular 16th notes, i.e. the notes would be played a little quicker. And that's the usual thing: the 3 notes of the triplet are played in the same length of time as 2 notes of that value would usually be played. (Sometimes the 3 notes have the length of 4 usual notes, but that's much less common.)

Here, the 3 notes you're talking about are just regular 16th notes. The fact that it's "3 notes" doesn't at all make them triplets.

But good question.

The sixteenth notes are not triplets because there is a sixteenth-rest on the beat of each group to make four sixteenths equalling one quarter-note (one beat).

If they were triplets, the rest would be a quarter-rest and there would be a figure 3 over the remaining three notes indicating that they were to be played in the time of two sixteenth-notes.

It seems as though you may need some review of basic note values.

Regards,

Looks like you don't look at the rest of the posts before doing yours! No harm, but it puts you to some duplicative effort.

Geez!

Heck you chaps ... my nose was so put out of joint by the
Mozart movie ... so much so, that I walked out after 20 minutes of viewing ... but then you chaps are cowboys.

My mind's eye picture of music of the genius was totally out of kilter with the bizarre coquetish scenes ... Salieri
gave me the pip ... sometimes in nightmares I schock to the thought that it was he who wrote the Mozart masterpieces.

It's good to wake up to the reality that Wolfie is still around and giving us a chune.

See the show. (If you can.)
It was much better.

Really -- I found the movie a disappointment. Terrific still, but a disappointment.

Enough of the grotty old Mozart (some say) ...

I’m presently listening to Menuhin and Grappelli play Gershwin

Fascinating Rhythm,
Summertime,
Nice Work If You Can Get It,
Embraceable You,
Liza,
A Foggy Day,
‘S Wonderful,
The Man I Love,
I Got Rhythm,
They Can’t Take That Away,
They All Laughed,
Love is Her to Stay and
Lady Be Good.

Aren’t we lucky ... thank you George and Ira.

Feel better now ... gadzooks!