The Naming / Numbering Problem

[jochanaan]

Quite a while ago I bought a recording of "Schubert: Symphony #7 in C Major" thinking that it would be an unfamiliar work.  "Great" was my surprise to find it was actually what I knew as "Symphony #9: 'The Great' C major!"  So I suspect that the "Unfinished" is actually #8 by all accounts, while the Great C Major could be #7 or #9, depending on whose recording or which score edition you favor.  Or maybe somebody just wanted to ensure that Schubert was included in the canon of composers who wrote 9 symphonies and then died.

[amw]

This is Schubert's 7th. Well, more or less. The first few minutes are Schubert's 7th, the rest are Schubert's melody line with indications of instrumentation and harmony, conjecturally orchestrated & harmonised by Brian Newbould. Still, close enough.

https://www.youtube.com/v/PGTHs8nofYI

Before they knew about this the numbering came about because of the following:

(1) It's known from very early on that Schubert was working on a big symphony in 1825. That one was assumed to be the Great C major, became "7". Since the more familiar B minor symphony had been left incomplete, it was assumed to be a later composition that he had died before finishing, so it became 8.

(2) The autograph manuscript of the Great C major is discovered to bear the date 1828. It is therefore assumed to be a product of Schubert's final year, reassigned the number 9, and the big symphony he was referring to in 1825 assumed to be a now-lost "Gastein Symphony" whose manuscript possibly lurks in some obscure archive. Or maybe it was turned into the Octet or the Grand Duo. They were never totally sure on that point.

(3) C major symphony dated more-or-less conclusively back to 1825 where it started, with the 1828 date added to the score by Schubert in an effort to make the work seem more up-to-date when submitting it for publication. The B minor symphony is re-dated to 1822. Since he didn't die in the middle, no one knows why he didn't finish it. Perhaps he got bored. The symphonies are renumbered to 7 (Unfinished) and 8 (Great).

(4) E major symphonic fragment + sketch discovered from 1821, renumbered 7, so that the old numbering of 8 and 9 for the Unfinished and Great won't be as confusing. D major sketch discovered from 1828, numbered 10, because every composer has to have an incomplete 10th symphony apparently.

[kishnevi]

Joseph Joachim orchestrated the Grand Duo.  Abbado recorded it as part of his Schubert cycle, and it comes off rather well.  But no one gave it a number.

[amw]

Yes, it is a rather good arrangement, and probably deserves the number 7 more than the 1821 symphony (which apart from the forward-looking introduction and to some extent the finale, belongs more in the world of Schubert ca. 1816 than ca. 1821; I imagine that's why he decided not to bother finishing it). I would also quite like to hear a Symphony No. 8 1/2 based on the Lebensstürme Allegro for that matter.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I think it was not the usual thing for composers to number their own works until some time in the 19th century. Does anyone know who was the first composer to number his own symphonies? (or quartets, etc.)

[Gurn Blanston]

I think it was not the usual thing for composers to number their own works until some time in the 19th century. Does anyone know who was the first composer to number his own symphonies? (or quartets, etc.)

The first one I absolutely know about was Beethoven. If someone else did it earlier I don't know. There are several examples in his letters of his doing this, and also being irked when it didn't happen properly. In earlier times, composers didn't appear to go further than asking for a dedication to a certain person, usually in hopes of getting a reward in return. It didn't always work out, since publishers wanted a reward too. In fact, they wanted every cent and damn the composer. Bastards!

[kishnevi]

The first one I absolutely know about was Beethoven. If someone else did it earlier I don't know. There are several examples in his letters of his doing this, and also being irked when it didn't happen properly. In earlier times, composers didn't appear to go further than asking for a dedication to a certain person, usually in hopes of getting a reward in return. It didn't always work out, since publishers wanted a reward too. In fact, they wanted every cent and damn the composer. Bastards!

But did he publish them as "Sonata No. N" or merely keep track of them privately?  I suppose it boils down to whether he spoke about his Fourth Symphony or about his fourth symphony.

[Ken B]

But did he publish them as "Sonata No. N" or merely keep track of them privately?  I suppose it boils down to whether he spoke about his Fourth Symphony or about his fourth symphony.

Yes. Mozart after all kept a chronological listing, but in letters to people talked about the C major concerto etc.

[Gurn Blanston]

But did he publish them as "Sonata No. N" or merely keep track of them privately?  I suppose it boils down to whether he spoke about his Fourth Symphony or about his fourth symphony.

No, he called them by key. The numbering thing was strictly the publisher. Say he went to three or four different publishers (he did) and they will all only count or number sonatas or symphonies that they published themselves. The others didn't exist until they published them too. So that is pretty much retrospective. His symphonies are a bit more confusing, since his 6th was written before his 5th, so which does he call it then? Clearly it is his c minor.

Haydn's string quartets often were published by, and numbered by, 4 or 5 different publishers. The opus numbers which we use today were selected for us by Ignaz Pleyel right after 1800 when he published a 'complete oeuvre' of string quartets and selected the ones he liked, thus writing their particular opus numbers in stone.

This Festetics disk of "Op 54 & 55" tells the story:



Is it Op 7 & 8 (Artaria)  or is it Op 59 & 60  or is it Op 54 & 55?  I can look up the other two publishers if you want to know who they were, but the point is that Pleyel chose 54 & 55 and so that's what we call them today. I'm sure that Haydn called them Hob. III:57 - 62... 

[Pat B]

No, he called them by key. The numbering thing was strictly the publisher. Say he went to three or four different publishers (he did) and they will all only count or number sonatas or symphonies that they published themselves. The others didn't exist until they published them too. So that is pretty much retrospective. His symphonies are a bit more confusing, since his 6th was written before his 5th, so which does he call it then? Clearly it is his c minor.

...which worked great until he had written two different symphonies in F major.

[Ken B]

...which worked great until he had written two different symphonies in F major.

Well, that's not as confusing as Schubert writing three seventh symphonies!

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

...which worked great until he had written two different symphonies in F major.

Interestingly, from what I've read Vaughan Williams didn't number his symphonies until he wrote #9 in E Minor. This was his second symphony in that key (#6 being the first), so he decided to number them all retroactively at that point.

[Pat B]

Well, that's not as confusing as Schubert writing three seventh symphonies!

[amw]

Well, that's not as confusing as Schubert writing three seventh symphonies!

If I ever write any symphonies, I will assign them all the number 9.

[jochanaan]

If I ever write any symphonies, I will assign them all the number 9.

If I ever do, I think I'll start at #10.