Beethoven's Piano Sonatas

[Madiel]

For the most part, the works that got opus numbers were the ones that Beethoven thought were worthy of opus numbers.

For the most part.

You're just restating the question in a different way.  Why, exactly, should we continue to hold onto a system established in the 19th century that isn't too bad, for the most part, but is in fact known to be not completely accurate? Why ignore a further 150+ years of further scholarship? If a set of 30 piano sonatas - based on the ones that Beethoven most clearly intended to publish - isn't allowed to be labelled 'complete', why should a set of 32 piano sonatas - based on the ones that got opus numbers - be allowed to be labelled 'complete' when it is known with certainty that it isn't complete?

It's perhaps worth mentioning that I've just purchased a set of Beethoven's piano trios. The number of piano trios you get in a 'complete' set of piano trios is far, far more variable than with the piano sonatas, and once you get past opus 1, opus 11 (almost invariably the violin version instead of the original), opus 70 and opus 97, the numbering tends to be all over the place as well (op.44 ALWAYS seems to be a higher 'piano trio' number than the opus 70 and 97 trios). No-one seems to get terribly worked up about it though. And yet, one pianist deciding to record 30 rather than 32 sonatas gets people in a lather.

[Todd]

why should a set of 32 piano sonatas - based on the ones that got opus numbers - be allowed to be labelled 'complete' when it is known with certainty that it isn't complete?

It's a 20th century recording thing that started with Schnabel, and has been repeated for the last eighty years.  It's tradition.  Some people don't like tradition.  That's fine.  But Lim's excuse was lame.  It was and is a marketing gimmick.  As were the glamour shots and the absurdly low, loss-leader style pricing.  Marketing gimmicks have been around for a good, long time now, too. Had Lim delivered great performances, there would be a greater focus on the quality of her playing.  As it is, I found her gimmicky with her first twofer.

[Madiel]

It's a 20th century recording thing that started with Schnabel, and has been repeated for the last eighty years.  It's tradition.  Some people don't like tradition.  That's fine.  But Lim's excuse was lame.  It was and is a marketing gimmick.  As were the glamour shots and the absurdly low, loss-leader style pricing.  Marketing gimmicks have been around for a good, long time now, too. Had Lim delivered great performances, there would be a greater focus on the quality of her playing.  As it is, I found her gimmicky with her first twofer.

I won't deny that Lim was engaging in a 'gimmick', but so was Schnabel. Labelling it as 'tradition' just means it's an old gimmick.

Also, I suspect people just like the number 32 for its symmetry as a power of 2. You've got to hand it to Beethoven, having 32 piano sonatas and 16 string quartets is just perfect.

[Brian]

I won't deny that Lim was engaging in a 'gimmick', but so was Schnabel. Labelling it as 'tradition' just means it's an old gimmick.

Also, I suspect people just like the number 32 for its symmetry as a power of 2. You've got to hand it to Beethoven, having 32 piano sonatas and 16 string quartets is just perfect.

32 sonatas, 16 quartets, 8 symphonies...wait

[Madiel]

32 sonatas, 16 quartets, 8 symphonies...wait

It's okay. Turns out that somehow implying one can't get to double figures in symphonies is also a handy little selling feature.

[Todd]

Labelling it as 'tradition' just means it's an old gimmick.

Not really. 

Also, I suspect people just like the number 32 for its symmetry as a power of 2.

Huh? 

[Pat B]

For the most part.

You're just restating the question in a different way.  Why, exactly, should we continue to hold onto a system established in the 19th century that isn't too bad, for the most part, but is in fact known to be not completely accurate? Why ignore a further 150+ years of further scholarship? If a set of 30 piano sonatas - based on the ones that Beethoven most clearly intended to publish - isn't allowed to be labelled 'complete', why should a set of 32 piano sonatas - based on the ones that got opus numbers - be allowed to be labelled 'complete' when it is known with certainty that it isn't complete?

I was responding to your statement: "There's nothing especially magical about the fact that certain sonatas got numbers, and opus numbers." You make it sound like the assignment of opus numbers was arbitrary. But Beethoven was surely conscious of it (though we can probably agree that some of those decisions were affected by financial concerns). It's different than, say, Dvořák, whose publisher is known to have outright ignored his numberings.

AFAIK 32 is not "in fact known to be not completely accurate." I'm not aware of any evidence that in 1805 (or afterwards) Beethoven opposed the publication or numbering of op. 49. If I'm missing something, let me know.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the redefinition of complete to 30 has only been proposed as part of a recording project that seems like one big publicity stunt.

[prémont]

I was responding to your statement: "There's nothing especially magical about the fact that certain sonatas got numbers, and opus numbers." You make it sound like the assignment of opus numbers was arbitrary. But Beethoven was surely conscious of it (though we can probably agree that some of those decisions were affected by financial concerns). It's different than, say, Dvořák, whose publisher is known to have outright ignored his numberings.

AFAIK 32 is not "in fact known to be not completely accurate." I'm not aware of any evidence that in 1805 (or afterwards) Beethoven opposed the publication or numbering of op. 49. If I'm missing something, let me know.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the redefinition of complete to 30 has only been proposed as part of a recording project that seems like one big publicity stunt.

The word "complete" is confusing and misused, not only in the context of Beethoven´s piano sonatas.

F.i. the Brilliant Classics as well as the Am@do "complete" Beethoven boxes are far from complete even if both includes the Kurfürsten-Sonaten.

[Todd]

The word "complete" is confusing and misused, not only in the context of Beethoven´s piano sonatas.

To the extent it is confusing, it is because people are purposely making it confusing.  The word is not really misused, either.  When the phrase "complete sonatas" is used, it means the 32 piano sonatas with opus numbers.  Excuse me, the 32 solo piano sonatas, lest someone try to argue about Op 6.

[prémont]

To the extent it is confusing, it is because people are purposely making it confusing.  The word is not really misused, either.  When the phrase "complete sonatas" is used, it means the 32 piano sonatas with opus numbers.  Excuse me, the 32 solo piano sonatas, lest someone try to argue about Op 6.

Yes, it has been the common way of using the term since Schnabel's recording. But I think it was confusing already then. For complete means complete.

[Todd]

For complete means complete.

Yes, but how far, precisely, should it go?  Should sketches be included?

[Madiel]

I was responding to your statement: "There's nothing especially magical about the fact that certain sonatas got numbers, and opus numbers." You make it sound like the assignment of opus numbers was arbitrary. But Beethoven was surely conscious of it (though we can probably agree that some of those decisions were affected by financial concerns). It's different than, say, Dvořák, whose publisher is known to have outright ignored his numberings.

AFAIK 32 is not "in fact known to be not completely accurate." I'm not aware of any evidence that in 1805 (or afterwards) Beethoven opposed the publication or numbering of op. 49. If I'm missing something, let me know.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the redefinition of complete to 30 has only been proposed as part of a recording project that seems like one big publicity stunt.

No, when I said the opus numbering system was known not to be completely accurate, I was referring to the opus numbering system, not just the piano sonatas. It is undoubtedly not completely accurate and is indeed quite arbitrary at times. I contacted Barry Cooper at one point to ask him how on earth An die Hoffnung managed to be op.32 when it was written several years later, and he pointed out to me that some opus numbers weren't used in the original sequence, with the gaps being filled by Artaria in 1819, and that some of the opus numbers we now know off by heart were different when the works were first published. It is simply not the case that there was a regular, orderly allocation of opus numbers by the composer. We know that it was a mess for Haydn and Mozart and Schubert as well, and as a result we rarely use their opus numbers, but for some reason we've clung to Beethoven's as more meaningful.

[Pat B]

Okay. I thought we were talking about the piano sonatas, specifically whether a set that omits op. 49 can legitimately be considered complete.

You're right, of course, that the opus numbers have some problems elsewhere. The problems are not on the same order as those for Haydn, Mozart, and Schubert, which is probably why everyone continues to use them for Beethoven. (It's worth noting that even for Haydn and Schubert, opus numbers are still used for some pieces, and that the Hoboken and Köchel catalogs are hardly perfect.)

But if you start using Biamonti numbers, I won't complain.

[Brian]

What Schubert works are commonly referred to by opus number? Is this specific to certain countries? I don't know a single Schubert opus number, but I know 7 or 8 D. numbers.

[amw]

What Schubert works are commonly referred to by opus number? Is this specific to certain countries? I don't know a single Schubert opus number, but I know 7 or 8 D. numbers.

The two sets of Impromptus are often referred to as Opp. 90 and 142, the first published version of Erlkönig is sometimes referred to as Op. 1, the Trout Quintet is sometimes Op. 114 and the two Piano Trios are sometimes Opp. 99 and 100 (esp in older editions & recordings). The Fantasy in F minor is usually listed with a split Op. / D. number (D. 940 / Op. 103), the String Quintet less often (D. 956 / Op. 163). I've seen opus numbers on a couple of the piano sonatas as well, though not as many.

Other composers with persistent opus number problems are Schumann (not only are the opus numbers achronological, but so is every other numbering system people have devised to keep track of his works), Dvořák, Busoni (dear god) and anyone whose works were published before 1750. Not to forget all the composers who started out using opus numbers but then gave up on them after a short while: Bartók (who restarted his opus numbering from 1 twice before giving up altogether), Strauss, Hindemith etc.

It's hard to think of any really accurate opus number sequences actually.

[Madiel]

Okay. I thought we were talking about the piano sonatas, specifically whether a set that omits op. 49 can legitimately be considered complete.

We are. The point is that saying "we can call it complete if we have all the ones with opus numbers, and ignore the ones without opus numbers" is every bit as arbitrary as saying "we can call it complete if we have all the ones we're confident Beethoven intended to publish soon after composition, and ignore the ones that languished for years". Opus numbers are just as arbitrary a criterion as any other.

The fact that the piano sonatas managed to avoid having a lot of really obvious inconsistencies and anachronisms in their numbering does not mean that Herr Beethoven somehow lavished particular special care over the numbering of the piano sonatas while letting his other works go hang. Seeing them as a well-planned set is an anachronism. I'm not at home so I can't check the email again right now, but I'm pretty sure that Barry Cooper gave me op.31 as an example of a set of works that were not originally published with the numbering we now treat as an immutable, fixed quantity.

In fact I'm not sure there's any evidence at all of Beethoven numbering his works or caring about the topic. At that time it was very much the domain of publishers, not composers. The very reason that Dvorak got upset with his publisher is that by Dvorak's time, many composers did use opus numbers for their own purposes. Dvorak's manuscripts have very clear opus numbers on them. I'm not aware of a Beethoven manuscript that does the same. It's also very clear that many sequences in Beethoven's numbering exist because he sold a number of works to a particular publisher as a job lot, and that this drives the numbering rather than any kind of compositional sequence. Cooper's biography has quite a few examples of this.

[Madiel]

It's hard to think of any really accurate opus number sequences actually.

Holmboe seems to have done alright. Samuel Barber. Rachmaninov. Faure's quite reliable once you get past opus 10. Everything up to 10 was a backwards allocation when the Cantique de Jean Racine was published as op.11. Opuses 1 to 8 actually scramble Faure's early songs quite badly. There is no opus 9, and opus 10 was used for the duets.

[kishnevi]

To the extent it is confusing, it is because people are purposely making it confusing.  The word is not really misused, either.  When the phrase "complete sonatas" is used, it means the 32 piano sonatas with opus numbers.  Excuse me, the 32 solo piano sonatas, lest someone try to argue about Op 6.

Lortie included Op. 6 in his set.
I do not have that many sets, ten or twelve I think,  and of them I think only Buchbinder included the Electoral sonatas.  Has anyone else included them in a complete cycle?

[Brian]

Lortie included Op. 6 in his set.
I do not have that many sets, ten or twelve I think,  and of them I think only Buchbinder included the Electoral sonatas.  Has anyone else included them in a complete cycle?

Ronald Brautigam, Jeno Jando, Peter Takacs, Gerard Willems

[Sammy]

I'll try to wrap this up from my end.  When EMI splashed a "Complete Piano Sonatas" on the front cover of the set, they knew very well that most potential buyers would assume a set of 32 specific solo piano sonatas.  I have no problem with offering less than the 32; my problem is with EMI's deceptive packaging and disrespect for its customers.