The Naming / Numbering Problem

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

A brief exchange on the Martinu thread (how many Nonets?) made me think of this issue.

When starting to explore classical music, I was a bit confused and intimidated by the various methods of cataloguing pieces of music. I know that I am not alone in this, as I have met other people who have experienced headaches over numbering issues.

Here's a stark example. There are at least 4 (count 'em!) ways of cataloguing Scarlatti sonatas. A Scarlatti catalogue converter has even been devised to handle this:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/music/marinkyo/scarlatti/referenco.html.en

To further confuse things, musicological research sometimes discovers a "correct" order in which works should be numbered. I've seen references to the final Schubert symphony (#9, the "Great C Major") as being really #8 (which makes the "Unfinished" #7 I guess), with this "corrected" order sometimes used on recordings or concert programs. Some works of Mozart have sprouted alternate or augmented K numbers (K. **/** or K. **a, for instance). Is this sort of thing really helpful?

Dvorak notoriously suffers from this. His symphonies were re-numbered, but I suppose we're used to that now (although it may create problems for folks who collect old LPs). However, his extremely famous Cello Concerto is apparently now "Cello Concerto No. 2," because he wrote a much earlier one, which he didn't even bother to orchestrate. If it's not orchestrated, is it really a concerto?

This BTW is why I think it's a good thing that modern composers like to hang titles on their works, rather than just calling them "[composition] No. [number]." A title, if properly done, gives some clue to the character of the work. And it can't be re-numbered by some meddling musicologist.

[EigenUser]

Bartok is somewhat of a problem, though most people who number them have settled on the Sz. numbering system (by Andras Szollosky) which also include Bartok's musicological writings (there are many since he studied folk music). His earlier works have opus numbers (e.g. "Suite Op. 14" for piano) and all of his works (I think) have BB numbers.

Also, Bartok only wrote one violin concerto as far as he was concerned. He never published the (what we call) first concerto in his lifetime, rather choosing to make the first movement the first of his "Two Portraits". His "Violin Concerto" is what we refer to as his 2nd violin concerto.

[North Star]

This BTW is why I think it's a good thing that modern composers like to hang titles on their works, rather than just calling them "[composition] No. [number]." A title, if properly done, gives some clue to the character of the work. And it can't be re-numbered by some meddling musicologist.

Hear hear! Just think what would happen if all the Beethoven piano sonatas (and his & Haydn's symphonies & string quartets) had cool nicknames. 
Of course, titles which are words with actual meanings have their problems too - witness the 'Moonlight' sonata, with a completely inappropriate nickname messing up performers' and listeners' interpretations of the music.

[Brian]

We can ask Karl this, but although some modern composers might try to use titles to indicate the musical contents, others might rebel against this - since music is abstract and titles are concrete. I remember going to conservatory with a composer who wrote pieces with names like "Blue Fire Hydrant" because she contended that the titles don't matter.

By the way, I am one of the Schubert "Symphony No. 8" people, partly because I am younger and was raised on the Harnoncourt cycle that uses the new numbering, and partly because if, in the old numbering system, a spot was reserved for a fragmentary symphony, that doesn't seem too different from the Dvorak Cello Concerto No. 2 or Martinu Nonet No. 1 situations. I don't number the Dvorak or Martinu works, so I won't number the Schubert non-symphony that pads his cycle to "nine".

One more thing. I'm bad at remembering opus numbers, K numbers, Wq numbers, BWV numbers... so I dislike the 1700s phenomenon of composers who churned out 25 symphonies and nobody's ever numbered them. When I see "Symphony in E flat, Wq 187," I can never remember if I've heard the piece before or not. Not necessarily the composers' faults! Just a pet peeve.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Hear hear! Just think what would happen if all the Beethoven piano sonatas (and his & Haydn's symphonies & string quartets) had cool nicknames. 

Haydn's quartets are also a mess in this way. Not that they're mis-numbered, but that they have so many numbers: an Opus, a Hoboken number, and just a plain old sequential number. This is why nicknames (cool or not) are needed.

By the way, I am one of the Schubert "Symphony No. 8" people, partly because I am younger and was raised on the Harnoncourt cycle that uses the new numbering, and partly because if, in the old numbering system, a spot was reserved for a fragmentary symphony, that doesn't seem too different from the Dvorak Cello Concerto No. 2 or Martinu Nonet No. 1 situations. I don't number the Dvorak or Martinu works, so I won't number the Schubert non-symphony that pads his cycle to "nine".

You are being logical, while I was defending an illogical (or inaccurate) system on the basis of convenience and custom. I would keep the Schubert non-symphony just because it prevents confusion and has a long tradition. (I would also keep Mozart's "Symphony No. 37" for the same reason.)

One more thing. I'm bad at remembering opus numbers, K numbers, Wq numbers, BWV numbers... so I dislike the 1700s phenomenon of composers who churned out 25 symphonies and nobody's ever numbered them. When I see "Symphony in E flat, Wq 187," I can never remember if I've heard the piece before or not. Not necessarily the composers' faults! Just a pet peeve.

Yeah, I hate this too. I wonder if anyone has a favorite CPE Bach symphony, and if so, can they name it?

Speaking of BWV, here's another peeve. How come huge multi-sectional works like The Art of Fugue and the Mass in B Minor are assigned a single BWV number, while every single prelude/fugue set in The Well-Tempered Clavier gets its own separate BWV number?

[amw]

By the way, I am one of the Schubert "Symphony No. 8" people, partly because I am younger and was raised on the Harnoncourt cycle that uses the new numbering, and partly because if, in the old numbering system, a spot was reserved for a fragmentary symphony, that doesn't seem too different from the Dvorak Cello Concerto No. 2 or Martinu Nonet No. 1 situations. I don't number the Dvorak or Martinu works, so I won't number the Schubert non-symphony that pads his cycle to "nine".

With Schubert it's easy—1 through 6, Unfinished, C Monster. If you need to refer to the unfinished 1821 E major symphony for some reason you can call it 7, 6 1/2 or just "the E major symphony" since there's no other one in that key. The three unfinished D major ones are harder to keep straight, you basically have to know the Deutsch numbers. But no one really cares about them anyway (apart from D936a and you can anyway just listen to Rendering)

I find Haydn harder to deal with—the piano trios go by Hoboken numbers, the string quartets by opus numbers, the symphonies by a running number (which is inaccurate)... we really need someone to throw out all of the old systems and start anew, but that's more or less how all of those competing numbering systems got started in the first place.

[Brian]

I find Haydn harder to deal with—the piano trios go by Hoboken numbers, the string quartets by opus numbers, the symphonies by a running number (which is inaccurate)... we really need someone to throw out all of the old systems and start anew, but that's more or less how all of those competing numbering systems got started in the first place.

We should reorganize all the major Haydn works by Gurn Blanston Number!

[bwv 1080]

Have not seen anyone in the last 40 years use anything but the Kirkpatrick # for Scarlatti

most of the names of classical period works are bad and actually detract from the work, particularly op 27 no 2

[Gurn Blanston]

I find Haydn harder to deal with—the piano trios go by Hoboken numbers, the string quartets by opus numbers, the symphonies by a running number (which is inaccurate)... we really need someone to throw out all of the old systems and start anew, but that's more or less how all of those competing numbering systems got started in the first place.

We should reorganize all the major Haydn works by Gurn Blanston Number!

To Velimir's OP, I say "yes, it is difficult and sometimes confusing".  And Haydn is indeed King of the Hill yet again; I think he has the most screwed up numbering I have dealt with to date. As I said many times, I would love to toss out Hoboken altogether, but it can hardly be done. Everything in the Haydn World revolves around those, even as people declaim on how inadequate they are.

It is my long-thought-out opinion that in order for numbering systems to make sense to you, you have to use them consistently, both in form and time. I pretty much always use numbers because how else will you know for sure what work I am talking about? In Haydn's case, he has over 1000 works, you can't name them all, and if you did, you would have to then remember the names. This was a lot easier post-Beethoven when the quantity of works produced was dramatically lower than in the Baroque or Classical eras.

There is even an outstanding numbering system for Beethoven (Biamonti), and Bia numbers are chronological. Which matters to me, as an historian (amateur or not). I don't know of anyone else who uses it, but my own Beethoven collection is all numbered with it. And Mozart. There is actually a very current Mozart catalog, (Das Neue Mozart Ausgabe (NMA)), and I haven't seen it used yet. Köchel 6 (K or KV6) dates from the late '50's early '60's, so lacks all the latest scholarship amenities, but people don't even use IT, they still refer to K1 numbers from the 1880's!   I always use K6 numbers, I haven't ever seen a list of NMA numbers. If I switched over, would I be the first, I wonder? 

Anyway, my point is IMO it is worth the effort to learn these things if you are going to seriously pursue music as a hobby. I don't mean totally in depth, but at least to have a better than passing acquaintance with them.

And as a practical matter, drop the Roman Numerals out of Hoboken numbers. XXVIII is just plain silly. Call it 28 and you can get to the point where it means 'Italian Opera' to you.

[Madiel]

Dvorak is a particularly egregious example because, from what I've seen from a few of his manuscripts, Dvorak himself was actually fairly conscientious about allocating opus numbers but his publisher decided to ignore some of them for the sake of making him look like a more established composer.

The Prague Quartet box set of Dvorak's string quartets has photographs of several of the manuscripts. Dvorak's own numbers make far more sense than the ones that went out into the world.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Another item of numbering dumbassery: Bruckner's Symphony No. 0, and its predecessor, No. 00. They could have at least called the latter Symphony No. -1!

[amw]

He could have borrowed some numbers from William Schuman whose symphonies start with No. 3.

About half of the sources I've seen also refer to Hindemith's earliest string quartet (Op. 2) as No. 0, since Hindemith numbered the next one (Op. 10) as No. 1. Then 2 (Op. 16), 3 (Op. 22), 4 (Op. 32)... String Quartet in E-flat (1943, no op.)... and String Quartet. (1945, no op.) Note that the non-opus-numbered String Quartet not listed as being in E-flat (the 1945 one) is, in fact, also in E-flat. Got it? Good.

[kishnevi]

He could have borrowed some numbers from William Schuman whose symphonies start with No. 3.

About half of the sources I've seen also refer to Hindemith's earliest string quartet (Op. 2) as No. 0, since Hindemith numbered the next one (Op. 10) as No. 1. Then 2 (Op. 16), 3 (Op. 22), 4 (Op. 32)... String Quartet in E-flat (1943, no op.)... and String Quartet. (1945, no op.) Note that the non-opus-numbered String Quartet not listed as being in E-flat (the 1945 one) is, in fact, also in E-flat. Got it? Good.

So the Second Quartet in E flat is not the Second Quartet.  2 does not equal 2.
Got it.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

He could have borrowed some numbers from William Schuman whose symphonies start with No. 3.

Yeah, good example. But as I understand it, those first two symphonies actually exist; we're just not supposed to play them.

Hindemith's [...] 3 (Op. 22), 4 (Op. 32)...

Oddly enough, I've seen Hindy's Op. 22 referred to sometimes as No. 3, and sometimes as No. 4. Or am I thinking of Op. 32? 

[amw]

Yeah, good example. But as I understand it, those first two symphonies actually exist; we're just not supposed to play them.

I'm not sure they exist any longer, though possibly there's a manuscript floating around somewhere.

Still, there's no really good solution for what to do when a composer withdraws their early works in a numbered series (as both Schuman and Bruckner did)—should we renumber the Bruckner symphonies as 1 through 11? I'm not sure that would be a very feasible solution at this point, and anyway the composer evidently didn't feel those two 'extra' symphonies deserved to stand with the rest...

Oddly enough, I've seen Hindy's Op. 22 referred to sometimes as No. 3, and sometimes as No. 4. Or am I thinking of Op. 32? 

You'd be thinking of Op. 22. Op. 32 is sometimes 4, and sometimes 5.

The Hindemith catalogue has switched over to the more straightforward numbering system of 1 (Op. 2), 2 (Op. 10), 3 (Op. 16), 4 (Op. 22), 5 (Op. 32), 6 (1943) and 7 (1945), but the scores have not been reprinted and nor have older recordings.

I have no idea why Hindemith stopped using opus numbers, incidentally.

Another numbering quandary: Bartók's opus numbers start over from 1, three times, before he finally gave up on them altogether. Most references now seem to use either BB or Sz or (most commonly) both.

[kishnevi]

I'm not sure they exist any longer, though possibly there's a manuscript floating around somewhere.

Still, there's no really good solution for what to do when a composer withdraws their early works in a numbered series (as both Schuman and Bruckner did)—should we renumber the Bruckner symphonies as 1 through 11? I'm not sure that would be a very feasible solution at this point, and anyway the composer evidently didn't feel those two 'extra' symphonies deserved to stand with the rest...


[/quote

Symphonies A and B?

[Pat B]

Still, there's no really good solution for what to do when a composer withdraws their early works in a numbered series (as both Schuman and Bruckner did)—should we renumber the Bruckner symphonies as 1 through 11? I'm not sure that would be a very feasible solution at this point, and anyway the composer evidently didn't feel those two 'extra' symphonies deserved to stand with the rest...

In Bruckner's case I don't think any "solution" is necessary. 0 and 00 work fine and reflect Bruckner's opinion of them. Plus, I think they are rather endearing.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

In Bruckner's case I don't think any "solution" is necessary. 0 and 00 work fine and reflect Bruckner's opinion of them. Plus, I think they are rather endearing.

Maybe, but they sound absurdist to me. "Symphony No. 0" is the sort of thing I'd expect from a musical joker like Satie. It doesn't fit earnest Anton's personality.

[PaulSC]

My favorite naming/numbering story, as told by the composer of the work in question, Ezra Sims (from the liner notes of New World NWCR784):

In the entry under my name in the last supplement to Baker's Biographical Dictionary, Nicolas Slonimsky created for me a non-existent work: "String Quartet No. 2 (1962)." My second string quartet was called 5 Sonate and was written in 1960. So, when it came time to write a piece for Boston Musica Viva, it seemed a pleasant idea to write one that would remove the error. After all, a name isn't necessarily a description, and just as the White Knight's song was "A-sitting On A Gate," but was called "Ways and Means," while its name was "The Aged Aged Man," but was called "Haddock's Eyes," just so could my piece be a quintet for winds and strings written in 1974, but be called "String Quartet No. 2 (1962)." The dedication is to Mr. Slonimsky, "that he (or rather Baker's) may be now less in error." I'm glad to say the idea amused him.

[PaulSC]

Meanwhile I don't have strong feelings about the different cataloguing systems. Gurn, as usual, speaks wisdom.