Haydn's Haus

[Biffo]

I can only assume you have zero interest in following Bach's cantatas through a liturgical year. If you did want to do that, you would need something else.

Not done it myself, but I'm given to understand quite a lot of people like doing that. Not least because of the evidence that Bach himself cared about it.

Your assumption is incorrect. I have Richter's recordings - 5 vols covering (almost) a complete liturgical year and I have listened to them all, in order, twice. I have also dipped into the set for individual cantatas numerous times. I have various other cantata recordings - Gardiner, Herreweghe and others. The BWV numbers are handy for finding information about specific works or ordering online.

Bach wrote two cycles of cantatas in Leipzig plus others earlier in Weimar and a few more in Leipzig several years after the two cycles. Giving them a unique number or identifier based on their place in the liturgical year would be tricky or possibly not very helpful.

The cantatas are an important part of Bach's output but by no means all of it, to say the least. A numbering system for the complete works is very useful indeed.

[Madiel]

Your assumption is incorrect.

Then your statement was incorrect. The BWV system will not enable you to follow one of Bach's cycles. It is not all you need. You need someone, whether you or someone else, to have figured out how to convert the jumbled sequence into a liturgical one.

[Biffo]

Then your statement was incorrect. The BWV system will not enable you to follow one of Bach's cycles. It is not all you need. You need someone, whether you or someone else, to have figured out how to convert the jumbled sequence into a liturgical one.

I never said it did.

Richter and Gardiner are organised according to the liturgical year. The Harnoncourt and Leonhardt recordings are organised by BWV number. No idea how other cycles are ordered.

[Madiel]

You said it was all you need. You've just disproved that. There is an obvious deficiency in the BWV ordering of the cantatas. I can't help it if you cannot follow the logic of your own statements. Go back and read. Good night.

[Biffo]

You said it was all you need. You've just disproved that. There is an obvious deficiency in the BWV ordering of the cantatas. I can't help it if you cannot follow the logic of your own statements. Go back and read. Good night.

No I didn't, you go back and read.

[Madiel]

 

[SurprisedByBeauty]

What's this discussion really about?

A numbering system -- any numbering system -- serves its purpose in that it identifies a work. It may do _more_ than that (i.e. suggest chronology), but, as we see, not necessarily.

With that identification, we can then go and look up the information we need. That's what indices are for. There's no numbering system that could easily or satisfyingly catalog the Bach cantatas, for example, indicate chronology and liturgical order. Much less be in keeping with the cataloging of the rest of Bach's work.

Let's say we kept the system of BWV numbers, roughly, blocking off 1-224 for Cantatas. In liturgical order and within any given Sunday in chronological order: Would we then assign No.1 to Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland (BWV 61), No.2 to Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland (BWV 62), No.3 to Schwingt freudig euch empor (BWV 36), No.4 to Wachet! betet! betet! wachet! (BWV 70a), No.4a to Ärgre dich, o Seele, nicht, BWV (186a), No.5 to Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn (BWV 132)?

I'm only five (six) pieces in, and already the system doesn't actually tell me anything about the liturgical year (except that I'm probably still stuck somewhere before Christmas), because I couldn't possibly know what Sunday I'm on, what with more than one (and sometimes none) cantatas composed for any given Sunday. Never mind 50 BWV numbers into that list. I'd have to look it up, just as much.

Should we number the cycles -- to the extent they are pure cycles - I/1 through I/27, then II/1-II/27 (Advent 1 through Trinity 27; except the cycles don't have 27 cantatas)? And the cantatas outside a complete cycle... get what assignment? Whichever way we turn, a numbering system alone can't solve our problems. It could reasonably give us minimally more information (chronology, presumably, would make the most sense, although that, of course, is difficult, too, when the dates on some works aren't clear)... but it can't replace having to know or read up about works, if we want to look for a specific one or know more about its whereabouts. (Oh, an of course the numbers do also tell us the category of work in Bach, which isn't actually that small an achievement. What's op.75 in Beethoven, say? [Without looking it up.]

[Madiel]

Oh look, it's not difficult. A system that merely provides an identifying number provides you with less information than a system provides you with an identifying number and a sequence of numbers that corresponds to something useful.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. You are all SURROUNDED by meaningful sequences all of the time. I could provide you with a list of chemical elements in alphabetical order, or I could provide you with a list of chemical elements in order of atomic number, or I could provide you with a list of chemical elements that is completely random with no attempt to convey anything other than that the list is complete. I could provide you with a list of Pixar films in the order that they were made, or in alphabetical order, or in order of Metacritic score, or arranged by how popular they were... or I could just spit them at you in completely random order.

Every time that someone claims the sole purpose of a music cataloguing system is to provide a unique ID number, I honestly wonder whether that person has paid the SLIGHTEST attention to all the attempts that those 'obsessive' musicologists have made to actually provide you with a system that is more useful than that, or to the form of practically any list presented anywhere. The world is full of ORGANISED lists because they're more useful than disorganised ones.

The Hoboken list attempts to present things in order within each category of composition. To deny this would be ludicrous. The order corresponds to chronology far more than it would by random chance. The Hoboken lists are sometimes not in order.  Neither of these statements should be controversial, and yet some of you are fighting tooth and nail to argue that the sole purpose of all the hard work that musicologists do is to provide you with a goddamn ID number so that you don't have to bother having names for pieces.

As for BWV, the order of the cantatas reflects the order that they were published in the 19th century. Are we seriously arguing that is the most useful order to choose? Seriously? Or are people going to insist on arguing that so long as the numbers are unique, the order of those numbers couldn't possibly provide useful information, flying in the face of almost every list you encounter throughout your life?

Am I dealing with a bunch of people who have, never ever had to present information to anyone else and thus have never had to think about how to organise the information? Or do you all just give really horrible disorganised presentations and someone else has to clean up afterwards?

[aukhawk]

I'm only five (six) pieces in, and already the system doesn't actually tell me anything about the liturgical year (except that I'm probably still stuck somewhere before Christmas), because I couldn't possibly know what Sunday I'm on, what with more than one (and sometimes none) cantatas composed for any given Sunday. Never mind 50 BWV numbers into that list. I'd have to look it up, just as much.

And the liturgical year was complicated (not least for Bach himself, who had to grapple with this as a matter of practicality) by the movement of the Easter date by several weeks to and fro.  Easter in turn determines several other significant dates - Ash Wednesday, Lent, Ascencion Day etc.  Cantatas had to be added or excised from the cycle to pad around this time.

[Madiel]

If people have a problem with trying to present information in an organised way and think it's unnecessary and obsessive, what the devil do you think of all the years that Gurn has spent doing just that?

[aukhawk]

If only his blog had a consistent page-numbering system   

[Jo498]

I was basically only advocating what has been done in the last ca. 100 years in many cases. Hoboken in the 1930s/40s *knew* that Mandyczewkis numbering of the symphonies was faulty but apparently it had been already back then sufficiently established that Hoboken did not change it. Maybe it would have been early enough to do so and establish a better numbering. But this like many other cases shows that very often the smart thing to do is *to stick with an imperfect but established numbering and put the corrections in the footnotes and appendices.* This is also the common practice with Koechel and Deutschverzeichnis. Usually he old numbers are kept and new ones at best added in parentheses because the confusion would be great otherwise. The Schubert great C major is a borderline case. The Deutschnumber is confusing because the piece was probably already written 1825, no 1828 but it remains. The number within the symphonies has been changed twice (7 to 9, now 9 to but many people still use #9 despite their being no #7 (there is the  E major fragment there were the rumors of a lost "Gasteiner" symphony and there was a fake but it seems that the Gasteiner never existed or was in fact identical with the Great C major. The confusion is not such a problem because there are only two symphonies in C major and only two symphonies changed numbers, so it is not like it would be with Haydn (or is with Scarlatti L vs. K numbers)

I have used my Haydn book with the Werkzeichnis almost to death (i.e. there are many loose pages) because I so often looked up piano sonatas, trios, divertimenti etc. with their different numbering systems (about two common ones, Hob. and another one). I would be very annoyed if people now adopted Huss for the symphonies and we had to deal with two numberings there as well. I don't know enough about CPE Bach, Vivaldi, Scarlatti but in the last two cases I also spent quite a bit of time looking up concordances and the like. Or Händel's keyboard music with old numberings from Chrysander's "Händel-Gesellschaft", then the "Hallesche Händel-Ausgabe" and finally the systematic HWV. It is often unavoidable but it is a major pain in the ass. Additionally, when scholarship proceeds, numberings etc. are bound to be revised again. In no way am I discouraging such scholarship. But put this in research papers, Kritische Berichte, appendices, footnotes etc. Do not change numbers that have been practical for 100 years or so.

[Madiel]

So do you use opus numbers for Dvorak? How do you number his symphonies?

Basically the impression I'm getting is that you're fine with revisions so long as they happened before your lifetime.

[DaveF]

And although it's not relevant to this thread, who on earth thought BWV numbers were a good idea?

Who on earth even thought that mentioning them was a good idea?   Seriously, should we start an "Opus numbers and Catalogue numbers" thread, assuming one doesn't exist?  For discussion of such matters as Sibelius' habit of promoting works that he was pleased with and demoting those he wasn't, or Britten's careful chronological numbering as opposed to Nielsen's haphazard mess, Berlioz's 2 Opus 1s...

[Madiel]

I confess this is one time when I would consider moving material from where it was originally posted to be a quite reasonable idea. Though I doubt there's much more to say.

[Florestan]

very often the smart thing to do is *to stick with an imperfect but established numbering and put the corrections in the footnotes and appendices.*

...

when scholarship proceeds, numberings etc. are bound to be revised again. In no way am I discouraging such scholarship. But put this in research papers, Kritische Berichte, appendices, footnotes etc. Do not change numbers that have been practical for 100 years or so.

This.

[Florestan]

(Oh, an of course the numbers do also tell us the category of work in Bach, which isn't actually that small an achievement. What's op.75 in Beethoven, say? [Without looking it up.]

In this respect, the Hoboken catalogue is actually the most rational and helpful of them all. Beside, the chronological misfires are few and far between and anyone genuinely interested in the correct chronology can have it at a click's distance. AfaIc, the whole kerfuffle is moot.

[Gurn Blanston]

If only his blog had a consistent page-numbering system   

Well, since you can't look at any 2 pages at the same time, you would be hard-pressed to get confused by it.

I was basically only advocating what has been done in the last ca. 100 years in many cases. Hoboken in the 1930s/40s *knew* that Mandyczewkis numbering of the symphonies was faulty but apparently it had been already back then sufficiently established that Hoboken did not change it. Maybe it would have been early enough to do so and establish a better numbering.

I have used my Haydn book with the Werkzeichnis almost to death (i.e. there are many loose pages) because I so often looked up piano sonatas, trios, divertimenti etc. with their different numbering systems (about two common ones, Hob. and another one). I would be very annoyed if people now adopted Huss for the symphonies and we had to deal with two numberings there as well.

Apparently I am out of the loop on the latest news, but I haven't heard of a numbering system proposed by Manfred (I presume) Huss. By far the best available is that compiled by Sonja Gerlach. That is the system used in the Haydn107 website, and which I used in my blog, calling it the 'New Chronology' because when I originally used it, I didn't know who wrote it. If I had a thousand extra dollars and could read German, I would certainly invest in her books, since she gives the complete rationale and evidence for each placement.

But that's not the point. I understand what you are saying, people are going to use the easiest thing for them, even if they know it is wronger than hell. Which is why I put all the Gerlach and Landon numbers in my blog, but during the discussions of the works I used the Hob. numbers, just to make it easier on the reader, even though the concept repelled me. You mentioned that your chronology book is nearly worn out: that shouldn't be necessary. If the works were numbered correctly you wouldn't have to be looking them up all the time. The arguments you make are exactly those which will perpetuate the use of things like Köchel 1. Or cause work of scholarship such as the Biamonti Catalog of Beethoven's Works to disappear. Which is a pity, since it is very near accurate and could be easily updated to full accuracy (for current state of knowledge).

What I see in looking at all these catalogs in general (which I do, it's kind of like my thing) is that once the first edition is complete, everyone wants to believe the work is done and should be chiseled into stone. Which couldn't be more wrong. Actually, a foundation has been built upon which one can base some actual creative thoughts upon the music of that composer. Once accurate chronology has been established, you can see how the music developed upon itself. For example, you can see that Hob 13, 31 & 72 actually all go together because Haydn had 4 horns to play with in that period from 1763 to 1765. How would you know that from the Hoboken numbers??

I confess this is one time when I would consider moving material from where it was originally posted to be a quite reasonable idea. Though I doubt there's much more to say.

I will prevail upon Que to cut this series of interesting posts out from this thread and join them on to an old thread we have on that topic. He is far better at that sort of thing than I am. I certainly do think it is a topic worth discussing, although it IS Haydn's Haus, and I don't wish to piss him off...

[Gurn Blanston]

In this respect, the Hoboken catalogue is actually the most rational and helpful of them all. Beside, the chronological misfires are few and far between and anyone genuinely interested in the correct chronology can have it at a click's distance. AfaIc, the whole kerfuffle is moot.

Obviously I disagree with you, probably because I am intimately familiar with the multitude of fuckups in the Hoboken Catalog and you probably aren't. I'm not criticizing you here, just saying what I believe to be true. Every page of Hoboken can be read out and accepted, except for this, that and the other thing. I know, we will all just remember all those exceptions, then it will be perfect.    I can't buy that, Andrei...

[Florestan]

By far the best available is that compiled by Sonja Gerlach. That is the system used in the Haydn107 website

The link is dead.