Forum standards for naming pieces?

[Karl Henning]

Note that not all browsers will display all images or downloads, and titles in images will not be seen by search engines, so a token text mention will be appreciated.

Hear, hear!

[Jo498]

Probably with Shosty vs. Beethoven string quartets it is also a factor, that Beethoven's opus numbers have been around for a long time, because it is easier to remember numbers between 1-16 than two or three digit numbers all over the place.

this is inverted by stuff like Haydn quartets, because it seems harder to remember 70 running numbers than an opus number and a key (or #1-6).

Most of it is custom and habit, though, I guess. I know hardly any Mendelssohn or Schumann opus numbers; for instance I have no idea what opus number the Italian and the "Spring" symphony are.

[Sergeant Rock]

I have no idea what they do on the Havergal Brian thread, though.

Only 15 works (all composed between 1902 and 1909) were given opus numbers out of 250+  Of the five English Suites, only the First was given an opus number (which I've never seen anyone use). None of the 32 symphonies have opus numbers. They are known by chronological number (although I usually include key and date of composition when I mention a symphony in the listening thread). A handful have names ("Gothic" being the best known; it's usually referred to by name rather than Symphony No.1 in D minor). He seems not to have composed any quartets or sonatas (very little chamber music actually).

Sarge

[DaveF]

I will sound like such an amateur (well, I am), but I'd love if the composers or at least their editors would have given every piece a name in the spirit of "Pathétique", "Appassionata" or "Les Adieux". With a date and year added. Things would have been so much easier for beginners.

So with no further delay I think we should start giving names to all those pieces whose composers, editors or miscellaneous admirers have neglected to do so: Beethoven symphonies to begin with - no.2 should be "The Horse" after the beginning of the finale, which clearly illustrates an inexperienced rider trying to control a skittish beast; no.5 is obviously "The Tax-Collector" (knocking on the door); no.7 "The Hiccups", since the rhythm of the 1st movement suggests a bad attack.  Well, Haydn has to suffer it, so why not Beethoven?

[amw]

Good idea!

Beethoven's 8th can be the "Metronome" because the Allegretto scherzando is supposed to be a parody of Mälzel, and Mahler's 3rd can be the "Humongous" because Great, Big, Huge and Massive are all taken.

And Brahms's first three symphonies can be Sinfonie sérieuse, Sinfonie capriccieuse and Sinfonie singulière.

[Gurn Blanston]

Interesting to see this brought up.  As someone who is relatively new to classical music, I sometimes find it (slightly) frustrating  that people switch back and forth between numbering systems when discussing works.  I personally wish people would stick to "Beethoven Piano Sonata #15, second movement," because someone who hasn't memorized the Opus numbers of every composer's oeuvre can at least have a sense of what type of work it is and how early or late it might be within that particular set of works, whereas something like "Beethoven's Op. 28," unless its identity is apparent in the context, will necessitate having to leave the thread to look it up.  It feels like a bit of an insider's game--then again, I suppose it is possible that the posters who only refer to opus numbers do not know the more common titles and would have to look them up as well.

That said, I realize this falls quite squarely into the category of "First World Problems," and isn't something that bothers me a great deal or anything--just something I probably don't fully understand. (I do know that some numbering systems are out of order or the subject of controversy for some reason or other, but I gather that can also be true of Opus numbers as well).

I understand your frustration with that, but the sonatas are a nice example of how it seems to be that people maybe learned them in different ways and that's what they continue to use. For those, I learned the opus numbers, and when someone says 'Sonata #X', I always have to go look it up because I haven't the vaguest idea which is which, except for #1 and #32.

Sticking with the Beethoven example though, I learned the symphonies as #1 thru #9, and it is only because there are only 9 of them that I know the opus numbers too.

But the string quartets I learned by Opus number, and would have to do some quick mental work to come up with #10 = Op 74 or 'The Harp Quartet'.

I do believe that over time it is worth your while to learn these arcane systems, unless your only interest is listening to music. For one thing, even basic collecting is going to require more than passing knowledge of them. Other than Mozart, they are all pretty easy, just large. Mozart is a specialty in itself. Fun to learn though, or maybe that's just me...

[Gurn Blanston]

Not that it matters worth a damn, but I hate named works.... 

[Daverz]

I think you only need to type enough that most classical listeners will understand, but not so much to make it a pain to type the name.

I'd only suggest not to get cute with naming, but it really depends on the works in question.  Genre and opus numbers alone are probably fine for large chamber music ouvres of Beethoven, Dvorak, or
Haydn, e.g. Beethoven String Quartet Op. 127, but I think few people remember symphonies that way.  Certainly few people remember Shostakovich symphonies that way.  Speaking for myself, I can't always readily match Koechel numbers up with Mozart piano concertos by ordinal number -- I know K466 is No. 20, but that's about it -- but you need K numbers to disambiguate a lot of Mozart works like divertimentos and serenades.

[Sergeant Rock]

Not that it matters worth a damn, but I hate named works.... 

What? Even the "Cat"



Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

I know K466 is No. 20, but that's about it --

K.466 and 467 are the easy ones.

Sarge

[Gurn Blanston]

What? Even the "Cat"



Sarge

The exception that proves the rule.

[NorthNYMark]

I understand your frustration with that, but the sonatas are a nice example of how it seems to be that people maybe learned them in different ways and that's what they continue to use. For those, I learned the opus numbers, and when someone says 'Sonata #X', I always have to go look it up because I haven't the vaguest idea which is which, except for #1 and #32.

Sticking with the Beethoven example though, I learned the symphonies as #1 thru #9, and it is only because there are only 9 of them that I know the opus numbers too.

But the string quartets I learned by Opus number, and would have to do some quick mental work to come up with #10 = Op 74 or 'The Harp Quartet'.

I do believe that over time it is worth your while to learn these arcane systems, unless your only interest is listening to music. For one thing, even basic collecting is going to require more than passing knowledge of them. Other than Mozart, they are all pretty easy, just large. Mozart is a specialty in itself. Fun to learn though, or maybe that's just me...

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Gurn.  What you say here confirms what I suspected--those who refer to works by Opus numbers rather than work numbers are probably not trying to be pretentious or arcane, but just referring to the works as they know them best.   I do wonder, though, why certain cycles are more likely to be referred to that way than others--it seems, for example, that symphonies and concertos are more likely to be referred to by work number, while chamber works seem more likely to be referred to by Opus number.  I wonder how it is that people would have learned the Opus numbers first--does it have something to do with attending music conservatories? It seems that they would be the more difficult numbering to remember, as the numbers tend to jump around a lot if the composer worked in different genres, and therefore seem more random. 

In the spirit of your last paragraph, though, I have been learning the opus numbering of the late Beethoven quartets, though, which seems at least a bit easier than with the sonatas in that  they are at least reasonably close to consecutive (aside from the jump from 127 to 130), and don't have two or more works occupying a single Opus number. I still have to translate in my head from the work number, though, which just makes more sense to my brain's patterns of ordering things.  I can now at least recognize what someone means by "Op. 132"--there may be hope for me yet! 

[amw]

In the spirit of your last paragraph, though, I have been learning the opus numbering of the late Beethoven quartets, though, which seems at least a bit easier than with the sonatas in that  they are at least reasonably close to consecutive (aside from the jump from 127 to 130), and don't have two or more works occupying a single Opus number. I still have to translate in my head from the work number, though, which just makes more sense to my brain's patterns of ordering things.  I can now at least recognize what someone means by "Op. 132"--there may be hope for me yet! 

The problem of numbering in the late quartets—

No. 12 in E-flat = Op. 127 = the twelfth in order of composition
No. 13 in B-flat = Op. 130/133 = the fourteenth in order of composition
No. 14 in c-sharp = Op. 131 = the fifteenth in order of composition
No. 15 in a = Op. 132 = the thirteenth in order of composition
No. 16 in F = Op. 135 = the sixteenth in order of composition
Substitute finale to Op. 130 = the seventeenth in order of composition [also Beethoven's final completed work]

Originally Opera 127, 132 and 130/133 were intended to share a single opus number, sort of like Opus 59. But Beethoven kept fiddling with them, adding/removing movements, etc, and they were also a lot longer and more difficult than any previous works of chamber music.

It's easy to remember Opus 131 though, it's the only quartet anyone cares about in the key of c-sharp minor. Just say "the c-sharp minor quartet"... you don't even have to say whose. There's only one.

>.>

[Jo498]

There is another c sharp minor quartet by Pfitzner!
But usually context is sufficient to realize one is talking about late Beethoven. I think (late) Beethoven is a somewhat special case, because this music is deemed so extraordinary that the mere opus numbers are supposed to evoke an elated and mysterious feeling. Brahms supposedly wanted to end his numbered works with the 2nd string quintet as op.111.

[amw]

There is another c sharp minor quartet by Pfitzner!

My point exactly!

And yes there's definitely an element of that, calling it "Opus 131" or "the c-sharp minor quartet" without specifying a composer does make you sound very cultivated and sophisticated, and makes the music sound so much more important than a genteel diversion for the privileged.

[mc ukrneal]

My point exactly!

And yes there's definitely an element of that, calling it "Opus 131" or "the c-sharp minor quartet" without specifying a composer does make you sound very cultivated and sophisticated, and makes the music sound so much more important than a genteel diversion for the privileged.

I really don't think so. Most who do it simply live it a world where people they deal with know what they are talking about. I think you are adding an interpretation to things that is simpy not there.

[Jo498]

Many times it is just a habit. (I would usually avoid some nicknames (I find silly, like "moonlight") on purpose and rather write Beethoven's op.27/2)
But in "mixed society" it can and will easily be used as a distinction marker, although nowadays familiarity with classical music seems more a marker of nerdiness than of class

[EigenUser]

Call me a newbie, or sentimental, or whatever, but I like named works. I definitely prefer that they be named by the composer as opposed to later by the editor/publisher. I mean, I don't prefer named works over unnamed works (that would be silly because it speaks nothing of the quality of the music), but it is nice to be able to listen to a Haydn symphony and pick out a meow, or to listen to La Mer and hear the wind and sea battling.

[Jo498]

I have no quibble with Sinfonia Eroica and Pastorale, because these names were given by the composer. But "Moonlight" is misleading nonsense, IMO.

With Haydn symphonies, it depends. Some are silly, some are o.k. Of course with so many works it helps remembering (but unfortunately also can lead to overlooking unnamed ones).

[Karl Henning]

Meanwhile, over at CMG, someone just created a thread, Let's Nickname Pieces That Have No Nicknames!!!

Coincidence?