# Numbering works



## iljajj (Jul 5, 2015)

OK, I'm probably the only one that is interested in this, but here goes: what the <expletive> is up with the practice of numbering works in classical music?

First, let me say that to me there is one, and only one, use to numbering works of music - to indicate their relative status in a composer's oeuvre; i.e., Symphony No. 1 comes before Symphony No. 2 in a composer's development. This is useful, because it gives you an idea of that composer's creative "journey", and allows you to follow him/her, as it were. An added advantage is that for many people, myself included, it's easier to think of "Bruckner's First" than of the "C minor" (or F minor, but we'll come to that).

The problem is that getting a number has, through the years, obtained a status in itself. Sometimes, works are deemed "worthy" or "unworthy" of getting a number, which injects an element of randomness in an numbered list that makes it pretty much useless. At others, the whole process appears to be even more random; a good example is Tchaikovsky's Manfred Symphony (No. 5 chronologically), whose unnumbered (and therefore sometimes unnoticed) status is usually explained pointing to its programme, despite the fact that symphonies 1-3 at the very least contain programmatic elements and DO get a number.

Admittedly, numbering works can lead to problems when, for instance, a composer's oeuvre isn't fully known and has to be re-numbered after new works are discovered (or enter the mainstream); Dvorak and Schubert are good examples, with the latter having at least three different numbered lists of symphonies. A somewhat dubious solution is the one of tacking zeros onto earlier works in order not to upset an established nomenclature; <deity of choice> help us when we discover another early Bruckner symphony; I don't think the "triple zero" would stand a chance. Another issue is to determine what actually constitutes a symphony: in my private collection I have five numbered symphonies by Strauss: the D minor and F minor, and the three which clearly are example of the genre; neither of which he ever numbered himself. And I've seen Smetana's Ma Vlast advertised as a "Symphony", which rather stretches its definition.

Which brings me to my closing point: why not just number all symphonies (and other identifiable genres of works') consecutively and chronologically (insofar possible)? It should be merely a tool for identifying pieces, not one for critique. Representatives of classical music are in the awful habit of making things more complicated than they need to be to bring home the point that it is "special". And yes, it is, but that point should be made by allowing people to understand and listen, not by creating distance through artificial means and driving them away.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Meh, good luck getting everyone to start thinking of Mendelssohn's Symphonies nos.1-5 as "no.13, not-a-symphony, no.18, no.16 and no.15". (reference)

I'm an inveterate cataloguer and indexer but the practical difficulties of imposing order on hundreds of years of chaos are vast - and somewhat pointless anyway seeing as everyone other than the obsessive cataloguers seems to get by just fine.

Are there any actual instances of someone being driven away from classical music because things aren't numbered properly? I thought it was generally believed that the fact that there was numbering in the first place (rather than memorable names) was what put some people off.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Sorry it isn't simple. Johann Schmieder catalogued Bach's works -- the S. before every piece -- and did so in 1950. That was 200 years after Bach died making the order somewhat arbitrary. 

When Beethoven died 1827 some of his compositions were published and others not. People cataloged them later -- the reason some have opus numbers, some have "werne ohne opus" (without opus) and some otherwise. 

Some composers works are cataloged in the order created, others in the order they were published (the reason some composers' second symphonies were actually the first.) 

If you want to go back and put every composers' works in some kind of order and catalog them yourself, have at it.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Opus numbers indicate order of publication. The more recent the composer, the more likely this order will be used. For older composers, particularly those composing music for immediate use, works are catalogued chronologically, by genre, or in whatever way seems most convenient. There's nothing to get ones panties in a knot about, and no more rational system that could be applied to the diverse cases musicologists encounter.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I find the Koechel system for Mozart's works very useful.

It enables one to say roughly when a work appeared - just off the top of my head, K500 or so must have appeared near 1787, k620 in 1791, k1 around 1764 etc.

I find it useful and numbering of works is useful on the whole.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Well you can start your own numbering system, like H. C. Robbins Landon, but it can seriously drift way from previous systems, look at this list of piano sonatas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solo_piano_compositions_by_Joseph_Haydn#Piano_sonatas

Makes searching in spotify tough...


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Numbering for many composers is a mess and confusing. Sometimes caused by composers, sometimes by publishers. Beethoven's First Piano Concerto is really the second, the Second actually the first. Same with the two Chopin concertos. I remember going to a concert a few years ago with Dvorak's New World Symphony - no. 9. The person I was with was disappointed opening the booklet, because she said they're doing the symphony no. 5. Of course, for a long, long time that's how the New World was numbered. 4 became 8, 5 became 9. So then you look at Dvorak's manuscript and it say no. 8! That was publisher issue. In Bruckner's case, I'm glad someone went with 00 and 0, rather renumbering ala Dvorak. Tchaikovsky's Manfred is really more a set of four symphonic poems, and didn't even fit the composer's sometimes loose definition of a symphony. So no number. Then along comes the no. 7 - but it wasn't Manfred, just someone else's completion.

I can't imagine anyone actually being driven from classical because of numbering. Numbering is just a simple and necessary way to distinguish one work from another. Imagine if Haydn didn't have some system and you wanted the Symphony in D. How many are there in that key? Plus, cataloging and numbering a composer's work after their death has given musicologists an immortality of their own. Robert Offergeld created the RO system for Gottschalk. Otto Deutsch organized Schubert adding the D to his numbering.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> In Bruckner's case, I'm glad someone went with 00 and 0,...


I agree, but you still have the different versions to contend with. Should there be a 1.1, 1.2,... What do you do if a conductor messes with a symphony, I read recenty that Klemperer altered the ending of Mendelssohn 5 to fit in with Mendelssohn "last recommendations", so what do you call that? Mendelssohn-Klemperer 1 or Mendelssohn 5.1 or..., and here's amazon really muddying the waters 'cause they can't read gothic:

https://www.amazon.com/Mendelssohn-Klemperer-Conducting-Philharmonia-Orchestra/dp/B00KGINODQ

A Scotch 5th? Aagh!


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

The other posters have done a good job of explaining why the people naming and ordering the classical works have difficulty, even though they are trying to keep things in a sensible order.

The worst instance I can think of in this area is the composer who intentionally inflated the opus number to make it more attractive to the publisher than Op. 1.

I am happy if I can get a list of all of a composer's works with enough identifying information that I know with 90% certainty what I am listening to at all times.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Penderecki has written eight symphonies yet the last one to be completed was no. 6, a full twelve years after his eighth - this might bamboozle a few people in years to come when they look at the numbering.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

As an aside, it can sometimes be interesting to learn about the individuals who put together composer catalogs in cases where discovery and identification of pieces is difficult. For example, I've enjoyed doing some reading about Ludwig Ritter von Köchel, a pioneer in Mozart scholarship.

From Wikipedia:



> Born in the town of Stein, Lower Austria, he studied law in Vienna and graduated with a PhD in 1827. For fifteen years, he was tutor to the four sons of Archduke Charles of Austria. Köchel was rewarded with a knighthood[Note 2] and a generous financial settlement, permitting him to spend the rest of his life as a private scholar. Contemporary scientists were greatly impressed by his botanical researches in North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, the United Kingdom, the North Cape, and Russia. In addition to botany, he was interested in geology and mineralogy, but also loved music, and was a member of the Mozarteum Salzburg. He died of cancer at age 77 in Vienna.


Seems that deep down, the guy really liked organizing and classifying things.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

If it makes you feel better, I have 23 compositions currently published and the opus numbers are all in the correct order from Op 1 to Op 23.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Actually, the thing that drives me crazy is people who use numbers for Beethoven's piano sonatas and string quartets. I have no idea which one the Strting Quartet No. 13 is -- but say Opus 130 or the late B-flat quartet and I know instantly!


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

MarkW said:


> Actually, the thing that drives me crazy is people who use numbers for Beethoven's piano sonatas and string quartets. I have no idea which one the Strting Quartet No. 13 is -- but say Opus 130 or the late B-flat quartet and I know instantly!


I am the opposite on the Beethoven quartets and sonatas. I learned them as 1-16 and 1-32, so I have to look up the number anytime someone uses the opus number in a conversation. It's times like that that the names are helpful. When you say Beethoven's Appasionata sonata, classical listeners generally know which one you mean.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Mal said:


> I agree, but you still have the different versions to contend with. Should there be a 1.1, 1.2,... What do you do if a conductor messes with a symphony, I read recenty that Klemperer altered the ending of Mendelssohn 5 to fit in with Mendelssohn "last recommendations", so what do you call that? Mendelssohn-Klemperer 1 or Mendelssohn 5.1 or..., and here's amazon really muddying the waters 'cause they can't read gothic:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Mendelssohn-Klemperer-Conducting-Philharmonia-Orchestra/dp/B00KGINODQ
> 
> A Scotch 5th? Aagh!


I've made jokes in the past that some records should have been issued with a warning label: This version is NOT what the composer wrote. There are so many retouchings by conductors that deface and ruin music. Tchaikovsky Manfred, Rachmaninoff 2nd, Rimsky-Korsakov Scheherazade. With Stokowski you knew there was going to be some rewriting. I didn't know that Klemperer did it with Mendelssohn, but neither conductor nor composer are among my favorites.

With Bruckner you have different versions, and these different versions in different editions. There are something like 27 version/editions out there. Quite a mess.


----------



## Beet131 (Mar 24, 2018)

For a while there, I was wishing that every piece in the known universe had an opus number - pretty OCD I'm afraid. But now, decades later, I've gotten used to different methods of numbering - Bartok, Liszt, Mozart and Haydn as just a few examples - and it no longer bothers me. I so agree with others here: Thank God for some kind of numbering!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Of course when I saw a CD with Mozart sy 42,43,44

I did get quite excited thinking that there were sy after the jupiter.


----------



## iljajj (Jul 5, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> Tchaikovsky's Manfred is really more a set of four symphonic poems, and didn't even fit the composer's sometimes loose definition of a symphony. So no number. Then along comes the no. 7 - but it wasn't Manfred, just someone else's completion.


And Tchaikovsky's composition of "No. 7" predates No. 6, to further complicate matters. The argument about Manfred can be levied at the 1st and 3rd symphonies, too, and Tchaikovsky's own definition of what constitutes a symphony was, as you say, also unclear and very inconsistent. If memory serves, he even considered renaming one of the suites as a symphony at some point. But in the end, what Tchaikovsky thought isn't all that relevant, I think, for determining present practices.



mbhaub said:


> I can't imagine anyone actually being driven from classical because of numbering. Numbering is just a simple and necessary way to distinguish one work from another.


I don't think it's that straightforward - but I do think it is one among many parts that help in making classical less understandable to newcomers. The point I'm making is that it is a "simple and necessary way" to distinguish in _principle_, but we make it much more complicated than it needs to be.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Something else to think about: when I was studying copyright law, one of the most interesting topics was that of copyright of titles. The courts decided that titles cannot be copyrighted - and it was because of music. If you could get a copyright on the title "Symphony no. 1" then no one else could use it, or would have to pay a fee to do so. Think of all the works with that title and how messy things could have been. It gets confusing in movies and such, like "The Walking Dead". Now a TV show but first a B/W horror thriller.


----------

