# Capitalization?



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

I am all over the place when writing on this forum. I tend to capitalize the title of a particular work e.g. Beethoven's 5th Symphony, but tend to use lowercase when referring to symphonies generically, however I am far from consistent. I also tend to capitalize the "common" name of a work, e.g. Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony "Pathetique". 

So is it String Quartets or string quartets?

I probably should refer to a grammar book or manual of style, or just pay attention the next time I read an article in Gramophone! I am OK with either American or British usage.

What do you do with your usage of grammar, style and capitalization?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

When you name a specific work it's capitalized like Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 14, but lower-cased when you talk about his string quartets, unless again you mention his specific String Quartet Op. 131


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

******************************************


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Does it really matter?

Beethoven's String Quartet No.14
Beethoven's String Quartet no.14
Beethoven's String Quartet #14
Beethoven's String Quartet 14
Beethoven's string quartet no.14
Beethoven's string quartet #14
Beethoven's string quartet 14

Is any of these clearer than the others?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

They are all equally unclear, the correct one is op. 131


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Art Rock said:


> Does it really matter?
> 
> Beethoven's String Quartet No.14
> Beethoven's String Quartet no.14
> ...


A wholesome rebuke to pedants, and a reminder of what language is for.

Now shall we consider at our leisure the different shades of meaning embodied in these different presentations?

No?

All right (or alright) then.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

haziz said:


> What do you do with your usage of grammar, style and capitalization?


I don't give it much thought - I just write and trust that the intended meaning gets through.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Themainachievementforbetterlegibilitywashavingdifferentcaselettersandspacesinthefirstplace.andifyouthinkthisisbadlookupwhatboustrophedonmeans.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I just call it Beethoven's 14th string quartet.





I found that how much capitalization they put in the title varies; some recording/sheet music companies only capitalize the l in "litaniae", while some, not only do that, but also capitalize the s in "sacramento". Others not only do both, but also capitalize the v in "venerabili"


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Kreisler jr said:


> They are all equally unclear, the correct one is op. 131


If they're unclear, how do you *know* it's op. 131?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Kreisler jr said:


> They are all equally unclear, the correct one is op. 131


Right, because Beethoven wrote multiple string quartets #14.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

What I find funny is when people use redundant words to specify a work.

Beethoven Symphony #5 in C minor, Opus 67. Beethoven wrote only one symphony #5 and only one Opus 67 and also only one C minor symphony.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

I tend to capitalize every word in a title, except conjunctions, prepositions, and to a lesser extent, adverbs and pronouns. For example: Symphony in D. "In" being a preposition, I don't capitalize it.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Here's a partial listing from the "String Quartets" article at Wikipedia. Note how the various specific and general references to string quartets is handled. This works equally well for other musical genres.

Notable string quartets

Some of the most notable works for string quartet include:

Joseph Haydn's 68 string quartets, in particular Op. 20, Op. 33, Op. 76, Op. 64, No. 5 ("The Lark") and the string quartet version of "The Seven Last Words of Our Saviour On the Cross" (Op. 51)[11]
Luigi Boccherini's 91 string quartets[12]
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's 23 string quartets, in particular the set of six dedicated to Haydn, including K. 465 ("Dissonance")[11]
Ludwig van Beethoven's 16 string quartets, in particular the five "middle" quartets Op. 59 nos 1-3, op. 74 and op. 95 as well as the five late quartets,[13] Op. 127 in E flat major, op. 130 in B flat major, Op. 131 in C sharp minor (in seven movements), Op. 132 in A minor, Op. 135 in F major and the Grosse Fuge in B-flat major Op. 133, the original final movement of Op. 130.
Ferdinand Ries's 25 string quartets[14]
Franz Schubert's String Quartet No. 12 in C minor ("Quartettsatz"), String Quartet No. 13 in A minor ("Rosamunde"), String Quartet No. 14 in D minor ("Death and the Maiden"), and String Quartet No. 15 in G major[15]
Louis Spohr's 36 string quartets[14]
Felix Mendelssohn's String Quartet No. 2 (early example of cyclic form)[16]
Robert Schumann's three string quartets, Op. 41[17]
...
César Franck's String Quartet in D major[18]
Claude Debussy's String Quartet in G minor, Op. 10 (1893)[18]
Maurice Ravel's String Quartet, in F major (1903)[20]
Jean Sibelius's String Quartet in D minor, Op. 56, Voces intimae[21]
Leoš Janáček's two string quartets, String Quartet No. 1, "Kreutzer Sonata" (1923), inspired by Leo Tolstoy's novel The Kreutzer Sonata, itself named after Beethoven's Kreutzer Sonata; and his second string quartet, Intimate Letters (1928)[22]

Should you wish to simplify, default to German, where all nouns are capitalized, whether used generally or specifically:

Beethoven wrote sixteen string quartets including the Opus 59 Quartets Nos. 7, 8, and 9 titled "Dedicated To Count Razumovsky."

Beethoven schrieb sechzehn Streichquartette, darunter die Opus 59 Quartette Nr.7, 8 und 9 mit dem Titel „Dedicated To Count Razumovsky."


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> What I find funny is when people use redundant words to specify a work.
> 
> Beethoven Symphony #5 in C minor, Opus 67. Beethoven wrote only one symphony #5 and only one Opus 67 and also only one C minor symphony.


I don't see that is redundant, since people may be interested in any or all of those bits of information, and wouldn't necessarily know any one of them just from being told the others.

Granted, if you were to tell me only that it's Symphony #5, I could look up the rest myself. But lazy pig that I am, I'd appreciate you saving me the effort.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

amfortas said:


> I don't see that is redundant, since people may be interested in any or all of those bits of information, and wouldn't necessarily know any one of them just from being told the others.
> 
> Granted, if you were to tell me only that it's Symphony #5, I could look up the rest myself. But lazy pig that I am, I'd appreciate you saving me the effort.


It's redundant for identification purposes. Yes, it provides additional information.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> It's redundant for identification purposes. Yes, it provides additional information.


If one wishes to be understood it's much better to give the opus number (and key) of a Beethoven quartet or sonata than the number. In fact, it's better as a general rule since there are often discrepancies in the numbering of such works for other composers. However, catalogue number are better for composers like CPE Bach, Schubert, Scarlatti, and others.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> If one wishes to be understood it's much better to give the opus number (and key) of a Beethoven quartet or sonata than the number. In fact, it's better as a general rule since there are often discrepancies in the numbering of such works for other composers. However, catalogue number are better for composers like CPE Bach, Schubert, Scarlatti, and others.


Agreed. Use the piece of information that uniquely identifies the work. In the case of Beethoven symphonies numbering, there is universal agreement so when we say Beethoven's 5th symphony, we know exactly what that work is. In Schubert's case, the symphonies are not always numbered the same.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I am not so worried about capitalization. It punctuation that bothers me, especially the pesky comma. One little comma can make a horrifying difference:

*Let's eat, grandma!

Let's eat grandma! *


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> What I find funny is when people use redundant words to specify a work.
> Beethoven Symphony #5 in C minor, Opus 67. Beethoven wrote only one symphony #5 and only one Opus 67 and also only one C minor symphony.


So this doesn't look "professional" to you?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> So this doesn't look "professional" to you?


Looks fine to me. It depends on the purpose of the labels. If its purpose is to identify which Beethoven symphony it is then anything after the number is redundant. If you want your labels to serve another purpose than just identification and add additional information about the key and opus number of the symphony then that is fine.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

All methods are fair. Just don't call it Beethoven's Turd; in other words, be inconsistent with 'th' for the sake of peace!


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Right, because Beethoven wrote multiple string quartets #14.


The c# minor quartet officially counted as #14 is actually #15 in chronological order which is confusing, therefore op.131 (and op.132 for #15 that should be #14) which is unique is preferable. Furthermore, everyone uses opus numbers for Beethoven sonatas and quartets. It is known. 
I am only mildly facetious. I have to think for a few seconds or more which piece is meant, if someone says Beethoven's quartet #10 or #12 but I do not have to think at all if someone refers to op.74 or 95 or 127 etc. Worse for sonatas (and some Mozart piano concertos) where I often to count from the next piece until I am sure about which piece is meant.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> The c# minor quartet officially counted as #14 is actually #15 in chronological order which is confusing, therefore op.131 (and op.132 for #15 that should be #14) which is unique is preferable. *Furthermore, everyone uses opus numbers for Beethoven sonatas and quartets. It is known. *
> I am only mildly facetious. I have to think for a few seconds or more which piece is meant, if someone says Beethoven's quartet #10 or #12 but I do not have to think at all if someone refers to op.74 or 95 or 127 etc. Worse for sonatas (and some Mozart piano concertos) where I often to count from the next piece until I am sure about which piece is meant.


Yes. Everyone I've known in conservatories and music schools, both students and professors, uses opus numbers. No one uses numbers. There are two further good reasons for this that haven't yet been mentioned: When opus numbers are used one can with ease mentally cross-reference to other genres (e.g. - "Oh, this quartet was composed at almost the same time as the Appassionata.") and one can tell immediately if it's an early, middle, or late work.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Except for the pieces published much later than written, like e.g. Beethoven's op.49 sonatinas 
For Beethoven I know most of the other numbers, but I can for my life not remember how the last two Dvorak quartets are counted. But I am quite sure the A flat major is op.105 and the G major op.106.

Or Schubert. Because almost every scrap of sonata fragment is counted (so I have a "complete" recording that has only about half of them, missing all the fragmenary ones), the last three are, I think, 19, 20, 21. But I'll never know which one #16 is (probably D 845) and I have no clue which number D 664 (the first really good one) has (12 or 13?).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> There are two further good reasons for this that haven't yet been mentioned:


Whatabout Bach?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Good thread. I tend to enjoy capitalizing things, it makes it look proper. I think you can also capitalize something that isn't mentioning a specific work if you are using it as a title to a thread. For example, "Mozart's String Quartets".


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

amfortas said:


> I don't see that is redundant, since people may be interested in any or all of those bits of information, and wouldn't necessarily know any one of them just from being told the others.
> 
> Granted, if you were to tell me only that it's Symphony #5, I could look up the rest myself. But lazy pig that I am, I'd appreciate you saving me the effort.


I agree. I find opus number interesting as it (albeit sometimes falsely) chronologizes a composer's output. So for instance it's easy to remember that Symphony 5 (op 67) comes after Piano Concerto 4 (op 58) but before PC 5 (op 73).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout Bach?


Which one? What about him?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Which one? What about him?


Johann Sebastian. I mean Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis - "The catalogue groups compositions by genre. Even within a genre compositions are not necessarily collated chronologically. E.g., BWV 992 was composed many years before BWV 1."


----------

