# When the public dub pieces using "nicknames" does that limit or enhance?



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Classical pieces over the years have garnered "nicknames" such as:

Mahler's Symphony 6 = "Tragic"
Haydn's Symphony 6 = "Sunrise"
Beethoven's Piano Concerto 5 = "Emperor"

and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_classical_music_sub-titles,_nicknames_and_non-numeric_titles

Now the question is... do these types of nomenclature enhance or limit the level of critical interpretation regarding the piece(s) in question?

For example... by calling Mahler's Symphony 6 "tragic" does that limit the listener/critic to interpreting that piece in a one-dimensional way? Or that that help to foster more critical debate regarding the complexity of the work in question?


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Personally, I don't pay much attention to the nicknames. Some of them are very tenuous, or even wrong, like with some of Haydn's stuff, if I recall what I read on Wikipedia correctly. I listen to CDs anyway, so I just put in the disc and listen. I often am not aware of when the first or third or whatever piece begins, unless I pay special attention and count the movements and follow in the album booklet.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

I generally try to disregard the nicknames and listen with an open mind, unless the work is programmatic.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

Like brotagonist, I don't put too much thought into the nicknames. It's the music that counts. 

Nonetheless, I do like when pieces have nicknames, if not for the sole purpose of making it easier to remember the name of a piece. It's just easier to differentiate between pieces when a piece is called "Tragic" as opposed to "Symphony No. 6." In fact, I've found that I'm better at recalling themes from a piece when they have some sort of name, even if I don't know the piece quite as well as another with a less descriptive name. I don't judge a piece by its name, but I do like when it has one.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Helps me remember them.


----------



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

I think nicknames aren't a bad thing in the case of a composer like Haydn as there are so many symphonies and quartets by him that they can make for handy alternative reference if nothing else. I agree that some descriptive terms which allude to the overall mood of a work can lead to potentially erroneous preconceptions as to how it may sound (can anyone tell me what's supposed to be so 'Tragic' about Schubert's 4th???), so I don't take any real notice of them.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

"String trio No. 17 for strings and string obligato in Q#-minor, Op. 135a (ZWV.1148)" just doesn't lodge itself in my synapses very well. I much prefer Trio _"Improbabile."_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

<<"String trio No. 17 for strings and string obligato in Q#-minor, Op. 135a (ZWV.1148)" just doesn't lodge itself in my synapses very well.>>

Sir George Grove, lamenting over a century ago that Beethoven's 5th doesn't have a nickname, called this sort of thing a "repulsive nomenclature." I suspect it puts a lot off people off of classical music.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

I appreciate names, only because it throws a little variety into the mix. If I were to have a classic best friends (in real life), I would hate to always be like, "So, I was listening to Opus 90 today. Amazing." Not bad, seeing as we all do it.

But being able to drop: "So, I was listing to the _Dumky_ today." That is fun.

Does it take away from the music? Possibly, on someone's first listen or something. E.g., someone listens to a "Tragic" symphony because they want _sad_ or _melancholic_.

Of course, the labels shouldn't dictate what we hear. We *here* are better than that.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I like the idea that composer doesn't always "spoonfed" to the listener what the piece is "about", but on the another hand I also see "dry" titles like Concerto no. 1209 in K major Op. 9233 problematic. So for compromise, composers could give their abstract music gibberish names, like Symphony no. 2300 in B major 'Gabbrak"


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I am a 'words' woman, not a 'numbers' person. I can see that nicknames might limit the piece in some way, or create unhelpful preconceptions, but _*words are so wonderful*_, and since the cognoscenti will always be able to rise above them, and the general public find them helpful, I'm in favour of nicknames.

I don't have synaesthesia, but I do like to put words and images and music all together to give a total sensuous experience when listening to my favourite pieces.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Titles that come from the composer are fine. Titles that do not come from the composer yet reflect the content of the work are okay, but should be used sparingly and not taken too literally. Titles that are only tenuously related should perhaps be spurned.

There is some evidence that the name "Tragic" comes from Mahler himself, though it is on neither the manuscript nor the published score. In any event, it is in some way reflected in the work, as is the title "Resurrection" (which is not Mahler's).

Mahler called his First Symphony "Titan: A Symphonic Poem in the Form of a Symphony" at the first performances of the work, but this was dropped with the revisions to the work and it was never published under this title.

The "Symphony of a Thousand" was a name applied for publicity reasons by the concert promoter who helped organize the premiere of Mahler's Eighth Symphony, but Mahler despised the title, as do I, for its sensationalism.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Using nicknames can hurt other pieces that are just as worthy or even better.

For example, Haydn's un-nicknamed Symphony No. 102 arguably is the greatest of his London Symphonies, yet the "Clock" and "Surprise" are more popular due to their having nicknames.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Using nicknames can hurt other pieces that are just as worthy or even better.
> 
> For example, Haydn's un-nicknamed Symphony No. 102 arguably is the greatest of his London Symphonies, yet the "Clock" and "Surprise" are more popular due to their having nicknames.


Maybe we should nickname it then - Haydn's High 'Un?


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I agree with Mahlerian's above sentiments, the nicknames that the composers give their own works are completely fine. I also don't have any problems with non-sensational nicknames, in fact, I enjoy the ones that are nicknamed after the dedicatee or after the patron who commissioned the work, i.e. the "_Razumovsky_" Op. 59 quartets or the "_Waldstein_" sonata because these actual give some useful historical context to the work. I also like nicknames that given after actual movements of the work, like the "Funeral March" sonata, Op. 26.

Here are the only works that Beethoven nicknamed himself (more or less).

"*Quartett Serioso*", Op. 95 - In the _Beethoven Quartet Companion_, the author thought it was strange that he would give it a bilingual nickname, Quartett (German) and Serioso (Italiano) but then posits that it was possible he just forgot to write the "o" in Quartett(o). A mere typo by an frequently absent-minded composer seems reasonable.

"*Pathétique*" Sonata, Op. 13 - Was actually nicknamed by the publisher, but accepted by Beethoven himself.

"*Pastorale*" Symphony

There are some nicknames that I feel don't add anything to the work, such as the "Moonlight" Sonata. All it did was add more ubiquity to a phenomenally radical work that should be listened to with its startling innovations in mind, not an image of a moonlit lake! Sonata #14 (Op. 27/2) along with the Sonata #13 (Op. 27/1 "Quasi Una Fantasia") and Sonata #12 (Op. 26 "Funeral March") are a stretch of three "Sonatas" in which not a single movement are in Sonata-allegro form!

Keep in mind that it wasn't the nickname that gave it its immense popularity, according to Jan Swafford, the sonata "ascended quickly to feverish popularity, on its way to becoming one of the most famous pieces ever written. Its mythical status was well established in Beethoven's lifetime. *The reason is the rapt and dolorous atmosphere unlike anything heard before* - and no less with the ease with which the opening movement lies under the fingers and within the affections of amateur pianists."

He continues, "By way of relief comes a relaxed scherzo with elegant and winsome themes. Then the most shocking movement of that year's pieces: the finale is marked Presto agitato, which conveys its implacable ferocity. The whispering arpeggios of the first movement have become a torrent of arpeggios that rise to whiplash offbeat chords. As in the previous sonata, the finale is the focus and pay of the whole. The mystery and incipient tragedy of the first movement have boiled into fury, expressed in a virtuosity that is the antithesis of the first movement's simplicity" (pg. 286-287, Swafford)


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> There are some nicknames that I feel don't add anything to the work, such as the "Moonlight" Sonata. All it did was add more ubiquity to a phenomenally radical work that should be listened to with its startling innovations in mind, not an image of a moonlit lake!


On the bright side, that particular moniker has resulted in some decent cover art--at least I prefer bland scenery over musicians in awkward poses with strange expressions on their faces, though perhaps that's just me.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> On the bright side, that particular moniker has resulted in some decent cover art--at least I prefer bland scenery over musicians in awkward poses with strange expressions on their faces, though perhaps that's just me.












Haha, I suppose this cover isn't terrible, but now all it does is remind me that I wasted 3.99$ on a mediocre performance of Beethoven's piano sonatas! 

That said, I guess it is a better cover than something like this. Anyone else feel a tad uncomfortable with the way Gardiner is staring at you? I feel confused and vulnerable.










I much prefer something like this, better performance and better cover. I have no complaints with Kempff's cold dead stare. He's looking right through me, and that's OK.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Haha, I suppose this cover isn't terrible, but now all it does is remind me that I wasted 3.99$ on a mediocre performance of Beethoven's piano sonatas!


May I suggest an upgrade?









Anyways, you made me laugh with that Gardiner photo--just the kind of thing I'm talking about.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Somehow, I have the feeling that if the Schönberg Piano Concerto was nicknamed "Viennese", it wouldn't have had any effect on its lack of popularity.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

Frankly I don't think nicknames should either enhance or damage (or limit) the essence and the communicative meaning of a given work. It's tantamount to judging a book by its cover, and we know how erroneous such a practice/habit is.

One example is the nickname "Apocalyptic", which was assigned to *Bruckner's Eighth Symphony*. Well, the remaining three movements bely that (esp. the adagio, which is too beautiful and serene for that nickname) and the first movement is not all that gloomy and forbidding. Another example is *Myaskovsky's Sixth Symphony*, nicknamed "Revolutionary." Well, it was written towards the end of that cataclysmic event, but not for the sake of conveying the yearnings, angst, and aspirations of the Russian Revolution, but for the sake of conveying the immense personal losses he suffered (passings of his father, his aunt, the wariness of war and conflict, the profound state of sorrow and confusion, etc.). This elusive masterpiece is way too personal to be assigned a rather politically ladened nickname.

The point of all this? Just listen to the music (any music) on its own terms, and judge for yourself would be my advice first and foremost.


----------

