# Does classical music have a name problem?



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

Admittedly many classical pieces have rather unimaginative titles. For example would you rather have Sonata no. 14, op 27 no. 2 in c-sharp minor? or would you prefer the "Moonlight Sonata"? When I was young I thought titles were the way to go but as I got older I started to realize that titles were actually pretty pointless. But regardless, boring titles might make the difference between somebody becoming interested in classical music or never giving it a chance. Is this a problem, what are your thoughts?


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Seemingly dull names are extremwly convenient after your classical music folder reaches a certain size. They're systematic and unimaginative not only to give technical information about the work, but also to prevent the formation of preconceptions about it, giving the listener more freedom of interpretation.
If something specific is intended as a programme, it can (and often will) be included as a programme.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The purist in me dislikes catchy nicknames. The person in me who easily forgets Ops, Ks, and BWVs loves catchy nicknames. Most people easily forget Ops, Ks ands BWVs. 

Catchy nicknames are here to stay. I suspect they do little harm. Nobody is forced to think about moonlight, and the program can always inform people that it wasn't Beethoven's intention that they should.


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

Aside from a few glaring exceptions, many of the most popular pieces of classical music are those that are named. Examples include Scheherazade, the aforementioned moonlight sonata, and the Ride of the Valkyries, even though it is not a piece in itself. Even the average person would probably identify Beethoven 9 as Ode to Joy rather than Beethoven's ninth symphony. Other examples are such pieces as the Fanfare for the Common Man, Rhapsody in Blue, and Dvorak 9, which most people would call the New World Symphony.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

One of the most popular works of all time lacks a nickname in common use. In what Sir George Grove called the "repulsive nomenclature" of classical music, that's the Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67.

Haydn's string quartets have the best nicknames.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I think 'classical music' has a name problem by itself, because it has two meanings/associations. It is a very strange thing that a piece composed today is immediately filed under classical music even before anyone has ever heard it. We need a name that does not refer to the past or tradition but that decribes the genre more neutrally.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Casebearer said:


> I think 'classical music' has a name problem by itself, because it has two meanings/associations. It is a very strange thing that a piece composed today is immediately filed under classical music even before anyone has ever heard it. We need a name that does not refer to the past or tradition but that decribes the genre more neutrally.


We can at least capitalize the Classical period, or simply say "Classical period music." The bigger problem is that "classical music" isn't a genre at all. It lumps together music so dissimilar that the only word that covers all of it - though even that is questionable - is "music."


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I've never bought any version of the idea that classical music's relative unpopularity is due to poor marketing. I don't think it matters at all. People respond to the music or they don't. People who do usually respond strongly and immediately.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

wrong thread, sorry


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> The bigger problem is that "classical music" isn't a genre at all. It lumps together music so dissimilar that the only word that covers all of it - though even that is questionable - is "music."


In other words, the thing we come here to talk about in this forum does not exist.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

The only advantage I can see to using numbers is that it makes it easier to rip CDs to digital files. So if I have files named TANEYEV_Symphony No 2_Polyansky-1, TANEYEV_Symphony No 2_Polyansky-2, etc., it's fairly easy to just paste in TANEYEV_Symphony No 4_Polyansky-1, TANEYEV_Symphony No 4_Polyansky-2, etc. for the next work on the CD and its different movements. Not quite as easy if you're going to use the nicknames in the files.

But I still like the catchy names. We name paintings for goodness sake! Say "Starry Night" and most of the world knows instantly what you're discussing. And what about novels? Would you rather read _Novel No. 5_ or _For Whom the Bell Tolls?_


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> In other words, the thing we come here to talk about in this forum does not exist.


You could say that.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

R3PL4Y said:


> Aside from a few glaring exceptions, many of the most popular pieces of classical music are those that are named. Examples include Scheherazade, the aforementioned moonlight sonata, and the Ride of the Valkyries, even though it is not a piece in itself. Even the average person would probably identify Beethoven 9 as Ode to Joy rather than Beethoven's ninth symphony. Other examples are such pieces as the Fanfare for the Common Man, Rhapsody in Blue, and Dvorak 9, which most people would call the New World Symphony.


And now one has to wonder: did they become more popular precisely because they had catchy names, or were they named because they were so popular? Perhaps we should give, and start spreading around, nicknames for all our favourite works and see if this increases their popularity. In fact, "name your favourite works" might make for a nice silly thread... 



Weston said:


> But I still like the catchy names. We name paintings for goodness sake! Say "Starry Night" and most of the world knows instantly what you're discussing. And what about novels? Would you rather read _Novel No. 5_ or _For Whom the Bell Tolls?_


Over the past decades, there has been something of a vogue among artists to give their paintings titles like "Untitled no. 5."


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

If you look at how often Haydn's symphonies have been recorded, based on what's available on Arkivmusic, there's a definite correlation between having a name and being popular.
Of the 81 pre-'Paris' symphonies, 20 have names, and 17 are in the top 30 most-recorded (including all 7 of the top 7).
Of the 23 later symphonies, 10 have names, and 7 are in the top 10 most-recorded (including all 5 of the top 5).

As far as I know all those names arose after-the-fact, as handy mnemonics for people who can't be bothered memorising all the numbers. But there must surely be a psychological effect for people coming to the music for the first time - the ones with names seem more interesting than the ones without.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I think the names of absolute music (compared with program music) need not to be "imaginitive" at all. What should be imaginitve is the content of music itself.
"Piano sonata no. 14 in c-sharp minor, op 27 no. 2" works perfectly to catagorize basic info of the piece that distinguishes it from all other works by the same composer - its genre, major key area, and serial numbers. That is all we are supposed to get from the name itself.
"Moonlight" sonata seems to be a more interesting add-on, but it provides us something over-explicit that may not be necessary to convey things that the composer put in his music. For example, maybe moonlight reflects a good picture of the first movement, but what if I get something funeral and solumn from the dotted rhythm and daunting bass of the first theme? If the composer only wants to express something of serene beauty in a pieceful and melancholy approach, is it best to put a constantly dotted rhythm against ever-flowing triplets? Or use notes repeatedly rather than a melody features a better contour? And what about the 2nd and 3rd movements? a dance of the Luna and flooding tide? Maybe, maybe not. Why not jumping out of the circle?
We never know what exactly the composer want to say, and this is the most interesting thing of a piece of music. But a nickname confines our understanding and imagination to something narrow by involving language. Thus, I dont think it is a good idea unless it is the composer's intention (in program music, composers do this).


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

The first grouping of 24 Chopin Etudes is a great example of music with names that don't necessarily suggest a program element or ruin the abstract nature of the music in any way.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

isorhythm said:


> I've never bought any version of the idea that classical music's relative unpopularity is due to poor marketing. I don't think it matters at all. People respond to the music or they don't. People who do usually respond strongly and immediately.


On the other hand people across the globe respond to music that's heavily marketed, or shoved down their ears as some say, in a seemingly inelastic way.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Bruckner Anton said:


> I think the names of absolute music (compared with program music) need not to be "imaginitive" at all. What should be imaginitve is the content of music itself.
> "Piano sonata no. 14 in c-sharp minor, op 27 no. 2" works perfectly to catagorize basic info of the piece that distinguishes it from all other works by the same composer - its genre, major key area, and serial numbers. That is all we are supposed to get from the name itself.
> "Moonlight" sonata seems to be a more interesting add-on, but it provides us something over-explicit that may not be necessary to convey things that the composer put in his music. For example, maybe moonlight reflects a good picture of the first movement, but what if I get something funeral and solumn from the dotted rhythm and daunting bass of the first theme? If the composer only wants to express something of serene beauty in a pieceful and melancholy approach, is it best to put a constantly dotted rhythm against ever-flowing triplets? Or use notes repeatedly rather than a melody features a better contour? And what about the 2nd and 3rd movements? a dance of the Luna and flooding tide? Maybe, maybe not. Why not jumping out of the circle?
> We never know what exactly the composer want to say, and this is the most interesting thing of a piece of music. But a nickname confines our understanding and imagination to something narrow by involving language. Thus, I dont think it is a good idea unless it is the composer's intention (in program music, composers do this).


I sort of agree with this; however, I do appreciate the practical usefulness of nicknames.

That's why I love "neutral nicknames", e.g. those indicating a person that the work was written for.
"à Thérèse" does not force you to expect anything in particular.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Too many new compositions sound like cheesy young adult novels to me. I'd much prefer "Violin Concerto #2" over something like "The Snowflakes Land Softly as Death." There's a recent Grawemeyer winner I still haven't been able to listen to because of its name.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Blancrocher said:


> Too many new compositions sound like cheesy young adult novels to me. I'd much prefer "Violin Concerto #2" than something like "The Snowflakes Land Softly as Death." There's a recent Grawemeyer winner I still haven't been able to listen to because of its name.


I bet you'd like Norwegian black metal band Immortal, with "song" titles like:

"Grim and Frostbitten Kingdoms" 
"Moonrise Fields of Sorrow" 
"Cursed Realms of the Winterdemons" 
"Diabolical Fullmoon Mysticism"
"Unholy Forces of Evil"
"The Cold Winds of Funeral Frost"
"The Darkness That Embrace Me" 
"Blacker Than Darkness"

It is a pity that these titles are already reserved and using them for pieces of art music could get one into copyright problems.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> There's a recent Grawemeyer winner I still haven't been able to listen to because of its name.


Brett Dean or Duro Zivkovic?


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

I find it interesting how Debussy puts the titles of his preludes at the end of the piece "allowing the performer to experience each individual sound world with fresh ears, without being influenced by Debussy's titles beforehand". 

A college professor told me that Debussy's publisher had to get him drunk in order to come up with the titles because he resisted naming them. I've been unable to find a credible source to back up that anecdote though so take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Names seem to mean more to people - even storms are given names these days.

I think many/most human beings tend to be a little 'animistic', at least in childhood. I remember that all my hot water bottles had names when I was eight or so - two of them had little ridged patterns like rows of gravestones in their rubber so I called one 'Cemetery' and one 'Tombstone'.

Because of our desire to make the universe a friendlier place, pieces which have names are going to be more attractive to people starting out in classical music or people who don't know much - people like me, in other words. 

I can quite see that it's annoying to serious lovers of classical music, though, if the name influences listeners to hear a piece in a certain way that doesn't actually do justice to its possibilities.

Still, they have the consolation of knowing the technical numerical designation of the piece and of *rising above* the popular name - ostentatiously or not, as befits their character.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^Thoughtful and beautifully expressed. I feel rising in my breast my almost-forgotten animistic love of names, and colorful characterizations of all sorts. I inherited a book from my grandparents (heaven knows why they owned it) called "Great Program Music" by the heroically yclept Sigmund Spaeth, in which he actually supplies words for the tunes of classical works to make them more memorable. I've seen this done in old books about birdsong as well, and rather regret that this sort of mnemonic aid has gone the way of pressed flowers. I'm not sure that I've ever really risen above Spaeth's doggerel, but I have at least forgotten most of it. Whatever corrosive influence it had on my soul will, I trust, harm no one but me.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Blancrocher said:


> Too many new compositions sound like cheesy young adult novels to me. I'd much prefer "Violin Concerto #2" over something like "The Snowflakes Land Softly as Death." There's a recent Grawemeyer winner I still haven't been able to listen to because of its name.


But composers tend not to write many violin concertos so it's fairy easy to recognise that some piece playing on the radio is, say, "Mozart Violin Concerto Number 3". But if you listen to a Haydn symphony does the number instantly spring to mind? Probably not, unless you are an expert. But you might recall it's called "The surprise symphony" 'cause you... er... experience a surprise. Vivaldi, of course, did write *many* violin concertos, and then names come in, even meta-names and meta-meta-names(!) For instance, the "The Contest Between Harmony and Invention", containing ,"The Four Seasons", containing "Spring,..." And these names (i suggest) are marvellous.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> ^^^Thoughtful and beautifully expressed. I feel rising in my breast my almost-forgotten animistic love of names, and colorful characterizations of all sorts. I inherited a book from my grandparents (heaven knows why they owned it) called "Great Program Music" by the heroically yclept Sigmund Spaeth, in which he actually supplies words for the tunes of classical works to make them more memorable. I've seen this done in old books about birdsong as well, and rather regret that this sort of mnemonic aid has gone the way of pressed flowers. I'm not sure that I've ever really risen above Spaeth's doggerel, but I have at least forgotten most of it. Whatever corrosive influence it had on my soul will, I trust, harm no one but me.


For those interested in reading this book:

https://archive.org/details/greatprogrammusi007908mbp

(This is public domain )


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I would rather have the most succinct naming scheme that identifies a piece uniquely. Usually we speak of the composer when referring to a piece with some famous exceptions like the Moonlight sonata. To me the following naming convention makes sense:

*composer name, genre of piece, number*

Beethoven, symphony, 5 
Beethoven, piano sonata, 14
Chopin, Nocturne, 1
etc.

We could be more succinct and use just composer name and opus but that scheme makes it much harder to identify pieces from memory.

But I can see how not having catchy names might prevent some people from trying classical music. I remember one fellow student in university was looking at my CD collection and his eye caught "Symphonie Fantastique", which he asked to borrow! Another was intrigued by the Enigma variations.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I love this from Spaeth's introduction:

"Inside information is always attractive, and the gushing lady who can interpret the whole piece before a note has been sounded is sure to have a wonderful time, even if she bores you to extinction."

Clearly, we must have picturesque titles for the gushing ladies. It is impossible to gush about Op. 317b, No. 13 in Fb Major/minor (QWV 339, Bohoken 341).


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

The name problem I have is that there are a lot of similarly named pieces, and not everybody will use enough information to distinguish a piece as unique (like the catalogue number). I like the occasional nickname for a piece to aid my memory, but I can remember which numbers I like out of most sets of 10 or less.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm in the camp who likes the clinical names. Symphony No. 5 in c minor tells me the form of the piece to expect, the number means how far along he is in his progress in the form, and major/minor gives me an idea of the chord progressions to expect. I'm not a fan of names, like From Me Flows What You Call Time. What does that tell me? Probably that I won't understand what's going on. And Aaron Copland's Connotations. What does that tell me? That it's probably too complicated to tackle without a guidebook. 

I guess the ideal is having a technical name and a nickname. I have to agree with some here, that I sometimes get lost with Haydn symphonies; did I like No. 33 or 34?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A related question: If LvB's 5th Symphony _were _to have a nickname, what should it be?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm in the camp who likes the clinical names [...] I'm not a fan of names, like From Me Flows What You Call Time. What does that tell me? Probably that I won't understand what's going on. And Aaron Copland's Connotations. What does that tell me? That it's probably too complicated to tackle without a guidebook.
> 
> I guess the ideal is having a technical name and a nickname. I have to agree with some here, that I sometimes get lost with Haydn symphonies; did I like No. 33 or 34?


Titling is an art form in itself. Cryptic, esoteric titles are something of a modern fad. Another approach, if you don't want to bias your audience's response, is to title something with a non-title - say, "Untitled" or "Composition" or "Array." You could add a number and/or some obvious descriptor - e.g., "Untitled No. 7 in Blue." You might even append a provocative dedication: "Arrangement in Parallel Thirds No. 3, 'For Peggy Sue Lifschitz, Who Left Just in Time.'"

I agree about Haydn. Composers need to realize that nine of anything is probably enough and that even with that you're tempting fate.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

KenOC said:


> A related question: If LvB's 5th Symphony _were _to have a nickname, what should it be?


Here's a whole bunch of very bad suggestions, since I couldn't think of a single good one:

Destino
Judy's theme
My coda wants to kill your mama
Da da da daaaaaaaa


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> A related question: If LvB's 5th Symphony _were _to have a nickname, what should it be?


Well, _The_ _V__ictory Symphony,_ of course.

http://holocaustmusic.ort.org/resistance-and-exile/french-resistance/beethovens-5th-symphony/

HA HA HA HAAAAA!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Here's a whole bunch of very bad suggestions, since I couldn't think of a single good one:
> 
> Destino
> Judy's theme
> ...


The Destiny Symphony is a common nickname for Beethoven's fifth symphony in some countries.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

KenOC said:


> A related question: If LvB's 5th Symphony _were _to have a nickname, what should it be?


Fate.

Not quite the same thing as Destiny


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Sloe said:


> The Destiny Symphony is a common nickname for Beethoven's fifth symphony in some countries.


Yes but it sounds so much better in Italian. Imagine the Eroica being called the Heroic? Italian language just has that musical feel to it.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> Titling is an art form in itself. Cryptic, esoteric titles are something of a modern fad. Another approach, if you don't want to bias your audience's response, is to title something with a non-title - say, "Untitled" or "Composition" or "Array." You could add a number and/or some obvious descriptor - e.g., "Untitled No. 7 in Blue." You might even append a provocative dedication: "Arrangement in Parallel Thirds No. 3, 'For Peggy Sue Lifschitz, Who Left Just in Time.'"


I remember in Bergman's All These Women that the cellist was blackmailed into playing a horrible piece, but the title of the piece always cracked me up: Portrait of a Fish, or Abstraction Number One.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Weston said:


> Fate.
> 
> Not quite the same thing as Destiny


 Wiki claims it is sometimes called "Fate" in English, though I've never heard that and, like "Destiny" it seems wrongheaded. Anyway, it reminds me too much of the evil Professor Fate in _The Great Race_. Push the button Max!


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I agree about Haydn. Composers need to realize that nine of anything is probably enough and that even with that you're tempting fate.


Are you saying that only nine Haydn symphonies are with listening to? I'm not a Haydn fanatic, but would happily listen to a few dozen again - probably the named symphonies  If you are a novice, and want to know what might be worth listening to next, check out the named pieces. That people bothered to give them names indicates they are probably worth checking out. (Of course, don't then assume that all unnamed pieces are bad!)


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes but it sounds so much better in Italian. Imagine the Eroica being called the Heroic? Italian language just has that musical feel to it.


I'm happy to have it called "the Heroic". In what way is Italian better for naming music pieces? This foreign language obsession is just one more thing that distances classical music from a potentially larger audience.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> A related question: If LvB's 5th Symphony _were _to have a nickname, what should it be?


Son of 4th .....................

then next would be Return of the Son, forget all this Pastoral stuff!

I do like "My coda wants to kill your mama" thou too


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

KenOC said:


> A related question: If LvB's 5th Symphony _were _to have a nickname, what should it be?


Remember that old disco hit, A Fifth of Beethoven?


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Weston said:


> Fate


"The composer himself provided the key to these depths when one day, in this author's presence, he pointed to the beginning of the first movement and expressed in these words the fundamental idea of his work: "Thus Fate knocks at the door!" - Anton Schindler (Beethoven's secretary and factotum)

You got me wondering about the difference between fate and destiny. Here's a comment that I think captures the subtle difference, and makes a case for the name being "Fate":

"Fate: it's out of your control. Destiny: it's what you are meant to do. Destiny has slightly more positive connotations. You'd more usually say "he was fated to die in that accident" but "she was destined for greatness", but it is sometimes heard the other way around. Very similar words!"

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-fate-coincidence-and-destiny

What about the fourth? "Joy"? Or "The Contest Between Mystery and Joy"?


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Some works would be ruined if they had a "program". Other works would be ruined if they don't have a program. Some works are ruined by their program or nickname (moonlight sonata come on!! that piece of music deserves a better nickname)

I'm not a really big fan of the idea of program music because it somehow narrows down the abstract emotional span the work can mean in ones mind. On the other hand a program can sometimes in fact broaden the emotional span of the work. For example at first I had no idea who or what "Mazepa" was when I first heard Liszt's symphonic poem. I couldn't really get into that piece of music until I read some things about Mazepa and had somewhat of a picture of who he was.

So sometimes a program or nickname works and sometimes not I guess.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Mal said:


> I'm happy to have it called "the Heroic". In what way is Italian better for naming music pieces? This foreign language obsession is just one more thing that distances classical music from a potentially larger audience.


I said Italian language sounds more musical than English. How did you get "foreign language obsession" from that?


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Mal said:


> I'm happy to have it called "the Heroic". In what way is Italian better for naming music pieces? This foreign language obsession is just one more thing that distances classical music from a potentially larger audience.


Just to let you know, I contribute to TC in a foreign language. :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mal said:


> "The composer himself provided the key to these depths when one day, in this author's presence, he pointed to the beginning of the first movement and expressed in these words the fundamental idea of his work: "Thus Fate knocks at the door!" - Anton Schindler (Beethoven's secretary and factotum)


Such stories from Herr Schindler are omitted from recent Beethoven biographies. Seems he had a remarkable propensity for making things up.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

KenOC said:


> A related question: If LvB's 5th Symphony _were _to have a nickname, what should it be?


It does seem curious that one of the most famous and recognized pieces of classical music, recognized by non classical listeners, doesn't have a nickname. I wonder how many non classical listeners can actually name this piece? And how many could if it had a nickname?

Fate seems pretty good to me. Victory does fit for people who lived through the winning side of The War. How is it that a German piece of music came to be used on the Allied side? Destiny isn't quite right to me.

I like the nicknames, it helps me remember. I can't remember all those opus numbers, K numbers, BWV numbers, keys, numbers etc. Even with my violin teacher we don't agree. I brought in one day to play Mozart's 3rd violin concerto, and he said to me, oh do you mean the G major?

And the piano trios list was a bit of a mess until help arrived and standardized the naming and format for me, for which I'm very grateful.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

senza sordino said:


> It does seem curious that one of the most famous and recognized pieces of classical music, recognized by non classical listeners, doesn't have a nickname. I wonder how many non classical listeners can actually name this piece? And how many could if it had a nickname?
> .


It has and it is the Destiny/Fate symphony. Until this thread I thought it was a more well known nickname than The Pastoral Symphony or Eroica.


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

I think the reason the 5th has no title is precisely because when we're talking about the "5th" we all know we're talking about Beethoven's (not Mahler or Tchaikovsky's)


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

I never remember song titles, after having almost thousand of recordings of multi genre (rock,metal, classical, even jazz). Only those titles which I listen in the past '90s decade, I could remember. Now, having the classical name as "Violin concerto no.5 in A III.Rondo tempo minuetto" begin to have more advantage. I will know what kind of music it is, what the tempo and even the key.

One of the problem is , the name too long that it will not easy to select in mobile device.


----------



## Mal (Jan 1, 2016)

Nicknames don't have to force a programme on you. For instance, Mozart's "Paris" symphony was composed in "Paris". The fact that it's a very grand symphony makes the name appropriate and memorable, but doesn't force a programme. I do think there needs to be more naming, otherwise you need to know three languages and have a degree in music before you can understand names! For instance I just listened to Handel's _Passacaglia in D Minor_. This is a very straightforward, beautiful, piece that anyone "pop listener" should be able to appreciate. So why not give it a name? Something like "Chelsea dance"?


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

The trouble with nick-names is that they may create a false impression. The best example that I know of is Vaughan Williams' 3rd Symphony, which he titled 'A Pastoral Symphony'. This leads listeners to expect something firmly in the English Pastoral tradition, all rolling green fields, Morris dancing and apple-cheeked milkmaids. But the piece is a requiem for the dead of the Great War and the pastoral landscape is the Western Front, with the tragedy of wasted lives overlain on the rural landscape. As VW said it is "not really lambkins frisking at all as most people take for granted". 

Translations of titles cause problems, too. I recall a musician of my acquaintance referring to Debussy's "Fires of Creation". Turned out he meant Feux d'Artifice, i.e. Fireworks. Boom!


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm in the camp who likes the clinical names. Symphony No. 5 in c minor tells me the form of the piece to expect, *the number means how far along he is in his progress in the form*, and major/minor gives me an idea of the chord progressions to expect. I'm not a fan of names, like From Me Flows What You Call Time. What does that tell me? Probably that I won't understand what's going on. And Aaron Copland's Connotations. What does that tell me? That it's probably too complicated to tackle without a guidebook.
> 
> I guess the ideal is having a technical name and a nickname. I have to agree with some here, that I sometimes get lost with Haydn symphonies; did I like No. 33 or 34?


Only if it is expressed as in Symphony No. 5/7, or Symphony No.5/104 :lol: otherwise it tells you very little, unless you are familiar with the composer (which is likely for Prokofiev and Haydn here, but what about minor composer)


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

senza sordino said:


> It does seem curious that one of the most famous and recognized pieces of classical music, recognized by non classical listeners, doesn't have a nickname. I wonder how many non classical listeners can actually name this piece? And how many could if it had a nickname?
> 
> Fate seems pretty good to me. Victory does fit for people who lived through the winning side of The War. How is it that a German piece of music came to be used on the Allied side? Destiny isn't quite right to me.
> 
> ...


I hope he never talks about Haydn symphonies with anybody.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

jurianbai said:


> I never remember song titles, after having almost thousand of recordings of multi genre (rock,metal, classical, even jazz). Only those titles which I listen in the past '90s decade, I could remember. Now, having the classical name as "Violin concerto no.5 in A III.Rondo tempo minuetto" begin to have more advantage. I will know what kind of music it is, what the tempo and even the key.
> 
> *One of the problem is , the name too long that it will not easy to select in mobile device*.


I concur.
I have my own style guidelines for naming pieces in general, and a separate one for tagging the files.

For example, the Hammerklavier's second movement in my excel sheet would be _Klaviersonate no.29 B-dur "Hammerklavier", op.106. II Scherzo: Assai vivace_.
But the file would be tagged just: _Hammerklavier. II_


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm off to listen to Beethoven's 'Da-Da-Da-Daaaaaa' in a minute followed by Dvorak's 'Hovis'.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yes. Classical music does have a name problem. To the average Joe/Josephina "classical" connotes stuffy intellectual boredom.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

And rightly so if you look at the general programming by mainstream orchestras. The big problem of classical music is that you hardly ever hear anything new and exciting in concert halls (when you're not an insider that knows where to go to). Orchestras perform mostly mainstream ('top 100') pieces, thereby constantly recycling previous success, and, when we're lucky, we get maybe a 10 minute surprise. Hardly adventurous and only interesting for people that want to get into details like difference of performance etc. And the dilemma is: programming more adventurous will certainly cost you (too much) in the short term. So there's no way out of this situation I suppose.


----------



## StephenBailey (Oct 5, 2016)

I don't think classical music has a name "problem" exactly, but the different naming practices speak to differing composer's intentions. 
In the classical period, music was almost always absolute. So, to say sonata such-and-such in a major was appropriate since that, in fact, speaks to the experience the listener will have (of hearing sonata form, a particular instrumentation, a particular tonality, from a particular period within a composer's work etc) and fundamentally informs the way that a listener will engage with the music.
It's worth saying (though I expect it has already been said at some point) that composers almost never applied the "catchy nickname" to their own works.
Later, composers actually wanted to specifically inform the way a listener engages with and experiences their music on an emotional level. In other words, by calling his work La Mer, Debussy is specifically asking his listener to have a particular kind of experience as they listen, one that is fundamentally different than the experience that might be had by calling it symphony no. whatever in something something key.
So the intention of the composer in relation to the listener informs the choice of title.

It happens that the popular understanding of the mechanics of music (form, tonality, harmony etc) has vastly decreased, while the popular desire to relate to music on an emotional level has increased. This has made it so that the emotional experience informed by catchy titles is more sought after (because it is easier, and is more in line with the common perception of our relationship to music), and that "sonata no. 12 in F major, op. 53" has become effectively meaningless.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

It does not bother me that a large number of classical music works do not have catchy names. Of course, there are many works that do have names by virtue of being lieder, songs, cantatas, madrigals, concert arias, sacred works, oratorios, opera pieces, and such like. As well, most if not all tone poems have specific names. 

Leaving these aside, most instrumental works do not have names. If they all had names it would create confusion as the number of plausible names ran out, so that one would need to identify between, say, Moonlight Sonata No 1 (by Beethoven) and Moonlight Sonata No 63 (by A N Other). I can appreciate that names might be attractive to people fairly new to classical music compared with the standard Opus numbers or composer-specific names like K, BWV, D, Hob etc. Here, I think it is correct, as observed previously by another member, that works with special names tend to be more popular, at least among the few cases I looked at. This suggests that some people might think that works with names must be especially good by virtue of being credited with a name. 

I don't think it takes all that long to come to grips with the standard nomenclature. I prefer to list items in my collection by opus number, or whatever numbering scheme is relevant for that composer. If a specific name exists as well, I add it at the end for completeness, but I don't rely on it in any way for identification purposes. For some composers there are no opus numbers, and when this occurs I find this somewhat irritating, as the standard computer software lists them alphabetically which may not be the best way to organise the works. To correct for this entails laborious work in researching details about the date order of the works' composition or publication etc, and often I can't be bothered to do this.


----------

