# What's in a name?



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Just a game to ponder.

If you are like me, calling a piece "Sonatina No. 28 for rubber band and kazoo continuo in Q minor, Op. 173A (OMG.89) doesn't exactly remind me of which piece it represents. Even the works that are near and dear to me don't stick in my head as numbers. Beethoven's Op. 53 means nothing at all to me, but if you say "Waldstein" the themes instantly pop into my head. I think composers have done us a great disservice by not naming their works. So I reckon it is our civic duty to provide names ourselves.

If you have a favorite work that is unnamed, either by the composer or by consensus, what name would you provide for it? Be as silly or as serious as you like.

I'll begin with a couple. 

Copland - Symphony No. 3, "Fanfare" (Well, that one is obvious.) 

Brahms - Symphony No. 1 in C minor, Op. 68, "Heart Attack" (because of the opening pounding heart beat). This could also be called "Beethoven" or "The Myopic Donkey."

Also, if anyone has insight into why throughout history some pieces of music are named while most are not, feel free to educate me. This is the opposite from visual arts where there are really fewer "Untitled" than rumor would have it.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Personally, it's easier initially for me to hear a piece named "Symphony in E flat" than, say, "Winter Dreams." If the composer states the form outright - symphony, quartet, overture - I know what to expect, because each form has its unique features, and I won't get lost on first listen. Giving a piece an arbitrary title like "Winter Dreams" gives little clue about what to expect about the piece itself except a vague reference to dreams and winter. 

But you're correct; "Symphony in E Flat" doesn't give much to distinguish the piece from others on its face alone. Nicknames do help in that regard. 

I remember Brahms' 2nd symphony as the Lullaby Symphony, for obvious reasons.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Way back in '96 (1896 that is) Grove referred to classical music having a "repulsive nomenclature." If you tell somebody what you're listening to, it sounds like a chemical formula.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

What a lovely idea for a thread, Weston! This reply falls into the 'silly' category.

As I saw my way through the Suzuki books, it's a bit annoying that so many pieces are just 'gavotte', 'minuet' etc. I usually make up words to the tune to get it into my head. So for P. Martini's 'Gavotte' (Suzuki 3, no 1), I propose the name 'Cheerful Gavotte', based on my lyric:
'Let's stay cheerful, show a bit of pluck, even though we may be down on our luck.'
'Can't stay cheerful, show a bit of pluck - things are so bad that I want to shout "Duck!"'


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Playing Chopin, you sometimes find that you come up with your own names e.g. Op28 No 6 usually "Tolling Bells" sounds more like "Polish Forest".

As to why sometimes pieces are named and sometimes not, I think that is partly due to the composer and partly due to compilers. I'm not sure where the names come from.

Sousa e.g. has names Liberty Bell aka Monte Python, Rossini has titles like William Tell Overture aka The Lone Ranger Theme, so does Offenbach - the Infernal Gallop aka The Can-Can.

People writing songs or dances tend to have names e.g. Dowland's Sir John Smith, his Almain although some are more unusual e.g. Mrs Winter's Jump or Mrs White's Nothing.


----------



## Guest (Mar 24, 2013)

What's in a name? 

"Not hand, nor face, nor foot; nor any other part belonging to a man" ('Romeo and Juliet').


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Mahler Seventh Symphony: "The Indigestible"


----------



## Klavierspieler (Jul 16, 2011)

I believe that the idea behind not giving a piece a descriptive title is so as not to interfere with the free interpretation of "pure" (abstract) music. We're supposed to let our imaginations run wild and (as we are doing here) come up with our own names for them, each of us his own name for the same piece; or not at all and just experience the music without any bearing on an extra-musical theme. This last is my tendency.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

4'33" - "Big Balls"


----------



## OboeKnight (Jan 25, 2013)

Hmmm. What would we call the Romeo and Juliet Overture if it wasn't named that??


Also, Saint-Saens oboe sonata could have the three movements titled 1. Sleep 2. The Dream 3. The Nightmare (for the player anyway >.<)


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

Uematsu "To Zanarkand" Sonata in G Major

better than track 3


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

Shostakovich, Dmitir - Piano Trio No. 2 in E minor, Op. 67 - "the Death Dance"


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

If everything had a name, it would be harder to remember them all. 

As much fun as it may be, naming other people's works can be pernicious. If you call something "Moonlight" you better be sure that's what the composer wanted it to sound like.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Way back in '96 (1896 that is) Grove referred to classical music having a "repulsive nomenclature." If you tell somebody what you're listening to, it sounds like a chemical formula.


Yes, at the zenith of the late romantic era, when the general ethos had people with more than a penchant for naming pieces and giving them attributes emotional / psychological / evocative of images or situations.

Chopin is on record of having no truck with that sentimentality of his era, and named his pieces solely by form. Many of the later-assigned appellations are far more odious than 'Etude or Prelude, Op. __, no. __.'

Me, I'd rather be personally addressed and / or referred to in discussion as 'Petr' vs. 'Suffocation' 'Raindrop' etc.

I say call'em what their parents called them -- i.e. unless you have the subject's personal permission to use a nickname... oh, well, then...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> I say call'em what their parents called them -- i.e. unless you have the subject's personal permission to use a nickname... oh, well, then...


I'll make an exception for Haydn's quartets -- the Razor, the Frog, and so forth. Gotta love 'em!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I'll make an exception for Haydn's quartets -- the Razor, the Frog, and so forth. Gotta love 'em!


Kind of agree, but then I like more the zany humor of the (British) ethos of that era vs the general sentiment of the late romantic.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

There is a precedent for giving pieces colorful names. If we go back to proto-baroque we find John Dowland's _The Shoemaker's Wife, a Toy_, or _Mrs. White's Thing_ and _Mrs. White's Nothing_, and _Lady Hunsdon's Puffe_. Certainly memorable titles even if one has never heard the pieces.

Incidentally, my suggestion of renaming pieces wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but more as a game. I lament that someone labelled Beethoven's most overplayed movement "Moonlight." Clearly it should have been called "Soundtrack for a Serious Brooding Artist Brooding."


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Weston said:


> There is a precedent for giving pieces colorful names. If we go back to proto-baroque we find John Dowland's _The Shoemaker's Wife, a Toy_, or _Mrs. White's Thing_ and _Mrs. White's Nothing_, and _Lady Hunsdon's Puffe_. Certainly memorable titles even if one has never heard the pieces.


François Couperin was also rather a deft hand at naming his pieces (_La Paix du Parnasse_, _Les Barricades Mystérieuses_, etc.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Weston said:


> Incidentally, my suggestion of renaming pieces wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but more as a game. I lament that someone labelled Beethoven's most overplayed movement "Moonlight." Clearly it should have been called "Soundtrack for a Serious Brooding Artist Brooding."


The Moonlight was so named by Ludwig Rellstab in 1832, reminding him of moonlight shining on (I think) Lake Lucerne. Rellstab is usually referred to in this story as a critic, but he must have been a poet since he wrote some of the lyrics for Schubert's songs.

BTW Beethoven wasn't above a bit of naming himself, with "Rage Over a Lost Penny" and "Duet for Two Eyeglasses Obligato."


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Rellstab is usually referred to in this story as a critic, but he must have been a poet since he wrote some of the lyrics for Schubert's songs.


Or perhaps Schubert simply got absent minded one day and set several short concert reviews, three soap advertisements, and his grocery list to music.

Accidents happen when you compose at Franz's pace.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

We had a thread on this a few years ago.
It got rather personal, as I recall!
GG


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Speaking for myself as a composer, the majority of the music I write is absolutely... er... absolute... and has no extramusical meaning whatsoever. A name applied to a composition by me is pretty much just going to be as arbitrary as a name applied by anyone else. That said, I would never protest a nickname being applied to a composition, but I wouldn't endorse it either.

At worst, an arbitrary DESCRIPTIVE title being added prevents the listener from being entirely imaginative and drawing their own conclusions about what's in a piece. Can you listen to the Pastoral symphony without thinking of nature? Can you listen to the Appassionata sonata without thinking of passion, love and grief? If you weren't burdened with those descriptive titles in the aforementioned two pieces, I think you might be free to discover endless new possibilities within them.

On the other hand, however, at best, I suppose it gives the beginner a nice framework to listen to a piece within.

Also, I personally find descriptive names in contemporary music such as "Winter dreams" or "Summer nightmares" absolutely pompous and cringeworthy, and even though something like "Symphony No. 4257 in J-sharp major, Op. 3452c K. 96 D. 277a" is probably just as bad in terms of pomposity, I personally think it's the better option of the two .


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> 4'33" - "Big Balls"


I don't get it.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

StevenOBrien said:


> Speaking for myself as a composer, the majority of the music I write is absolutely... er... absolute... and has no extramusical meaning whatsoever. A name applied to a composition by me is pretty much just going to be as arbitrary as a name applied by anyone else. That said, I would never protest a nickname being applied to a composition, but I wouldn't endorse it either.


Seconding this, I can never think of names for my pieces so I end up naming them "Music for Piano" or something equally droll. Perhaps I'm not as imaginative on the literary front as I am (or at least believe myself to be) on the musical front.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

hello said:


> I don't get it.


At the risk of opening an old can of worms, it might be safest to say just stick around here and you will get it........

or refer to below for further info if your game!

http://www.talkclassical.com/8325-john-cage-433-music.html


----------

