problems with opus numbers and work numbers
Because composers tend to publish their creations in the order in which
they are written, sometimes people assume that opus numbers or work numbers indicate the
sequence in which works are created and their approximate date of creation.
To do this is a mistake because works are not always published in
the order in which they were created and sometimes works are not published
at all.
some problems with opus numbers—date and order of
publication
Conceptually, an opus number establishes where a work
belongs in the publication sequence, which is supposed to approximate the
order in which they are created; but actually it neither establishes the
order in which a composer's works are published nor the sequence in which
they are created.
How can a work's publication sequence be put in doubt by an opus
number?
- Cases actually exist in which the composer assigns one opus number
and the publisher assigns another to the same work. Which number are we
to accept?
- Sometimes works
are published by more than one publishing house.
- Some works are published
in different countries or in different languages. Which one should be taken
as the correct one?
- Some works are distributed informally, not publicly
published; they originally appeared only within an intimate circle of
admirers or a coterie. Which distribution counts as publication?
- Some works
have been lost and rediscovered, then published years later, not in the
order in which they originally should have been published. Works discovered
after a composer's "complete" works have been published fall into this
category.
- Some works do not bear an opus number at all. Perhaps the composer
just didn't bother to assign one. Perhaps one or more of his works were
never published. Perhaps he has
not written enough music to justify others keeping track of his individual
compositions. Perhaps there is not enough interest in his output to warrant
the effort of assigning numbers.
- Works composed before circa 1800 when the practice of assigning
numbers began were never assigned an opus
number by anyone.
- Many early works were never formally published at all. If such works bear a
number today, it's probably a number that has been assigned by a cataloger
who did research to confirm the order of composition or publication.
some problems with opus numbers—date and order of
creation
Here are some examples of some problems that can arise by
assuming that opus numbers are reliable indicators of creation sequences
or dates:
- Was a work by a
composer finished before that composer's next work was started, or were both
works written in an overlapping manner at the same time?
- Was a second work started after a first work was begun, with the
second work being finished before the first?
- Was one work
started and finished, then put away on a back shelf only to be dusted off
years later?
- If a composer revises a work, which version represents the
original conception?
- How do we assign opus numbers to multiple works that were lost and then
rediscovered decades or centuries later?
These are only a few of the reasons why opus numbers can be unreliable
indicators of a work's creation or publication order. Although useful in
many instances, by themselves opus numbers may not be meaningful or may
not exist at all.
problems with work numbers
Problems with work number sequencing and dating arise for the same
reasons as do problems with opus number sequencing and dating; both are
subject to the same kinds of errors. Errors in both produce similar
pragmatic, conceptual, and aesthetic consequences. Although the sequence in
which multiple works of the same type are written, such as two back-to-back
symphonies, may or may not change even if new findings by historians result
in a revision to their actual publication sequence, the two numbers are
interrelated; one number should be always be consistent with the other.
Problems with opus numbers and work numbers
Mozart provides us with a multifold example of how opus numbers and work
numbers can go
awry:
Three of Mozart's piano concertos—numbers
11, 12, and 13—which today are listed as
K.413-415, were composed in 1783 and were published in Vienna as Op. 4. The publisher had such success with these works, Mozart thereafter was incentivized to publish his piano concerto number 5, today listed as
K.175. But the work known today as K.175—piano
concerto No. 5—was penned ten years earlier, in 1773.
From this example,
we see that:
Regarding opus number:
- Although useful, an opus number does not necessarily represent the order in which a
composer creates or publishes his work.
- Opus number (Op. 4, in this case) can be a misleading indicator of
the order of creation and/or publication.
Regarding work number:
- Although useful, work numbers like 5, 11, 12, and 13 indicate the order in which a
composer writes works of the same kind, whereas opus numbers or catalog
numbers do not.
- Numbers like 5, 11, 12, and 13 represent the sequence in which a
composer creates works of the same kind (piano concertos in Mozart's
case), but these are neither opus numbers nor catalog numbers; they are
numbers that appear in catalogs, just as opus numbers appear in
catalogs.
Regarding catalog number:
- Catalog numbers such as K.175, K.413, K.414, and K.515 are the
creation of a cataloger; they are more faithful indicators of the order in which a composer's
works are written than opus or work numbers.
- Catalog numbers accurately indicate where a given work fits in the sequence of
the complete body of a composer's works and where one work of the same
type fits with another, whereas opus numbers do not.
catalog naming exceptions
The standard symbol for a catalog is normally derived from one of these
formulas:
- The cataloger's initials.
- The composer's initials.
- A combination of the composer's initials and the cataloger's initials.
- A combination of the cataloger's initials and the initials of the name
of the catalog.
- A combination of the composer's initials and the name of the catalog.
- The name of the catalog.
But there are exceptions. For example:
The initials BWV denote numbers that identify J. S. Bach's works. BWV
numbers were assigned by cataloger Wolfgang Schmieder in 1950. BWV stands
for thematisch-systematisches Verzeichnis der musikalischen Werke von
Johann Sebastian Bach (thematic-systematic catalog of musical works of
Johann Sebastian Bach), which is the title Schmieder gave to his catalog.
Today, Schmieder's BWV numbers are universally used and accepted as the
standard numbering system for Bach's works. For example, Bach's Mass in
B minor is assigned the number BWV 232, which may denote Bach's 232nd
opus, but not necessarily. Why can't opus numbers be relied on to be
identical to catalog numbers? Opus numbers are usually numbered according
to the order of publication, but opus numbers can be proven wrong as
research uncovers new data about the order of a composer's compositions.
For reasons like these, the BWV catalog is occasionally updated, with
newly discovered works added at its end. Schmieder listed works he believed
to be incomplete or of doubtful authenticity at the time of cataloging with
the notation BWV Anhang (BWV appendix); and he identified these
works by the notation BWV Anh. The Composer Catalogs table does not
use BWV Anh numbers as symbol notations for Bach's works.
Further, numbers that Schmieder assigned to Bach's works in his older
catalogs are sometimes denoted by the letter S, where S
stands for Schmieder (for example, S. 232 instead of BWV 232). S
numbers are referred to as Schmieder Numbers. Out of modesty,
Schmieder opposed this numbering system and the symbols for Bach's works
were later changed to BWV numbers. For this reason, the Composer Catalogs
table lists both BWV and S as symbol notations for Bach's catalog.
|
|
—tip— exceptions
The world of composer catalogs is replete with special cases and
exceptions. Keep an eye out for them. |
discrepancies and omissions
In most
cases, the citations in a given composer catalog are exhaustive; that is, all (or
nearly all) the works actually written by a named composer are cited in a
catalog for that composer. However, sometimes there are discrepancies: there
can be omissions; different
catalogs on the same composer sometimes disagree on dates, opus numbers, or
other details; catalogers may spell the name of a composer differently; catalogers may disagree on the identity of the composer or the publisher;
catalogers may disagree about a work's provenance or attribution. The list
of exceptions can go on and on.
The conclusion: Expect discrepancies and omissions when consulting composer catalogs.
- The cataloger is not usually to blame; it's the nature of the game.
See why at the page called More About Classical Music Catalogers And
Cataloging—An Appreciation: click here.
|
|
—note— errors & omissions Because of the scope of
the composer catalog field, it has not been
possible to accomplish the research necessary to confirm the accuracy or currency of every entry in the Table.
By no means is the Table a complete list of the catalogs or related
literature in the field. Be alert for possible errors or omissions, especially in the names and
titles of composers, catalogers, catalog codes, and catalog titles in the
Table or at other web sites cited in the Table. Works cited
in the Table may be out of print; web sites may no longer available. New
editions and updates to older catalogs may be available but the latest
editions or web sites may not be listed. |
multiple catalogs for the same composer
In some cases, more than one cataloger has stepped up to the plate and
taken a swing at cataloging the works of a given composer. Scarlatti, Soler,
and Vivaldi are examples of composers for whom more than one catalog exists.
There are many reasons why a cataloger may be motivated to assemble a
catalog for a composer even though one or more other catalogs are extant:
- No catalog is final. New works or revisions to old works by a given composer may come to
light after earlier catalogs have been published.
- The accuracy or completeness of a cataloger's information or judgment
may be called into question by another cataloger.
- A cataloger may wish to produce a specialized catalog that focuses on a
particular aspect of a composer's work, for example a composer's violin music or
symphonic music.
- New research may bring to light new information that warrants a new
catalog.
- A cataloger who opposes the positions taken by other catalogs may wish
to have his voice heard.
A cataloger can usually justify the development of a new catalog by
citing these kinds of reasons, and most reasonable observers consider such
reasons valid.
But despite differences among multiple catalogers and catalogs, two or
more catalogs made for a given composer's works normally will agree on most
(or even on all) counts. In cases where catalogs of the same composer differ
with one another, a catalog user should look for and take note of the
differences among multiple catalogs as well as of their equivalents.
In some cases, it is possible to locate a published cross reference that
cites multiple catalogs for the works of a single composer and that equates
individual entries in the multiple catalogs with each other. Such cross
references, known as concordances, can be useful tools because they identify which multiple catalogs
are extant for a given composer. theyalso may help a reader identify and
compare the citation for a given work as listed in one catalog with the
citations in the other catalogs for the same work. For example:
- The
Classical Net™
web site offers a concordance (cross reference) of the instrumental works of
Vivaldi as cited by four different catalogers, giving a different catalog
number for each specific work. The catalog number it supplies for each work
in each catalog is the one that the cataloger assigned. It also provides
instrumentation and cataloger comments for each work and catalog manuscript
sources for each work sorted by Ryom number.
- The
Chateau Gris web site offers a concordance of Soler Editions
that cross-references all editions of Soler's harpsichord sonatas.
