Opus vs. Catalogue vs. Title

Hi AGAIN,

I love writing threads, It's so fun!

This time my question is:

Do you name (give titles such as "Purple Reflections - lol - ) or number (Opus number or catalogue number) your work.

Personally, I use Opus numbers for published pieces (That comes to a total of: 0, but it's early times yet.) and at the end of 2008 I will begin a numerical catalogue of compositions (I don't have enough to start making a catalogue yet).

No offense to anyone that does, but I CANNOT STAND THEMATIC TITLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They are SO annoying.

I'm looking forward to your answers! ;)

I don't think it matters a lot. Personally I give titles to all my pieces, particularly because that serves as a much more rememberable catalogue to myself than just numbers (I'd soon forget what my 15th piece was, but I do remember the titles of my pieces). Of course, there are some titles that are fairly technical too, and mostly just refer to the instrumentation or something like that.

I think a title can both hurt or assist a piece, as it definitely will influence the first impression a person has of your piece, if she or he knows it. And it's quite a pity if someone is so annoyed by a title that she or he can't enjoy the music anymore. On the other hand, a title can give a whole new dimension to a piece of music and open another perspective that the listener wouldn't have had without the title. That's also why I'm not too fond of giving titles that are too strongly tied with typical impressions the music might give to lots of people, because that only reinforces such a simplified impression of a piece and makes it harder for people to listen to different aspects of it.

For example if you'd name a piece that is built on a constant gallop rhythm "Galloping Horses", you can pretty much bet that all people will hear in that piece are galloping horses. They will be set on that one idea and hear it extremely programmatically from one single perspective. That's fine, if that's what you want of course, but I usually prefer a more varied and maybe more ambiguous listening perspective, where there isn't any prescribed "meaning".

And I definitely agree that titles can be extremely annoying - bad titles that is. So simple numbers can be more safe than titles for that reason, and give the additional benefit to create a neat catalogue of your pieces, so you clearly see what was written in which order. (I just write the months/years of creation on top of my pieces for that reason.)

I do love good titles though.

When I finally settled on the title for my "Symphony in Five Movements", little did I anticipate that giving it this title was going to ensure that all five movements would be performed in the first performance! It was programmed to be the opening work followed by the Mendelssohn Vn Concerto and Bruckner's 1st Symphony. During the rehearsal period orchestra management realized that the duration of the M & B were already equal to what they considered an optimal total length, so they were looking for a way to shorten the total duration. Unthinkable to leave out anything from either of the two warhorses, hey, what about dropping a movement of the work never heard before. "It's called "Symphony in Five Movements" so we'll have to play all five movements." (!!) A reviewer stated that it was an overly-long programme....

I don't see too much the point of using opus numbers, but unless I can think of a poetic title that I'm very convinced about, I'll stick with a generic title such as "String Quartet No.2" etc. I do prefer though something other than a group formation description as a title, but often it seems hard to find something that fits perfectly. My most problematic title has probably been "Tango Suite". It's certainly a tango-influenced work, but tango has such strong and specific association it seems to create a particular expectation.

I thought opus numbers were only assigned upon publication?

I thought opus numbers were only assigned upon publication?

They are.

I know of one composer that self-publishes and uses opus numbers. What's to stop any composer using this labeling system if they want to?

They are.

Really optional these days, lol.

I have a piece that's called: "Passing toboggans of tomorrow." It's a pluralist harpsichord piece.

That's all I need to say.