Symphony No.5326, Opus 1643676

Do you think that there are too many pieces with titles such as Sonata No.1 in C Major? ...etc...

Sometimes it is very hard to come up with a title and so out of the sake of organization...we entitled

our pieces like that. There is nothing wrong with it. It just seems to get too predictable and so everyone's

pieces can sometimes be blurred into this one big category....symphony or sonata or whatnot.

As a matter of fact, I am writing a piano sonata...and I have entitled it Sonata No.1 in C# Minor, but I have decided that every movement needs a title to describe it. I do understand that many composers use this method, but many do not. When I finish with the piece...I may just call it "Insert Title" Sonata. Kinda like Moonlight Sonata. Not many nonmusical people are going to refer to Moonlight Sonata as Sonata in C# Minor. See what I mean?

This is an open discussion. No one is right or wrong. I just want some thoughts because it seems to

me that is does become difficult to title every piece of music you write.

Those kinds of titles are descriptive of the form of the piece, and they are symbols that indicate to the listener approximately what to expect from the piece in the way of seriousness, magnitude, etc. "Sonata" denotes a piece that is a good deal more weighty than "Sonatina" or "Albumblatt."

Something everyone pondering this question should understand is that most composers didn't title their pieces as we see them today. Beethoven didn't sit down one day and write "Sinfonie Nr. 5 in C moll, Opus 67." There are rare exceptions, but when Beethoven started writing down what we now know as the "Moonlight" Sonata, all he wrote at the top of the page was "Sonate," and nothing much (if anything) else. Someone else thought it sounded like moonlight, or a publisher thought it would sell more copies, and the name stuck, but most titles like that are not the composer's idea. On the top margins of Mozarts symphonies and quartets, etc, he wrote simply "Sinfonia" or "Quartett." Numbering and adding opus numbers usually happens when a piece is published to distinguish them more readiliy from other published works, or when someone like Kochel comes along and catalogues the complete oeuvre of a composer like Mozart.

I personally quit numbering my major works many years ago, because half the time I didn't finish what I started. There are people here - and you know who you are - who boast 30 symphonies and 15 piano concertos in their catalogue, yet most of them are unfinished. I must have started symphonies a dozen times, but to date I only have three completed, with a fourth on the way, and one of those was a failure and I've lost the last movement, so I probably shouldn't even count that. What does it profit me to put numbers and opuses on these? I keep a catalogue like Mozart did, but he didn't number any of his pieces, either. I think it's partly a self-applied ego stroke to be constantly numbering and adding opus numbers to things. It all looks very impressive, but in the final analysis, it's meaningless.

I was actually discussing the opposite thing with someone recently.

I was saying how much I dislike it when someone writes a concerto, say, and then calls it something like White Banana. Especially when the name has nothing to do with the mood evoked by the piece.

It's a matter of taste, and I feel it sounds naff, although it would be reduced to my ears, if they called it Violin Concerto 2 "White Banana".

Just a personal dislike of mine.

I believe calling things by names like Piano sonata, is just the way it should be.(as long as we're dealing with abstract, non programmatic music). The music, being abstract cant be named any more appropriately IMO.

And Lee. While it may be egotistic to give your works opus numbers, you have to realise that such a numbering system isnt without its merits. Especially if you write a large number of similar pieces.

"Not many nonmusical people are going to refer to Moonlight Sonata as Sonata in C# Minor. See what I mean?"

Not many musical people will do that either, as noone will have a clue what you are talking about. If the piece was still famous, and called Sonata in C# minor or Sonata No.14, non-musical people would call it by that name, probably. That is, non-musical people who have some passing interest in classical music (otherwise, why would they care?)

I've heard non-musical people mentioning Mozart's Sonata in C major (No.16) without any problems, so it's a logical extension of this that they'd say Beethoven's sonata in C sharp minor.

I personally always face a big blank wall everytime it's time to name one of my pieces anything other than its form (ie: symphony, concerto, sonata, etc...).

I'm not the most inspired person for names.

My last symphony is simply "Symphony in C" (despite it really not being "in C" to any extent!) as a sort of joke. I searched and searched and just could not come up with any programmatic intent to the symphony, and no colourful or witty names popped into my head either. I had a "Sinfonia da Requiem", a "Symphony for Strings", there's an upcoming "Sinfonia Canadensis", but this last symphony was just... well... "Symphony in C".

I don't particularly care WHAT anyone calls their piece of music. If the piece is programmatic, then the title better have at least SOMETHING to do with that programme (White Banana.. I'll have to remember that for a future piece LOL). The important thing is the music, not its title.

l'Isle Joyeuse... The Isle of the Dead... Sinfonia Antartica... In Memory of a Summer Day... The Age of Anxiety... all great titles, to great music, by great composers.

Symphony in F minor, Piano Concerto #2, Sonata for Flute and Piano... again, simple titles, to great music.

The Excrustation of Eutopic Paradigms Via Freud... crappy title... crappy piece of music too.

BTW, most composers DO name their pieces "symphony number whatever" or "Sonata in whatever key", those parts of the titles are rarely supplied by publishers. Likewise opus numbers - they are added by the composers, not their publishers. The occassional name comes from a publisher or from popular nomenclature.

On the other hand, specialized catalogue numbers like the K numbers for Mozart or the BWV numbers for Bach come from the person who catalogued that composer's works.

BTW, most composers DO name their pieces "symphony number whatever" or "Sonata in whatever key", those parts of the titles are rarely supplied by publishers. Likewise opus numbers - they are added by the composers, not their publishers. The occassional name comes from a publisher or from popular nomenclature.

Ah. Really? If this is true, then I am willing to stand corrected. I was under a distinctly different impression from examining autograph title pages from the Classical period (Mozart, etc), but I admit I haven't looked at many manuscripts after Beethoven, and the only title page for a Beethoven symphony I've ever seen was for the 'Eroica,' which I believe he actually did title as such, along with an elaborate dedication to Napoleon Bonaparte which he later destroyed.

Perhaps this is a practice nowadays, whereas it wasn't 200 years ago. Inasmuch as I don't subscribe to too many other modern practices in composition, it's no wonder I don't subscribe to this either. If I write very many more symphonies, I may have to start numbering them just to keep things tidy. But I still refuse to number anything I haven't finished. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Ah. Really? If this is true, then I am willing to stand corrected. I was under a distinctly different impression from examining autograph title pages from the Classical period (Mozart, etc), but I admit I haven't looked at many manuscripts after Beethoven, and the only title page for a Beethoven symphony I've ever seen was for the 'Eroica,' which I believe he actually did title as such, along with an elaborate dedication to Napoleon Bonaparte which he later destroyed.

Perhaps this is a practice nowadays, whereas it wasn't 200 years ago. Inasmuch as I don't subscribe to too many other modern practices in composition, it's no wonder I don't subscribe to this either. If I write very many more symphonies, I may have to start numbering them just to keep things tidy. But I still refuse to number anything I haven't finished. That just doesn't make sense to me.

first of all, one wouldn't assign an opus number to an unfinished work. so that's ok, we agree there.

I don't think that "because Mozart didn't do it" is necessarily a reason not to do something. Mozart drank himself to death, I'm certainly not going to emulate that behaviour. :D

Mahler certainly assigned names and numbers to his symphonies, and I don't think we can classify him as one of those modernist hooligans. :wacko:

I don't think there's anything inately wrong with entitling your work with a key and number if the key applies and if it's the X'th of that form you've composed. Carl Nielson certainly named and numbered his own symphonies. I think that's as good a reference as any.

While the argument that publishers named and numbered composers' works stands true for works of a certain period, it fails to take into consideration the shift towards personal control over the artist's output towards the middle and end of the 19th century.

I don't know at what point a practice becomes "modern" in your eyes, but I'd say that 150 to 100 years ago is old enough to assume that the practice of naming and numbering one's own work is not a recent development.

To return to the original post, I could turn around and ask, do you think there are too many pieces entitled with obscure and irrelevant literary references which could have simply been called "Sonate", or "trio" or "symphony"?

Rachmaninov wrote a brilliant piece called "Symphonic Dances". In my eyes it would have been better served with the title "Symphony #4". The very word "dances", to my eyes, gives that profound work a superficial assignation. I know he had hoped it would be used as music for a ballet one day. To my ears this work should never be accompanied by dance... that would distract us from the divine music (can ya tell it's one of my favourite pieces?)

Debussy's "La Mer" could very well have been "Symphonie" or "Première Symphonie" or even "Symphonie: La Mer", but Debussy was one of those modernist hooligans. He loathed the idea of using a traditional term.

"Symphonic Metamorphoses on Themes of Carl Maria von Weber"... would it have been better served by simply being "Variations on themes of Weber"? The latter would probably be microscopically easier on the toner cartridge. I don't think it changes the music.

A few years ago, I withdrew about 90% of my catalogue. This of course, threw my whole numbering scheme off kilter! 3 symphonies, down the tube. Dozens of miscellaneous chamber works, out the window. The symphony I recently completed is simply entitled "Symphony in C" yet I still kept the opus number on a set of my songs - opus 33 - for sentimental reasons. maybe I'll renumber my music, or start using years instead.. like "Symphony (2006)" or something. I know that if you're looking for inspiration in naming your works, I'm the wrong person to ask. I have as much trouble as anyone else, if not more so.

There are people here - and you know who you are - who boast 30 symphonies and 15 piano concertos in their catalogue, yet most of them are unfinished.

I second that. I mean if someone asked you for your 2nd symphony from the 50-odd you've half-composed or rushed beyond belief to add another opus to your list, you particularly don't want to be handing them a whole load of crap, excuse my language, do you?

I'm a fair person when it comes to numbering - I'm on a personal quest to finish all my previous pieces before going onto my Opus 23. I think that's the only fair method of doing it. Cause if you have a whole load of pieces and they're just pure [insert appropiate word here] then your reputation isn't really going to go anywhere despite those large, large, large numbers :P

Hey guys

It's been a while since I've posted something, but this is my take about names.

Personally, PERSONALLY, I've never named a piece something other than a REAL name.

FOr example, I've never bothered writing something called Symphony #4 in F sharp major or something like that.

Usually, when I compose something, it has a purpose, an inspiration, and I often name it something like that. Even if the piece as four movements, I shy away from naming it a symphony, like the 20 minutes Stars over Eger, because, well, I try to seperate my work from other compositons that are called symphonies.

PERSONALLY, I just find labelling a composition Symphony #9 or Sonatina for Flute and Piano just a bit too pretentious, but then again, you could say giiving it a name like, "Water dripping is also a bit too pretentions.

Basically, whenever I name something, I don't go for the cheesy profound, like "Senescience," or "Dawn of the Sky" or something that sounds really, how shall I put it, fluty, egocentric, or whatever you want to call it.

Basically, when it comes to names, I either try to be BLUNT, such as, "Tune for a Small Town Romantic." Down to the point, clever, has a purpose.

If I were to ever name a tune that's a bit fluty, such as, "Goddess of blossoms," or "The Girl Who Loved Her Horses" it's understandable, and doesn't succumb to somebody dancing in a field of daisies on exctacy

I go for funny titles sometimes, like "Grasshopper Slamdance", or "Flea Freeride."

Or a title that has absolutely nothing to do with the music, the complete opposite of what Calehay likes, such as: "Ditty for A Fat Bastard." or "Baloney Bercuse." and the music can sound on its own profound and serious, but it doesn't need to have a laugh out loud pretentious name...

I hope you don't hate me, but maybe what I'm saying is ironic, I really don't know, it's just how I feel.

I want to write someday this huge orchestral work, with added choir, massive organ, and I want it to last an hour, with soprano and bass singers, and I'm not going to call it, "Thus Sprach Zarathustra,"

I'm going to call it, "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall."

Thank you

I want to write someday this huge orchestral work, with added choir, massive organ, and I want it to last an hour, with soprano and bass singers, and I'm not going to call it, "Thus Sprach Zarathustra,"

it's "Also" sprach Zarathustra.

or "Thus Spake Zarathustra" in English,

and the reason it's called that is Strauss was setting to music the emotions and images that inspired him from a book by Nietzsche called "Also sprach Zarathustra".

Not much pretentious there.

Pretty straight forward.

Name of a book.

Huh.

and good luck getting something called "99 bottles of beer on the wall" performed :P

no, really!

I'd kill to see what organization would get together an orchestra and chorus and soloists for something like that. :D

back on topic

I don't understand what's "pretentious" about calling your piece of music what it is.

if it was inspired by a Japanese lithograph, then "Pagodes" is a nice title.

if it's simply a piece in the form of a rondo with no particular poetic or extra-musical inspiration, then why not just call it Rondo?

on the other hand, what ISN'T pretentious about a piece with no actual extra-musical inspiration, but whose title is "Phases of the moon and their effect on the Daffodils in Auntie Mame's Garden for 12 contrabass tubas and soprano recorder"?

This is sorta what you guys are talking about. Well, lets just say some random person hadnt quite finished their "1st symphony". Could that random somone go back and finish it and have it still be the "1st one"? Or, could they write another one and have that one take the place and forget about the movement they had already written? I know that some composer had like symphony no. 6 done before symphony no. 4 or something like that....... Thanks guys.

-Some random person :P

This is sorta what you guys are talking about. Well, lets just say some random person hadnt quite finished their "1st symphony". Could that random somone go back and finish it and have it still be the "1st one"? Or, could they write another one and have that one take the place and forget about the movement they had already written? I know that some composer had like symphony no. 6 done before symphony no. 4 or something like that....... Thanks guys.

-Some random person :P

in general, you wouldn't number your symphony for inclusion in a catalogue unless it were finished.

so, you might start your first symphony, then drop it to work on your grand opera "99 Bottles von Beer auf dem Wall", then for some reason, decide that you'd like to start another symphony. This new symphony, which actually gets finished is your "1st" symphony. When you finally get around to finishing the previous symphony, it will be your second (or third, or whatever number you are at).

In general, when a composer returns to an older work to finish it, he modifies it enough so that it actually "belongs" in its new numbering order. So a few years may have passed since you first started that initial symphony, and you may have grown a bit since then, when you come to finish it, it becomes a piece from this NEW time in your creative output, even if it's based on material you wrote previously.

LOL, I don't know if this is coming across logically.

An example of a piece that was majorly reworked but kept its original numbering is Prokoviev's 2nd piano concerto. He returned to the 2nd concerto a few years after completeing the 3rd concerto. However, he was reworking music that was "complete" at the time it was numbered, so it kept its nomenclature.

Okay, Thanks! :P

"your grand opera "99 Bottles von Beer auf dem Wall""

Hahaha!! Ok, you can have White Banana, can I have this?? :ninja:

I always thought that Opus numberings were given by the publisher, but perhaps I'm wrong? I name my pieces the usual way (Violin Concerto in A Minor, for example), but I usually put a sub-title, like "Moonlight Sonata". As for opus numbering, I only number completed work (or very close to completion). Well, its not like it matters since I am on Opus 2 ;）

I'm sorry for sounding a bit harsh. My blood sugar was actually pretty low, just came back from performing TWO concerts of Mahler's Titan Symphony. Now there's glory!

Yeah, I wasn't thinking clearly with my examples. I hope you don't think less of me. Medical condition :mellow:

Oh, and about 99 Bottles. No, I shouldn't have mentioned it :S. I really hope you don't steal the idea. I was planning on doing that for my final year at university. You know, go out with a bang in the most retarded possible way