restart opus numbering?

I am thinking of starting over in opus numbering. As a kid I started writing and giving an opus number but without finishing a piece. So I have a lot of unfinished pieces.

I think it is odd when the pieces I consider to be more serious to start around opus 60. Seems not fair. So. On the other hand, how should I organise my childhood pieces if the numbering starts all over.

What should I do?

I wouldn't worry about opus numbers really. I am starting to organize my works by date written. Once published, however, then you can assign Opus numbers in that manner - if you surely desire. It's up to you though ultimately.

A bit of cleaning up could help. Unfinished works cannot really be 'concerto NO.3 op 16' or something. They are a Draft 2 concerto. Finished works that you should want to keep number them any way you like.

But opus numbering seems rather outdated. Usually pieces are now named and not just after the form you use "symphony No. 10", but also with other names "like The Bells". THen again if you only work on concertos and symphonies, etc then you have few alternatives really.

Do you need opus numbers? I just keep a chronological list of my compositions so I remember the order that they were written in as well as the years of original completion and revision(s). Some people like to remember the exact dates of completion, but that's not so important to me. However, I do keep track of exact dates for premieres.

I'm not suggesting that you should follow my model, I'm just putting another idea out there!

Bartok re-started his chronological catalog of his works twice. I don't see anything wrong with it. Just start a new numbering system. Personally, I think opus numbers are rather archaic these days but hey, whatever floats your boat.

I do my opus numbers backwards, so I started with whatever random number now I have to compose to fill the rest of the numbers!

Well no actually I don't use opus numbers since that's way too pompous and pretentious even for me.

Concerto for Garbage Truck & Dog Whistle Opus 4 No.510! As mock titles though they're great.

Positive integers are boring anyways. I want to see irrational or complex opus numbers! (Complex is quite fitting, since many composers would, hopefully, develop in more than one dimension.)

Positive integers are boring anyways. I want to see irrational or complex opus numbers! (Complex is quite fitting, since many composers would, hopefully, develop in more than one dimension.)

^Best answer ever :lol:

But on topic: I just date the piece when I finish it, I may add some sort of numbering system later idk. It's your music, do what ever the heck you want with it!

So, thank you all for the answers. Maybe I'll go for a numbering in vectors, idk, at least that gives direction ;)

But basically what you all are saying is: its outdated or even pretentious, but you don't care.

Nikolas, about the cleaning up. Would you renumber only the finished pieces? then a op70 could become an op 16 (or so) and when I ever reach the 70 again if will be rather unclear. So now I am thinking of just quiting the op number (although I sort of like the pompous element of it;) ) and assign a year or date. Oh and btw, the naming Nikolas mentioned sounds rather Romantic to me. Is this right?

Why is it pompous to write Op. XXX ??

It is just a way to catalogue something, it should not even be outdated or old fashioned.

With it you're not stating "I'm the best of the best and everybody else is under me"!

(Unless you really write it next to ALL your opus numbers :P ), and using just the date of composition, either begin or completion of your work, doesn't make you more humble and "human", it is just about what works for you or not.

For the help idea I think that you should just do a main list of your works, for those you've finished and you give to them the opus number and maybe also the date you started or finished it, and for the ones you've not finished you do the same thing by putting the opus number and the date of beginning, so you always know when you did it, and what number it is and the title, if ever...

Always if you like to have everything in order and catalogued...

I'm a silly bean in that I love applying opus numbers to pieces and I'm really craptacular at keeping track of when I start and end pieces so OP number is easiest for me, but that's me personally.

I've also had to restart my opus number list and constantly edit the damn thing because I keep getting confused about the pieces I write and the ones I don't finish. I've started about 200 pieces and I have only finished about 40-50 of them, so the list is constantly being revised. There are a few really old pieces that are rough drafts that need finessing, but such is the way of life. But don't worry about starting the list over - from time to time, things need editting.

I'm an opus fan myself but I have the same problems... I have a few old works I'm not happy with or unfinished works in the middle of the numbering system. I haven't actually done it yet, but my plan is to assign everything a Cat. number and an Op. number. Opus number goes by publication or premiere date (or just a piece I'm really happy with), and Catalogue number is the order in which I began writing the pieces. So everything get's a Cat. number as soon as I start it. Plus... I like cats.

It's my understanding that in general, opus numbers are applied to published works. Of course, if you're publishing your own works, then you have to figure out some way of numbering them.

It's my understanding that in general, opus numbers are applied to published works. Of course, if you're publishing your own works, then you have to figure out some way of numbering them.

I'm in the same camp as Chris, Jason and a few others in this regard. I've never used opus numbers, because I haven't published anything, and traditionally they denote a published work, or set of works.

When I was younger, I assigned catalogue numbers to each piece I even started (ex. Cat. 176) - naturally, I intended to finish them all, though I actually did so relatively seldom - but I even abandoned that by the time I was 20 or so.

Since then, I've re-organised by genre (symphonic, chamber, piano, choral, etc.), and I'm working on a chronological thematic catalogue similar to what Mozart used (Title, Instrumentation, Date, and Incipit of opening theme) for completed works.

I'm also compiling a list of works I intend to self-publish, and assigning Opus numbers to them chronologically (ex. my "12 Sonate a 3 for two Violins and Continuo" will be Opus 25...when I finally finish them all).

I make myself out to be so wonderfully organised, but it's actually far from the truth. :facepalm: This is all very much "work in progress."

I used opus numbers for a grand total of 12 works and then stopped after that; they were quite pointless. They aren't really useful unless you have hundreds of published works where they're generic titles wouldn't make them distinguished easily enough. For example, Piano Sonatas are best designated by their nicknames and opus numbers, not by their "No. XX" or key since that sometimes varies by publisher (Haydn and Schubert's works come to mind).

I'm planning on publishing my works by CD, as soon as I feel the music is some sort of mature. So I thought I will name my CD's Opus 1, 2, 3 etc. There will be about 18 pieces on a CD, so the numbering will be a bit elaborate. Opus 1 no. 1 -I - Piece somewhat.

Very often I think a piece is good enough to be on the Opus 1 CD, but I dirgard the piece after a while when I learn more about composing. These pieces I put in a (computer) map called Educational. I just dump them in there, since there not of much value to me. I'm working on my Opus 1 no. 1 I - piece at the moment, but I have been doing that since a long time.

Gijs, your plan to publish your works on CD and give each CD an opus number sound good to me.

However, I hope you're not planning to publish a lot of different kinds of works together in a single opus.

You might want to keep in mind that almost invariably, all the works published together in a given opus are of the same genre: 6 trio sonatas, 12 etudes, 9 songs, etc.

It would be rather odd and confusing to throw a string quartet, a symphony, a tone poem, 3 songs and a piano sonata in a singe opus. I've never seen it done, but aside from that, I don't think it makes much sense.

Go on and give the world your Opus 1! :D

Gijs, your plan to publish your works on CD and give each CD an opus number sound good to me.

However, I hope you're not planning to publish a lot of different kinds of works together in a single opus.

You might want to keep in mind that almost invariably, all the works published together in a given opus are of the same genre: 6 trio sonatas, 12 etudes, 9 songs, etc.

It would be rather odd and confusing to throw a string quartet, a symphony, a tone poem, 3 songs and a piano sonata in a singe opus. I've never seen it done, but aside from that, I don't think it makes much sense.

Go on and give the world your Opus 1! :D

:P The world has to wait a little more, but I'm glad it's somewhat anticipated.

Well the pieces I plan to put on a CD are quit varied in ensemble. They probebly don't belong on a Opus in the way it was used traditionaly. To be able to fit the pieces in a somewhat overviewable manner I'll end up with 2 subdivisions. Opus 1 no. 1 Bundle in E minor - II- Piano trio. Like that.

I think the term Opus will be more of a CD name then a categorisation. Now I'll just have to find a way to categorize them. ;)

After thinking about it, in this day and age, I think maybe you're right. We're not limited now by the publishing methods of the past.

That aside there are now many cycles of pieces by various composers who consist of vastly different pieces with different instrumentations etc., which are merely connected by one (sometimes vague, sometimes more concrete) common thought. Ferneyhough's "Carceri d'Invenzione", Zender's "Canto" pieces, even some operas like Stockhausen's "Licht" that consist of many pieces (string quartets, pieces with electronics, pieces with open instrumentation, soli, etc.) that are frequently performed on their own and are merely thematically (and to some degree by formulas) connected to the rest.

That aside there are now many cycles of pieces by various composers who consist of vastly different pieces with different instrumentations etc., which are merely connected by one (sometimes vague, sometimes more concrete) common thought. Ferneyhough's "Carceri d'Invenzione", Zender's "Canto" pieces, even some operas like Stockhausen's "Licht" that consist of many pieces (string quartets, pieces with electronics, pieces with open instrumentation, soli, etc.) that are frequently performed on their own and are merely thematically (and to some degree by formulas) connected to the rest.

Lets not forget Grisey's Les espaces acoustiques! Even Berio's Sequenzas and Davidovsky's Synchronisms. Even Crumb's Black Angels, Dream Sequence, and An Idyll for the Misbegotten (Images I, II, and III) (or similar cycles -- Echos I and II, Makrokosmos).

I'd say that in the case of Licht, everything is linked by formuals to more than just "some degree", as its all built from one super-formula. ;)

But yeah, cycles of pieces. I don't know that I would lump them together as one "opus". But opus numbers are a dated and useless thing anyway.

I'd say that in the case of Licht, everything is linked by formuals to more than just "some degree", as its all built from one super-formula. ;)

Yeah, but the way Stockhausen follows his super-formula in detail is often quite free in Licht. Sometimes it's really clear and obvious and sometimes it's merely a vague skeleton.

The other examples you mentioned are good in any case. (Even though in the case of the Berio and Davidovsky pieces the basic idea behind the instrumentation always stays the same - but of course the formal concepts vary wildly.)

Yeah, but the way Stockhausen follows his super-formula in detail is often quite free in Licht. Sometimes it's really clear and obvious and sometimes it's merely a vague skeleton.

The other examples you mentioned are good in any case. (Even though in the case of the Berio and Davidovsky pieces the basic idea behind the instrumentation always stays the same - but of course the formal concepts vary wildly.)

True point. But to some degree the formula is still kinda present! Haha.

And as mentioned before, operas with multiple works are a collection of works for the same instrumentation -- piano trios or sonatas, string quartets, etc. So I think the Berio and Davidovsky still apply to being "outside" of the normal opus "convention". But you're right, the basic idea "instrumental" is present throughout.