What constitutes a 'work'?

[Quijote]

Touche (with an accent thingy on the 'e')...

You mean, of course, touché. You see, I am the king onion with the French computer keyboard. Nah nah ni nah nah !!

[PDG]

Groan...Ok, a point for you. You may play an extra half hour in the bath while the other children are put to bed...

[Quijote]

Groan...Ok, a point for you. You may play an extra half hour in the bath while the other children are put to bed...

Thank you, Papa.

[Peter]

Another good point. But the Shakespeare "work" is "fully notated", unlike musical scores. The painting (and we may add sculpture) example you give is beside the point : whether or not in reproduction, the "work" exists physically; we know we are looking at a 'photo' of something that physically exists. Its ontological status is clear. I stress again, music's ontological status is not so straightforward.

Is it? So each nuance, emphasis and voice level is fully notated? How clever of Shakespeare to ensure that every performance is identical! The painting example is just as relevant - what actually exists of say Da Vinci's last supper since it miraculously changes over time? How much of what we see is his 'work'? And what about the different hidden images that xray reveals? They exist but our eyes don't see the complete image!

I'm sorry but the autograph scores of many Beethoven works also exists physically, you can see them and you can touch them and as I mentioned before hear them internally without a performer.

[Sorrano]

We can all speak from birth? I think not. I'm sure we can all "utter" from birth, but utterance and speech are not the same at all. Speech too, requires training (often intuitive, to a point), practice and so on.

Musical notation : very well, but to what extent do we have "leeway" in these "instructions"? I remind you that certain nominalist theorists (e.g. Goodman, mentioned above) maintain that a "work" of music is only a "work" if 100% totally compliant to the score. Can this really be realized, or indeed is it desirable?

I find notation to be relative anyway. When sequencing with midi programs, for example, depending on the program I end up with various event charts depicting (and perhaps in a more accurate) what and how the music is performed. But it isn't necessarily accessible to most performers. We run into similar issues with some of the notation of this age, as well. Is there a current standard for depicting quarter tones and chord clusters?

[Quijote]

Is there a current standard for depicting quarter tones and chord clusters?

There is for quarter tones - see early scores by Boulez, Scelsi, Cage and Xenakis et al. I don't know how to reproduce the symbol here on this forum, but take the standard sharp symbol, and remove one each of the horizontal and vertical lines, and lo, you have the symbol for a quarter tone sharp. For a quarter tone flat, take the standard flat symbol and apply a short horizontal line across the flat "stem". Failing that, many contemporary composers place a 'notational preface', so to speak, with the instrumentation page of their scores and this usually suffices if the composer is using non-standard notational symbols.

For chord clusters, I can't see why this should prove a notational problem, unless you want to indicate an "approximate" cluster - here (Stockhausen is a good example in Klavierstücke 11) : the composer can stipulate the registral extremities of the cluster with a solid black or white vertical oblong (if the cluster is for piano). Of course, if you are envisaging an orchestral cluster à la Ligeti, you would naturally score each note of the cluster for each individual instrument (with the quarter tone notation, if this is the interval you require).

The same applies for even smaller micro tones (at least up to a 16th), but then, frankly, from practical experience such notational precision is lost when one takes the overall effect into account.

[Sorrano]

It's been a few years since I've examined scores of 20th Century music (works) and have forgotten some things, particularly how Ligeti (and Penderecki) among others scored orchestral clusters. Also, for piano I have used blocks as notation that extend the range desired of the cluster. I don't know if that is a standard format, but I will have to review my modern notation (seems I have a book somewhere). Thanks.

[Quijote]

It's been a few years since I've examined scores of 20th Century music (works) and have forgotten some things, particularly how Ligeti (and Penderecki) among others scored orchestral clusters. Also, for piano I have used blocks as notation that extend the range desired of the cluster. I don't know if that is a standard format, but I will have to review my modern notation (seems I have a book somewhere). Thanks.

You're welcome, Sorrano. For the "full horror" of contemporary notation, check out almost any score by Brian Ferneyhough : if there ever was 'information overload', that composer gets first prize !!!! I think you may well find an example of his scores on the Internet. I am able to "hear" scores in my head, but Ferneyhough defeats me.

[Sorrano]

You're welcome, Sorrano. For the "full horror" of contemporary notation, check out almost any score by Brian Ferneyhough : if there ever was 'information overload', that composer gets first prize !!!! I think you may well find an example of his scores on the Internet. I am able to "hear" scores in my head, but Ferneyhough defeats me.

Ferneyhough appears to be quite opposed to the aleatoric camp! After looking at a couple of examples I see why it is not easy to"hear" these in your head.

[Sorrano]

A good point, which I would like to return to later. However, I am not convinced that Bach wrote what we today call "works". Another point I am trying to develop here is that the notion of a piece of music embodying the "work concept" ('music as an autonomus object') only began to crystallize around the end of the 18th century; it is not at all clear if Bach and his contemporaries had this notion as part of their cultural baggage.

It is interesting that 45 years after Bach's death that Beethoven was published his first "works" with a specific "opus" number. The classification of certain compositions as "works" or "opus" was important enough to deny other compositions of an opus number. And I take it that it was standard in the 19th Century to classify published compositions as such. However, I can't help but wonder what, then, to call these pieces (if you will) without opus number if they are not to be termed as works. Isn't the common designation (in English) "Works without an Opus Number"?

[Hofrat]

In general, Beethoven designated the opus number when he published a work. That does not mean that Beethoven did not consider a work worthy for publication if he did not give it an opus number. Had Beethoven lived longer, he may have released works that have been designated as "W.o.O." ("Werk ohne Opuszahlen" = "Works without opus number"). So, do not use the opus number as a criterion for what constitutes a work.

[Sorrano]

There is a bit of subtlety in my post regarding works, perhaps a bit punish. W.o.O. being a large part of that. It may be that some of the works without opus numbers might have been published but there are others I think he never intended to have published.

[Hofrat]

Sorrano;

Well, Beethoven did not want to publish some of his opuses. The opus 49 sonatas were published by his brothers, much to Beethoven's anger. The rondo "Rage over the lost penny" was published posthumously by Diabelli as opus 129 (because that number was skipped by Beethoven). After Beethoven's death, scholars gave opus numbers to various works that Beethoven did not publish. For instance, the overture "Leonore 1" (opus 138), a piano trio movement in Bb (opus 154), and others.

Many of the W.o.O.'s were not in Beethoven's control. For instance, the canons and musical jokes were often saved by the recipients and published much later. Many of the folksong arrangements were not under his control.

Again, an opus number or a W.o.O. number is not a criterion for what constitutes a work. Is "Fur Elise" (W.o.O. 39) a work? I would think so.

[PDG]

Sorrano;

Well, Beethoven did not want to publish some of his opuses. The opus 49 sonatas were published by his brothers, much to Beethoven's anger. The rondo "Rage over the lost penny" was published posthumously by Diabelli as opus 129 (because that number was skipped by Beethoven). After Beethoven's death, scholars gave opus numbers to various works that Beethoven did not publish. For instance, the overture "Leonore 1" (opus 138), a piano trio movement in Bb (opus 154), and others.

Many of the W.o.O.'s were not in Beethoven's control. For instance, the canons and musical jokes were often saved by the recipients and published much later. Many of the folksong arrangements were not under his control.

Again, an opus number or a W.o.O. number is not a criterion for what constitutes a work. Is "Fur Elise" (W.o.O. 39) a work? I would think so.

Hi Hofrat.
I am extremely interested in Beethoven's opus work numbering. Apparently, he was happy for the six Op. 18 quartets to share the same generic number (even though they were published as two separate sets of 3), but chose not to present the Op. 23 & 24 Violin sonatas as a pair. Then there is the anomolous Op. 81 pairing (a and b) of an old wind sextet and a contemporary piano sonata. Plus, he deliberately held back on a work such as the Serioso quartet, Op. 95, even though this could easily have been published as Op. 75 (ish).

I'm confused by your stating of Opus 154 - what do you mean? And Fur Elise is WoO 59, not 39. Regards, etc...

[Hofrat]

Dear PDG;

It was a tradition to write compositions in "books" of six (I affectionately call them "six-packs"). Sonatas, quartets, symphonies, and concerti were often written in groups of six. With his opus 18, Beethoven was following tradition at that time. Often when publishing these books, it was done in two groups of three, but still bearing the same opus number.

Actually, Beethoven wanted to publish opus 23 and opus 24 as a pair with one opus number. The publisher had trouble reading Beethoven's terrible handwriting and published them under separate opus numbers.

Opus 81 is an example of Beethoven sending two compositions to two different publishers using the same opus by mistake. Hence, two different compositions received the opus 81 designation. Later this was straightened out with the additions of a and b.

You must remember, publishers in Beethoven's time would only publish things that would sell and would sell quickly. Much of Beethoven's wind music was written in his first period, yet were published in his second or third periods. During his first period, there was no market for the wind music, but in the later periods there was and Beethoven could publish them. Beethoven could not find a single publisher for his C-major mass because there was no market for it, but by the time he wrote his D-major mass, four publishers were hounding him to publish it. The market apparently shifted.

Beethoven generally was very quick to perform and/or publish a new work. I know of a occasion or two where Beethoven was not so quick and deliberately dragged his feet. Beethoven composed the "Archduke Trio" in 1810-1811 but did not perform it until 1814 and did not publish until 1816. The delay in performance was probably due to the absense of the dedicee, Archduke Rudolf, from Vienna. "Kakadu" variations were started in the first period, revised in the second, and were finally performed and published in the third. The theme is from a popular musical "The Sisters from Prague" by his friend Mueller. By the time the variations were ready in 1803, the musical was withdrawn from the stage. So as not to embarrass Mueller, Beethoven put the trio aside. Lo and behold, the musical is staged again in 1816. Beethoven dusts off the score and has the trio performed. I do not know anything about a delay in performing the opus 95 quartet.

OOPS on my faux pas with the W.o.O. of "Fur Elise." You are right. It is 59 not 39. That will teach me to misplace my glasses. But by coincidence, this links up to your last question: what is opus 154? You probably know opus 154 as W.o.O. 39: the allegretto in Bb for piano trio from 1812. After Beethoven's death, scholars had to deal with the wealth of his unpublished works. At first, they started to add opus numbers after the last official Beethoven opus 135. "The Glorious Moment" received opus 136, fugue for string quintet received 137, Overture "Leonore 1" became opus 138, and onward to the "allegretto for piano trio" which became 154. Then Kinsky and Halm came along with their catalog of Beethoven's works with its W.o.O.'s and put everything in the proper order, until Hess came along, but that is another story for another day.