What constitutes a 'work'?

[PDG]

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.


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 After Beethoven's death, scholars had to deal with the wealth of his unpublished works.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.

Yes, six quartets as one generic opus had previousy been the norm, but Beethoven's set was surely the end of that tradition, and even then the original 2 sets of 3 were published as much as six months apart (Haydn must have been absolutely astonished by Op. 18). And of course, even earlier than the time of these quartets (1800/1801), Beethoven was prolific in releasing other works in sets of 3, not 6 - such as the String Trios Op. 9, Piano Trios Op. 1, Piano Sonatas Op. 2, etc.

I've never seen LvB's Opus list go beyond #138. Interesting that Kinsky 'corrected' the list, but still left in place the last three incorrect numbers (especially the very last, Op. 138).

I knew the story of Op. 81a/b, but again it's strange that this anomaly has never been dealt with by revisionists. If you've corrected me about Opp. 23 & 24, I thank you.

[Hofrat]

Dear PDG;

Yes, one would be hard pressed to find another "six-pack" by any composer after Beethoven's opus 18. Well, there is always Beethoven's 6 songs opus 52. He did continue to publish "three-packs" (opus 1, 2, 9, 10, 30, 31, 45, and 59).

As for opus numbers beyond opus 138, they were used more extensively before 1955, the year that the Kinsky-Halm catalog was published. After 1955, the W.o.O. numbers were used instead of those extra opus numbers.

Then came the Hess catalog and the Biamonti catalog, both of which are stories for another day.

[PDG]

Hi Hofrat.

I wouldn't describe Op. 52 as containing six separate works. Another early "3-Pack" is of course the Violin Sonatas, Op. 12. And in all these examples, I think 3 works is ample. Op. 18 must be the most burdened number in the whole list; there seems to be too much great music attached to it, but it seems to be just about coping under the strain!

I still don't understand why Kinsky left Opp. 136, 137 & 138 on the original list, when all the others beyond 135 were removed.

[Hofrat]

Hi Hofrat.

I still don't understand why Kinsky left Opp. 136, 137 & 138 on the original list, when all the others beyond 135 were removed.

Over the years, there has been several attempts to catalog Beethoven's works. The first was prepared by Gustav Nottebohm in 1851, with a second printing in 1868. The catalog of A.B.Marx was published as an appendix to his biography of Beethoven in 1859. In it the works are arranged chronologically. A.W.Thayer also came out with a chronological catalog in 1865. Sir George Grove's catalog appeared in 1911. It was Grove who followed the opus numbers to 138, then added works without opus numbers in a continuous numbering to 256. It was Kinsky-Halm who split the works into essentially two lists: works with opus numbers 1-138 and works without opus numbers 1-200+.

So it seems that opuses 136, 137, and 138 are considered works with opus numbers despite the fact that Beethoven did not publish them and they do not "deserve" the designation of works with opus numbers.

[PDG]

So it seems that opuses 136, 137, and 138 are considered works with opus numbers despite the fact that Beethoven did not publish them and they do not "deserve" the designation of works with opus numbers.

Well, er yes, exactly, as we thought...

[Sorrano]

In listening to some of Ligeti's music (series of discs labeled "The Ligeti Project" I happened to look over some of the disc sleeve notes which were written by Ligeti himself. It was interesting to me in regards to this forum topic that he incidentally refers to several of his compositions as "works", such as Continuum being "the key work" in a context of rhythmic pieces written in the '60's. Also, noted that in writing about the Piano Concerto that the pianist, Pierre-Laurent Aimard refers to it as a "work". While the definition itself is not present I think that we can begin to get an idea as to what composers themselves determine are works. Beethoven with his opus numbers, historians that like(d) to catalog various composers' music, Ligeti in referring to his compositions all appear to be in agreement as to what a "work" is in at least some respects.

I realize that I am not expressing my ideas very well, but hopefully you will be able to understand the jist of what I am trying to say. Is Cage's 4'33" a work? What does Cage say? I'd be interested in that.

[Hofrat]

Dear Sorrano;

Willy Hess, a catalogger of Beethoven's works, was firmly convinced that the picture of the composer Beethoven is only completed by the small and supposingly unimportant byproducts of his genius: the discarded versions, unfinished projects, studies, and musical jokes. To Hess, the term "work" meant a certain degree of completeness.

[Quijote]

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.

It is curious, though, that the most thoroughly "through-composed" works of Ferneyhough, Ligeti et al will sound to most listeners as practically the same (in effect) as any aleatoric music. Cage, on the other hand, often favours a compositional approach based on chance procedures. What, finally, is the difference, in strictly audible sonic result?

[Sorrano]

It is curious, though, that the most thoroughly "through-composed" works of Ferneyhough, Ligeti et al will sound to most listeners as practically the same (in effect) as any aleatoric music. Cage, on the other hand, often favours a compositional approach based on chance procedures. What, finally, is the difference, in strictly audible sonic result?

Can Cage claim compositions based on chance as his own? Let alone determine if they considered as works? At least the output of works of Ligeti, Ferneyhough, and others have the INTENTIONED result while those of Cage and other aleatoric composers have little or no control of the output, let alone much degree of sameness from one performance to another. I think of Cage's 4'33" in almost the sense of plagiarism in that those very sounds are what normally occur between movements in a conventional "work". When I heard/watched the performance of that piece there was nothing there that was revolutionary to me. It sounded like the incidental background "noise" that occurs at any other concert I've been to. Is that a work?

[Sorrano]

Dear Sorrano;

Willy Hess, a catalogger of Beethoven's works, was firmly convinced that the picture of the composer Beethoven is only completed by the small and supposingly unimportant byproducts of his genius: the discarded versions, unfinished projects, studies, and musical jokes. To Hess, the term "work" meant a certain degree of completeness.

I certainly have to agree with you. However there was a composer of the last Century (20th) whose name I cannot recall at this time, but to him each composition was never complete at any time until that composer died. Inasmuch as he was constantly revising and such I think that makes sense. Bruckner's symphonies were something like that and I suppose couldn't be really classified as works in terms of completeness until 1896, when he died and the revisions ended. I wish I could remember which composer it was that I referred to as I would like to do some more research on his method of composing and revising.

[Sorrano]

It is curious, though, that the most thoroughly "through-composed" works of Ferneyhough, Ligeti et al will sound to most listeners as practically the same (in effect) as any aleatoric music. Cage, on the other hand, often favours a compositional approach based on chance procedures. What, finally, is the difference, in strictly audible sonic result?

I cannot agree with you, for myself, on how Ligeti's music ultimately sounds. It does not sound at all aleatoric to me; there is a sense of form and purpose throughout the music I've listened to and not the random passage of sounds and events. As for Ferneyhough, I can't say anything as I haven't listened to his music. But others, like Penderecki and Crumb to name a couple I am familiar with there is nothing in that music to suggest to my mind aleatoric styles.

[Peter]

I certainly have to agree with you. However there was a composer of the last Century (20th) whose name I cannot recall at this time, but to him each composition was never complete at any time until that composer died. Inasmuch as he was constantly revising and such I think that makes sense. Bruckner's symphonies were something like that and I suppose couldn't be really classified as works in terms of completeness until 1896, when he died and the revisions ended. I wish I could remember which composer it was that I referred to as I would like to do some more research on his method of composing and revising.

Indeed and of course Beethoven himself often revised 'works' after the first performance and what about the latest Bärenreiter Urtext Edition?

[Quijote]

I cannot agree with you, for myself, on how Ligeti's music ultimately sounds. It does not sound at all aleatoric to me; there is a sense of form and purpose throughout the music I've listened to and not the random passage of sounds and events. As for Ferneyhough, I can't say anything as I haven't listened to his music. But others, like Penderecki and Crumb to name a couple I am familiar with there is nothing in that music to suggest to my mind aleatoric styles.

This returns us in effect to the question "what constitutes a work". Is an aleatoric 'realization' a "work"? Is a "work" necessarily written down in score form and always reproducible? At play is an idea developed by Lydia Goehr (yes, daughter of the composer Goehr) in her book "The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works" (Oxford, 2007), wherein she posits the "work concept" that crystallized around circa 1800. The question equally applies to improvisationary genres such as jazz and even film music.

[Quijote]

Yes they still exist - there are musicians capable of writing down the notes from memory. I forget who said it but a famous conductor claimed that if all the scores and recordings of Beethoven were lost he could write out the concertos and symphonies note for note. Also don't forget most concert pianists play from memory not a score. Most of us can also imagine pieces of music without reference to a score! If I ask you to think of the opening bars of the Eroica I'm sure you have no problem in instantly recalling the sounds - but from where if you claim they do not exist unless we are in the presence of an orchestra?

Yes, but even so, when playing from memory one is in effect playing from a "virtual score", albeit in one's mind.
It is true that we can "hear" a score in our heads, but is this simply a memory of the last performance we happened to hear, or truly an "idealized" performance? There are people who claim to take more pleasure from reading scores than actually hearing the work played. I am suspicious of this. In my own case, I am able to hear scores in my head (when I know the work, even after one initial 'physical' hearing), and can even "hear" unknown works, but in the case of an 'unknown work not previously heard in real-time conditions' I am left with the feeling of uncompleteness, if I may so term it. Whilst I may have a general feel of how the music "sounds" reading the score, there is no substitute for actually hearing it performed.

So, the "work", for me, only exists in real time. In its score form, it is a "virtual work".

[Quijote]

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.

With regard to theatre plays, of course voice nuances, level and so on are not notated. This is so because there is no universally accepted notation to render such issues realizable. The only "ur-text" is the "text" itself. I am not suggesting that one cannot "play" (interpretatively-creatively) with the text, but the "work" (Shakespeare play) is in the text, whereas, in my view, the Beethoven "work" is only virtually in the text (the "score"), and only fully realized when performed.

The Da Vinci example you refer to : a good point. Indeed, the work changes over time due to colour degradation and so on, but was this "intended" by the artist? The images underneath we can see today via x-ray technology : are these integral to the work? May we draw a parallel : perhaps we can x-ray the manuscripts of certain Beethoven sketches and "read" earlier manifestations of the "work". What then, is the "work"?