Opus numbers and unpublished works?

[eschiss1]

The sequence of published opus numbers by Edward MacDowell begins at opus 10. I can only imagine that the composer of opus 10 was embarrassed by works of his teens and chose to leave them unpublished. In the 1890s MacDowell assigned opuses 1-7 and 9 to lighter piano and vocal works. He may have assumed that low numbers, presumably associated with youthful works, would dissuade critics from measuring these pieces by standards they might otherwise invoke.

Although the 1890s candidate for MacDowell's opus 8 was announced, it, too, seems to have been suppressed, The opus number therefore has the curious distinction of having been abandoned twice by MacDowell.

This attitude certainly contrasts with the bold endeavor of a Dohnanyi, Rachmaninoff, or Stenhammar, to name a few of the many who published more ambitious opus 1s -- if not opus 10s.

Gade's, Nielsen's (often played and rather good Little Suite...), Samuel Barber's (serenade for string quartet or string orchestra, which I used to listen to very often during my college years fwiw ), Prokofiev's (a bold though not characteristic first sonata), and very very especially Brahms' piano sonata (not his first but a very great early one) in C... (the scherzo op. 4 preceded that by a few years, but who's counting, and this is a pleasant topic itself- ways composers say Hi There! or something-like...)
Eric

[TerraEpon]

But I think biggest oddity of all?

Debussy's String Quartet, Op. 10. No other pieces have an Op. at all.

Also, Albeniz has a bunch of pieces in random places. His Op. numbers get into the 230s...maybe 30 pieces have numbers.

[albion]

Elgar, Stanford and Mackenzie were very tidy in their opus-designation - pretty much a direct chronology. Sullivan gave up after Op. 4 (Kenilworth), as did Cowen after Op.3 (The Rose Maiden). Ethel Smyth gave up on the idea of opus numbers very early (in the 1880s) and I don't think that Bantock ever entertained the idea. I seem to recall that somebody allocated opus numbers posthumously to Parry, but it has not been taken up - has anyone else come across this?

As Gareth said, when it comes to British composers nobody could possibly beat Holbrooke for re-allocation, duplication and general confusion. He clearly loved to list and catalogue his music - quite large works appear in early publisher's advertisements (for example the overture The New Renaissance and the cantata Heaven and Earth) complete with opus number attached, only to vanish in later ones, often without trace. Perhaps they were never in fact written or did not get beyond the draft stage. Some pieces underwent changes in intrumentation, some were simply retitled as belonging to another genre, some works ended up with two or three possible opus numbers, some opus numbers ended up with two quite unrelated compositions attached to them ...

[Delicious Manager]

Debussy labelled his String Quartet in G minor as 'Op 10' for publication, even though none of his other works have opus numbers. The young composer wanted to make a 'splash' with this piece and though an opus number would lend additional credibility to the piece. He chose '10' because he wanted something with double figures, yet which indicated it was an early work of a promising composer.

[Kriton]

Also, Albeniz has a bunch of pieces in random places. His Op. numbers get into the 230s...maybe 30 pieces have numbers.

His piano sonatas, which are very charming neo-Scarlattian pieces, have a confusing numbering alltogether, because of the composer himself: apparently, the 1st & 7th sonatas never got beyond the sketchbooks and his 2nd & 6th sonatas never even have been composed - so we remain with nos. 3 - 5... Which we only call nos. 3 - 5 because the composer wanted us to do so. If I remember correctly, that is...

[JimL]

So, can anybody confirm the opus number of Dvorak's Bells of Zlonice?  I still say it was either Op. 1 or 2.

[pcc]

One of the odder opus situations is that of Emile Waldteufel.  He never assigned opus numbers to his dances, nor did his principal publishers (who were British -- Hopwood & Crew), but once Waldteufel contracted for simultaneous European publishing with Henry Litolff's Verlag, Litolff began assigning opus numbers retroactively for works already published as well as new compositions, regardless of their original composition or publication dates elsewhere, and this is how they are still often classified.  (I think Litolff began with op. 101.)  Then this kept up when Waldteufel changed publishers again late in his career, to August Cranz.  Ironically, many of Waldteufel's best-quality and best-known pieces accidentally fall in Litolff's fabricated op.145 -170 range -- Violettes (op. 148), A toi (op. 150), Mon reve (op. 151), Les sirenes (op. 154), Pomone (op. 155), Toujours ou jamais (op. 156), Pluie des diamants (op. 160), Ma charmante (op. 166), Toujours fidele (op. 169), Dolores (op.170).   You don't even get to Les patineurs (The Skaters) until op. 183...

[albion]

Thanks for the information on Waldteufel - still a very underrated composer, along with Ziehrer, Millocker and Eduard Strauss. At least with the Strauss family, opus numbers were assigned with some consistency, although the huge gaps in Eduard's catalogue are very frustrating and may relate to his wholesale destruction of the Strauss archive in the early years of the 20th century.

[albion]

So, can anybody confirm the opus number of Dvorak's Bells of Zlonice?  I still say it was either Op. 1 or 2.

According to the main Czech Dvorak site (http://www.antonin-dvorak.cz/uvod/) the first five opus numbers with their Burghauser equivalents are:

Op.1        String Quintet No.1 in A minor (1861) [B7]
Op.2        String Quartet No.1 in A major (1862) [B8] - opus number also allocated to Songs (1881) [B123-124]
Op.3        Evening Songs (1876-1881) [B61, which also incorporates Opp.9 (1879-1880) and 31 (1882)]
Op.4        Symphony No.2 in B flat  (1865) [B12]
Op.5        Piano Quintet No.1 in A major (1872) [B28]

Symphony No.1 is listed as B9 without opus number (1865).  Clear as a bell, then.

[eschiss1]

Hrm. It's possible that older editions or recordings of Dvorak's symphony no. 1 had an opus number that has since been dropped, of course, but at least library catalog listings I can find for the Kertesz and Kubelik LPs make no mention of this.
Eric

[Jonathan]

This problem of opus numbers seem to afflict a lot of composers!  I think I read somewhere that some composers assign them as they write whereas others start when works are published.

Anyway, Tausig appears to have 3 opus 1s - an Impromptu, Das Geisterschiff and Two Concert etudes and only goes up to op.6 (IIRC) before abandoning the idea of using them.  Liszt did a similar thing, his opus numbers go up to 10 but have gaps so it's just easier to use the Searle numbering system (rather than the Raabe one).

I also think I read that some of MacDowell's works were published under a pseudonym (Edgar Thorne, IIRC) which may be why his earliest works numbers are so confusing.

[JimL]

Hrm. It's possible that older editions or recordings of Dvorak's symphony no. 1 had an opus number that has since been dropped, of course, but at least library catalog listings I can find for the Kertesz and Kubelik LPs make no mention of this.
Eric

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened, Eric.  No, you'd have to actually have one of the old LPs to see what I'm talking about.  I think Steven B. has an extensive collection, maybe Amphissa as well.  Look for the Kertesz on London.  I think Kubelik did his for DGG.  Which reminds me.  I currently only have the 7th in my collection.  I really want the 5th and 6th as well.  Those are really his best 3 symphonies (the 2nd being his 4th best IMHO).

[chill319]

I also think I read that some of MacDowell's works were published under a pseudonym (Edgar Thorne, IIRC) which may be why his earliest works numbers are so confusing.

Some of MacDowell's early opus numbers were attributed to Edgar Thorne and some (as with certain popular novelists today) to MacDowell writing as Edgar Thorne. THe idea was that royalties for anything appearing under Thorne's name were to be distributed to a charitable cause. As MacDowell was either unable or unwilling to sound like anybody but himself, musicians and critics quickly identified the actual composer.

I think Draeseke's worklist offers a particularly rich field for comparing the merits and downsides of assigning opus numbers to works.

[Jonathan]

Thanks for the additional information Chill319, so i did remember correctly after all!   

[albion]

So, can anybody confirm the opus number of Dvorak's Bells of Zlonice?  I still say it was either Op. 1 or 2.

According to the main Czech Dvorak site (http://www.antonin-dvorak.cz/uvod/) the first five opus numbers with their Burghauser equivalents are:

Op.1        String Quintet No.1 in A minor (1861) [B7]
Op.2        String Quartet No.1 in A major (1862) [B8] - opus number also allocated to Songs (1881) [B123-124]
Op.3        Evening Songs (1876-1881) [B61, which also incorporates Opp.9 (1879-1880) and 31 (1882)]
Op.4        Symphony No.2 in B flat  (1865) [B12]
Op.5        Piano Quintet No.1 in A major (1872) [B28]

Symphony No.1 is listed as B9 without opus number (1865).  Clear as a bell, then.

According to the fifth edition of Grove (ed. Blom, 1954, volume II, p.840), the Bells of Zlonice symphony was 'originally' Op.3. Given that the symphony was unpublished and considered lost until 1923, this is perhaps a little odd. The 1961 supplementary volume to the fifth edition contains myriad corrections to entries in Dvorak's work-list but does not include any amendment regarding the first symphony (Supplementary Volume to the Fifth Edition [volume X], pp.114-116).

Op.3 is also cited on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._1_%28Dvo%C5%99%C3%A1k%29 and seems to be in use on the websites of several record companies, including Decca (http://www.deccaclassics.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&PRODUCT_NR=4300462&javascript=1&per_page=10&COMP_ID=DVOAN&ALBUM_TYPE=CD&start=10&presentation=list) and DG (http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/cat/single?sort=newest_rec&PRODUCT_NR=4631582&javascript=1&per_page=10&COMP_ID=DVOAN&start=10&presentation=list), although my booklet from the 1991 release of the Kertesz set makes no mention of it!