Beethoven in 1783

[Gurn Blanston]

Y'all are welcome.

Makir,
The Gardi list is new to me, thanks for the tip. I know that Biamonti is in need of updating, since I have several small piano works that are Bia Deest. It is still far more comprehensive than any of its predecessors and makes a very handy reference list. I have my version of it in a database so I can very quickly do a keyword search, which is even more handy. I strongly suspect that one can sit down with the newest Hess revision and do a lot of updating yourself, which is likely similar to what you have done. Guess I'll have to do the same, perhaps using conventions like Köchel 6 did with the Mozart catalog...

[makir35]

I think the Gardi numbers are from one of the operators of unheardbeethoven and a poster on this very thread above, Gardibolt.
Hey, can't scientists take autograph manuscripts and use some kind of dating method to find out composition dates of 'undated works' or works composed between this year and that?

[Hofrat]

It is not a question for scientists. You should be asking why composers did not date their manuscripts. Take Schubert. Over 95% of his manuscripts are dated! Some with starting and finishing dates (a portion of which are the same day).

[Joy]

It sounds as if Schubert was very organized unlike Beethoven. It would have been really great if more composers had dated their music for sure, none of this guess work would have to be done.

[Michael]

It sounds as if Schubert was very organized unlike Beethoven. It would have been really great if more composers had dated their music for sure, none of this guess work would have to be done.

Very true. When you think about it, it is amazing that Beethoven did not date his manuscripts and sketches. He carried them all with him whenever he moved lodgings, which was often, and he was more conscious of posterity than most composers of his time.

[Joy]

Very true. When you think about it, it is amazing that Beethoven did not date his manuscripts and sketches. He carried them all with him whenever he moved lodgings, which was often, and he was more conscious of posterity than most composers of his time.

Right, given that he was very conscious of posterity it truly is a mystery and what really would have been wonderful is if he would have dated his 'Immortal Beloved' letter.

[makir35]

Yes it would have been nice if he dated all his manuscripts. However, the fact that he didn't adds to the mystery and timelessness of his music. Also, to conquer the musical world he didn't intend to publish some of his early works, waiting until he was 25 with the Op. 1 Piano Trios. And when he published earlier works later in his life did he tell everyone, "this is from 20 years ago.."?
I thought I remember reading somewhere he was thinking about organizing a music catalogue of his own works with the help of someone, but the plan never came to fruition. If it did I wonder how many works would have been included that we know nothing of now, and how many Beethoven would have excluded.

[gardibolt]

There has been some scientific work on this; Douglas Johnson in his pioneering work on the watermarks of Beethoven's sketchbooks and sketch leaves (handily collected in The Beethoven Sketchbooks, and also in his dissertation on the Fischof ms.) has provided a ton of corrective information about relative dating of compositions. There's always the risk of course that Beethoven held onto a sketch leaf and added to it years later, but from the handwriting one can usually distinguish such additions. But if you find paper that was from a printer in Prague, you can with some confidence date the writings on it to be shortly after his one and only trip to Prague (I think in 1796). This information all came to light well after Prof. Biamonti published his catalogue, though.

[gardibolt]

Please note also that the Gardi numbers are in no way shape or form intended to be chronological; they're in order of when we came across them, and we assigned them numbers sequentially for purposes of the UHB database. They have no significance whatsoever beyond that.

It'll be interesting to see how many of these items show up in the new Kinsky-Halm, which continues to be delayed for reasons I'm unclear about. The last I heard they were considering reassignment of WoO numbers, which seems to me to be a breeding ground for confusion since the WoOs have become pretty well established as a de facto standard. But we'll see if that's true.

[Gurn Blanston]

Please note also that the Gardi numbers are in no way shape or form intended to be chronological; they're in order of when we came across them, and we assigned them numbers sequentially for purposes of the UHB database. They have no significance whatsoever beyond that.

It'll be interesting to see how many of these items show up in the new Kinsky-Halm, which continues to be delayed for reasons I'm unclear about. The last I heard they were considering reassignment of WoO numbers, which seems to me to be a breeding ground for confusion since the WoOs have become pretty well established as a de facto standard. But we'll see if that's true.

Gosh, I hope you're wrong about that What a disaster! K6 essentially did that with a lot of Köchel numbers, as long ago as 1962, and by and large they still aren't being used except when necessary. Of course, the problem arises when one needs to shoehorn a work into the existing structure and there aren't any numbers left (no foresight at the beginning). But Kinsky-Halm isn't chronological anyway, so why bother? This is why I love Biamonti. He may be out of date now, but he had the right idea anyway. It would be a prodigious project for a scholar to update it, but what a worthwhile endeavor!

[Hofrat]

Gurn;

If no one uses the Kochel-6 numbers, why are they making a Kochel-7 now?

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn;

If no one uses the Kochel-6 numbers, why are they making a Kochel-7 now?

Actually, I think it's more like K 9 or 10. But in any case, it's to continue to make corrections as things are added or subtracted or re-dated. As to why people (I'm thinking here especially of CD publishers) don't use K6 unless forced to, I guess that it is unwillingness to change. For example, when was the last time you saw the Sinfonia Concertante in Eb for Violin, Viola & Orchestra numbered K 320d? It's always called K 364. And the K list is supposed to be chronological, so a difference of 44 numbers is a goodly period of time, which it wouldn't be if the numbers were more arbitrary.

Which gets back to my point with Kinsky: the numbers practically ARE arbitrary, so why bother changing them?

[Hofrat]

Yes, 44 works is nearly a two year output for Mozart. It is quite a difference.

Do you all know the Kochel equation? It is as follows:

(Kochel/25) + 10 = Mozart's age when he wrote the work. In other words, divide the catalog number by 25, then add 10. Try it!

[makir35]

Beethoven sometimes took 4 or 5 years to complete a work. This is analogous to Einstein taking a few years to develop his theory of relativity, as he regarded music, I guess his at least, as closer to the truth than any wisdom or philosophy. And of course Einstein was also working on different theories simultaneously too.

[Roehre]

Quote:

It'll be interesting to see how many of these items show up in the new Kinsky-Halm, which continues to be delayed for reasons I'm unclear about. The last I heard they were considering reassignment of WoO numbers, which seems to me to be a breeding ground for confusion since the WoOs have become pretty well established as a de facto standard. But we'll see if that's true.

(....) But Kinsky-Halm isn't chronological anyway, so why bother? (...)

As far back as 1976 a leaflet was inserted into the copies of the Kinky-Halm sold that year and in 1977, announcing a 2nd editoon of the catalogue, by then 21 years after its first publication.

In 1978 a kind of appendix to the K-H saw the light of day in the form of Dorfmüller's Beiträge zur Beethoven Bilbliographie. Not only where necessary further information and addenda to the K-H is given, but also e.g. a concise explanation of the paper marks and the implication for the chronology of sketches.

In 1996 at the same time as the complete edition of the Beethoven letters was announced, an new K-H seemed to be around the corner.

In 2006 the new K-H was announced again, but still has not been published.

THE main problem of re-issuing the K-H in a revised edition is -not prizes for guessing- the numbering.
Contrary to Gurn's remark that the K-H isn't chronological: I am afraid it certainly and fundamentally IS a chronological catalogue.
Have a look at pages 733-734: Within any group of works the order is (as far as possible) strictly chronological.
The fact that Beethoven's first known work, Dressler variations WoO 63 immediately follows (a transcription of) Beethoven's last work, WoO 62, does not mean that the catalogue is at random.


The two ways open for a numbering system in a new Kinsky-Halm are:
- retaining the now generally known numbering of opus and WoO numbers, using a second number for the "real" chronology and for the insertion of in 1955 unknown works, i.e. including many works as listed in the Hess catalogue

- creating a completely new catalogue, based on the instrumentation of works (like the Hoboken), including opus numbers, WoO numbers, Hess numbers, and some Biamonti numbers, thereby creating chaos in numbering, but on top of that, starting a discussion what exactly constitutes a completed work, as K-H states in its title that is is a catalogue of "all completed works by Beethoven".

Now the big question: has a scientifically more viable numbering to take precedence over a commercially used one?