Talk:List of concertos by Joseph Haydn
 | Classical music | |||
| ||||
The third violin concerto redirects to the List of concertos by Joseph Haydn again. I´ve got the G. Henle Verlag urtext with useful informations near at hand, and I can to create at least the stub, but I don´t know, how to change the redirect. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
opus numbers[edit]
Should opus numbers not be added to this list where they are known and available? For instance on the EMI CD of the 1967 Jacqueline du Pré playing the D major cello concerto #2, with Barbirolli and the LSO, this is given only as being Op. 101, without Hoboken or any other identification. The Op. 101 designation is verified in a scan of the title page at IMSLP. We need to match up ID numbers with whatever people will be finding on discs, etc - even if not all other concertos have opus numbers, consistent format is of much less importance than our providing essential information. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I never see opus numbers for the concertos. I own a newer copy of the duPre/Barbirolli recording and it says "No. 2" in D major. There's only two cello concertos extant and they are in different keys. We can keep it for this one but I worry about perpetuating outdated labels. So, I don't think tracking down all the opus numbers for works that are never referred to by their opus numbers is a waste of time.DavidRF (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I hadn't planned to go around tracking down more, but was a little surprised that my copy of the du Pré doesn't say anything besides "Concerto in D, Op. 101". In fact until just now checking this list, I had been under the impression that "No. 1" and "No. 2" were thoroughly unofficial and should be bracketed, as "[No. 2]" for the D major. (This seems to come back to the same issue as our earlier disagreement, where generally speaking I think we ought to provide more information, based on what people might be looking for.) Milkunderwood (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think #1 and #2 for the cello concertos are as official as you can get for Haydn. He didn't number anything himself, but if you hold it to that standard then every number would have brackets. In this case, the concertos were written 20 years apart so the chronology is clear. For this particular case, the numbers even match the Hoboken numbers.
- Generally, I *do* like more information, but what I don't want is the perpetuation of outdated scholarship. And by outdated, I mean 50+ years (or even 100+ years). You end up needing to write a paragraph to explain why a cataloguer in 1840 thought something and how another cataloguer came along in 1890 and fixed it... and its awfully hard tracking down these stories because current books (Heartz, Brown, etc) don't talk about the old stuff. There's plenty of details to worry about if you focus on what is currently in use and how that lines up with Hoboken (if its not the same).DavidRF (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I understand your point. I'm certainly not trying to "recatalog" Haydns Werke. My thought was just that we ought to acknowledge identifications that WP users are likely to encounter and want to look up here. My own basic problem is that while I have no literature, I do have here a quite large collection of older (and foreign) CDs dating back to the '80s, plus LPs going back to the '50s, which I'm supposed to be cataloging. Also there are a lot of reprint CDs made directly from 78s which go back at least to the 1920s, with no more updated information being provided than was presented at that time. So I keep coming here to look everything up. Finding something like "Concerto in D, Op. 101" with no concerto number or Hoboken ID is pretty typical of what I'm working with; and so my assumption was that other encyclopedia users might probably be in the same situation. The du Pré booklet I'm working with says "Haydn composed at least two cello concertos. His Concerto in C, long believed lost but discovered in 1961 ... etc". No mention of concerto numbers, but it does guess at probable composition dates. So this is where I guessed that C was perhaps [No. 1] and D was [No. 2]. And this is why I keep saying I think WP ought to provide information that users are likely to encounter, rather than only the most current scholarship. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- We might be talking about extremes here. I certainly don't want to purge everything but the most current scholarship because it takes people a while to adjust, but on the other hand 1961 is a long time ago now and "Op. 101" is simply not very helpful. (The other cello concerto doesn't have an opus number and Op. 101 was written in 1783 which is between Op. 33 and Op. 42 so it doesn't tell you chronology either). My worry is that if we include every possible label that could be on an old 78 from the 1920s that we'd would perpetuate or even promote things that shouldn't be perpetuated and promoted. So, we should be careful about that. As it turns out this Op. 101 issue is a bit moot. But I don't want to add opus numbers for the piano sonatas or trios, I don't want to add the pre-Mandycewski letters for symphonies, I don't want too much written about works that have been known to be spurious for over a hundred years, etc, etc, etc.DavidRF (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right - these are extreme situations that I'm talking about. Okay, I'll just go with the flow. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sheet music. I don't play any instrument other than a CD player and an antique turntable, but people have sheet music tucked away under their piano bench lid that may have been printed before the turn of the 20th C. They might have a dickens of a time finding the right reference here. (Just thinking out loud.) I hate to ask you this, but in your most recent response, something struck me about the issue of WP:OWN. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry about WP:OWN. I'm giving an honest opinion. Apparently, I'm the only one responding here, but a post to the WP:CM discussion page could have a half dozen other opinions in here and I always bow to consensus. *My* opinion is that the inclusion of outdated indices creates more confusion than it helps... it implies to readers that the numbers are still good going forward when they are not. As for hundred-year-old scores in the piano bench, I don't think that's a common use case for wikipedia, but we do frequently link to IMSLP here so with the key and the incipits they should be able to find the matching work without too much effort. Anyhow, feel free to collect other opinions.DavidRF (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, I understand your rationale, and I have no intention of making any kind of a fuss. Sometimes I've been disagreeing with you, but I certainly hope not being disagreeable. As I said above, I can go with the flow. About Op. 101, how about if I change it to read "(aka Op. 101)"? Or even "(aka Op. 101; not in current usage)"? I had added that number both here at the list and also at its article. Do you think either of these parenthetical "aka" format changes might help solve your problem? About IMSLP, their entry doesn't mention Op. 101, but the scanned title page shows "Op. 101" only. So essentially they're taking the same approach as you. But if you think it would be helpful to put this before the CM project either as a specific Haydn question, or more generally - I don't even remember now what our earlier discussion had been about - for a wider conversation, I can go along with that too. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, we can keep the Op. 101 as is. It doesn't harm anything. I think its probably the only one that would apply to this page. I think we're both talking about hypotheticals which is an interesting discussion but probably suggests more disagreement than there actually is. Lets just wait and see what other indices come up.DavidRF (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's fine. (It was "Tost". Looking now at your user talkpage, I realize to my horror that half the sections there are mine! Sorry about that!) Milkunderwood (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to go ahead and add just the bare "aka" - thinking it over, that seems to be more useful than leaving it as is. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- And now User:GFHandel has quickly reverted the "aka" at the Cello Concerto No. 2 (Haydn) article. I've invited him to come look here for this discussion. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, we can keep the Op. 101 as is. It doesn't harm anything. I think its probably the only one that would apply to this page. I think we're both talking about hypotheticals which is an interesting discussion but probably suggests more disagreement than there actually is. Lets just wait and see what other indices come up.DavidRF (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, I understand your rationale, and I have no intention of making any kind of a fuss. Sometimes I've been disagreeing with you, but I certainly hope not being disagreeable. As I said above, I can go with the flow. About Op. 101, how about if I change it to read "(aka Op. 101)"? Or even "(aka Op. 101; not in current usage)"? I had added that number both here at the list and also at its article. Do you think either of these parenthetical "aka" format changes might help solve your problem? About IMSLP, their entry doesn't mention Op. 101, but the scanned title page shows "Op. 101" only. So essentially they're taking the same approach as you. But if you think it would be helpful to put this before the CM project either as a specific Haydn question, or more generally - I don't even remember now what our earlier discussion had been about - for a wider conversation, I can go along with that too. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry about WP:OWN. I'm giving an honest opinion. Apparently, I'm the only one responding here, but a post to the WP:CM discussion page could have a half dozen other opinions in here and I always bow to consensus. *My* opinion is that the inclusion of outdated indices creates more confusion than it helps... it implies to readers that the numbers are still good going forward when they are not. As for hundred-year-old scores in the piano bench, I don't think that's a common use case for wikipedia, but we do frequently link to IMSLP here so with the key and the incipits they should be able to find the matching work without too much effort. Anyhow, feel free to collect other opinions.DavidRF (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sheet music. I don't play any instrument other than a CD player and an antique turntable, but people have sheet music tucked away under their piano bench lid that may have been printed before the turn of the 20th C. They might have a dickens of a time finding the right reference here. (Just thinking out loud.) I hate to ask you this, but in your most recent response, something struck me about the issue of WP:OWN. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right - these are extreme situations that I'm talking about. Okay, I'll just go with the flow. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- We might be talking about extremes here. I certainly don't want to purge everything but the most current scholarship because it takes people a while to adjust, but on the other hand 1961 is a long time ago now and "Op. 101" is simply not very helpful. (The other cello concerto doesn't have an opus number and Op. 101 was written in 1783 which is between Op. 33 and Op. 42 so it doesn't tell you chronology either). My worry is that if we include every possible label that could be on an old 78 from the 1920s that we'd would perpetuate or even promote things that shouldn't be perpetuated and promoted. So, we should be careful about that. As it turns out this Op. 101 issue is a bit moot. But I don't want to add opus numbers for the piano sonatas or trios, I don't want to add the pre-Mandycewski letters for symphonies, I don't want too much written about works that have been known to be spurious for over a hundred years, etc, etc, etc.DavidRF (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I understand your point. I'm certainly not trying to "recatalog" Haydns Werke. My thought was just that we ought to acknowledge identifications that WP users are likely to encounter and want to look up here. My own basic problem is that while I have no literature, I do have here a quite large collection of older (and foreign) CDs dating back to the '80s, plus LPs going back to the '50s, which I'm supposed to be cataloging. Also there are a lot of reprint CDs made directly from 78s which go back at least to the 1920s, with no more updated information being provided than was presented at that time. So I keep coming here to look everything up. Finding something like "Concerto in D, Op. 101" with no concerto number or Hoboken ID is pretty typical of what I'm working with; and so my assumption was that other encyclopedia users might probably be in the same situation. The du Pré booklet I'm working with says "Haydn composed at least two cello concertos. His Concerto in C, long believed lost but discovered in 1961 ... etc". No mention of concerto numbers, but it does guess at probable composition dates. So this is where I guessed that C was perhaps [No. 1] and D was [No. 2]. And this is why I keep saying I think WP ought to provide information that users are likely to encounter, rather than only the most current scholarship. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I hadn't planned to go around tracking down more, but was a little surprised that my copy of the du Pré doesn't say anything besides "Concerto in D, Op. 101". In fact until just now checking this list, I had been under the impression that "No. 1" and "No. 2" were thoroughly unofficial and should be bracketed, as "[No. 2]" for the D major. (This seems to come back to the same issue as our earlier disagreement, where generally speaking I think we ought to provide more information, based on what people might be looking for.) Milkunderwood (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)