IMSLP Forums

There are a couple of spots in the repertoire where it is really hard to find the specific piece you are looking for. Vivaldi concertos, Dvorak and Schubert symphonies all have different numbers depending on the source you use. I'm going to start with Haydn Piano Sonatas, since I was looking for a specific one recently and had to open a bunch of different files to find the one I wanted.

Currently they are listed as Piano Sonata no. 1, Piano Sonata no. 2, etc. However, the no. 1 in this list is not necessarily the no. 1 in the various publications or recordings available. The Hoboken Catalog (like BWV for Bach and Kochel for Mozart) provides a way of identifying specific sonatas, but recordings and editions don't necessarily provide that number either. Complicating the issue in this case is that the specific edition scanned for IMSLP has no number whatever on the sonata, only the key and year composed.

So, I'm going to suggest the following. Leave the list in the order it is now but move the pages so that the titles are:

Piano Sonata No. 1, H. XVI/1, C major
Piano Sonata No. 2, H. XVI/2, B flat major
etc.

There is a precedent for this with Mozart where the IMSLP title includes the K. number.

I also thought of making a thematic index and uploading it with a name so that it appears as the first item in the list of piano sonatas.

Any objections?

Thank you,
Hectorb

I'd suggest putting the key before the catalog number, e.g.:

• Piano Sonata No. 1 in C Major, H. XVI/1

I have no objection to this at all. The organisation of some of the very large œuvres (Haydn, Mozart, Schubert) is terrible at present, and the Haydn piano sonatas are one of those sets I haven't had time to look at yet. This template for example, is next to useless: http://imslp.org/wiki/Template:Piano_So ... _Joseph%29

As you say just having the numbers is not useful either when various sources disagree about the numbers (which is why someone recently uploaded Schubert's Great C major to "Symphony No.7"). However, making a thematic index seems like a lot of work - surely it would be duplicating the work of Anthony van Hoboken, would it not?

Perhaps just put a list of the keys and catalogue numbers on my talk page, and I'll do some of the template mangling/page moving.

Lyle: one problem with your suggestion appears to be the addition of a redundant "No. 1" in addition to the Hoboken catalogue "Hob.XVI: 1". I would suggest something like:

Piano Sonata in C major, Hob.XVI:1 (Haydn, Joseph)

Regards, Philip

Oh, yes, I didn't notice the duplicate numbering; I was just rearranging the example in the previous posting.

The problem with this:

Piano Sonata in C major, Hob.XVI:1 (Haydn, Joseph)

is that then the list will file by key. That's not necessarily bad but most recordings and editions identify the sonatas by a number. I also am not fond of the extraneous preposition 'in'. So that's why I like this format:

Piano Sonata no. X, Hob.XVI/x, X major

Actually making a thematic index to the piano sonatas using Sibelius wouldn't be all that difficult but maybe it isn't necessary.

David

Hello David,

Not so! Although IMSLP's categories are largely automated, they can be overrided by adding an explicit category with a sort field on the work page:

[[Category:Haydn, Joseph|Piano Sonata No.01]]

We already have this problem with collections of more than 10 works anyway, since a completely literal sort algorithm puts numbers 10-19 ahead of 2-9, e.g.

Piano Sonata No.1
Piano Sonata No.10
Piano Sonata No.11
...
Piano Sonata No.19
Piano Sonata No.2
Piano Sonata No.20
...
etc.

Regards, Philip

I thought that was the case. I think the format "Symphony in X-key, H.I: 1", using the Hoboken number as a sort-key, is probably the best for users to easily find the one they're looking for. Though I'm not usually a fan of including the key in the title, it helps with some composers (Haydn) much more than with others (Tchaikovsky). It's naturally much easier to navigate a short list of 1-20 symphonies, than a list that ends up being more than 100. At that point, other identifiers (like key) become more useful.

Yes, the Haydn area really needs some clean-up and organization. He is by no means alone, however. Hoboken is the most widely used cataloging system for his work, so I am in favor of re-organizing along those lines. The one section of Haydn I could see being problematic in this regard are the string quartets, where many still cling to the old opus numbers. I also wish more would voice their thoughts about how to organize composers with large catalogs. I sometimes wish it were possible to have a work-category page instead of going to list of hundreds of titles. The "intersections" already accomplish this to a degree, of course.

Carolus,

I believe I quite agree with you on Haydn's string quartets; herewith my re-design of the works template: http://imslp.org/wiki/Template:String_Q ... _Joseph%29

The opus numbers have long been the standard identifiers for the quartets on account of them being works considerably more marketable by publishers :-)

I've been bold (in the Wikipedia sense) in moving all of the Haydn symphonies below Hoboken I:60 to a work page with a generic title

"Symphony Hob.I:#, Key signature (Haydn, Joseph)"

on exactly the grounds you've cited above. While it doesn't make much difference in the case of Tchaikovsky to reel off so many works in minor keys, by the same token he didn't write over a hundred symphonies. We do have some scores uploaded that have abberant numberings: the score of Hob.I:45 prominently displays not only “Nr. 18”, but also “Symphonien Nr. 86” - so I think it is worthwhile emphasising that the numbers on our work pages are reliably matched to the Hoboken catalogue and not some other obscure system!

Regards, Philip

Placing the key after the catalog number looks awfully bizarre. The key is actually part of the piece, even if the composer didn't place it in the title; the catalog number is the afterthought of someone else.

Hi Lyle,

I didn't think I could get away with placing the key before the catalogue number, given how allergic people are to mentioning keys! ;-)

Besides, as pointed out above, one would have had to add 107 or so sort keys to avoid sorting by key rather than number...

Regards, Philip

I guess I fell that since we're contriving a recognizable title in English we can pretty much do anything we want. Haydn would recognize any of what we're doing I don't think! The Mozart sonatas are a little easier to identify with just the K. number, but given the various editions and numbering systems, I think more is needed with Haydn.

Piano Sonata no. X, X major, H.XVI:X

Now I'm wondering why there is a Concertante at the end of the Symphonies?

David

Hi David,

While us moderns would probably identify the work (and Mozart's Sinfonia concertante) as concertos, both Anthony van Hoboken and HC Robbins Landon obviously felt they were symphonies with concertante instruments (and many of Haydn's other 106 works labelled as “Symphony” would fall into this category). The catalogue for Hob. I doesn't stop at 104, so as numbers 107 and 108 are there also, it would be odd to leave out 105 – whereas 106 is apparently a spurious work, the Concertante isn't.

Regards, Philip

P.S. In actual fact, the layout of the template conforms to the precise order of the complete set of 107 symphonies with HCRL as general editor.
Column 1: Volume 1 and majority of volume 2;
Column 2: last 2 symphonies from volume 2, volumes 3 and 4, first half of volume 5;
Column 3: latter half of volume 5, volumes 6–8;
Column 4: volumes 9 (Paris), 10 (88–92 plus the sinfonia Concertante), 11 & 12 (London I & II).

I think the newly adopted format for the symphonies seems to be working pretty nicely. I used it for the two Violin Concerti recently contributed. Maybe someday we can even tackle Mr. Vivaldi!