Hummel, Trio no. 5 is actually Trio no.4

[steltz]

I downloaded Hummel's Piano Trio "no.5" op.65, and the title page lists the op.65 trio as no.4, not no.5.

I checked the first page of music, and it definitely says op.65, so this is no.4, not no.5.

I changed the work title, but this doesn't seem to change the page title. Could someone do this, please? Thanks.

[KGill]

So is the listed No.4 actually No.3? And No.3 is really No.2?

[steltz]

I haven't checked the rest yet, will do this when I get in to work.

[steltz]

OK, Grove lists the trios without numbers. However, the very first one listed is not entitled "Piano Trio", but just "Trio". This is op.2a/1 in Bb, and probably is not called a "Piano Trio" because flute is the first choice for soprano instrument, and technically, a "Piano Trio" is specifically violin, cello, piano (though composers don't always adhere to this, and we have pieces on IMSLP entitled "Piano Trio" with other instrumentations).

Of the works specifically entitled "Piano Trio", the first one is op.12, the second is op.22, the third is op.35, the fourth is op.65, the fifth is op.83, the sixth is op.93, the seventh is op.96. There are two further "Trios" but, again, not with the specific instrumentation of vn vc, pf.

IMSLP has op.22, op.35, op.65, and op.83, and I've downloaded and looked at their cover pages.

op.22--the cover page doesn't give a number (pub-Jouve), title is "Trio"
op.35--the cover page doesn't give a number (pub-Pleyel, 1820), title is "Trio"
op.65--the cover page gives numbers for all of them, and this is what is conflicting with ours. (pub-Prillip 1839), title page is "Collection Complet des Trios pour Piano, Violon et Violoncelle". Prillip does, however, add the op.78 Variations into the list, so there is a discrepancy further down the line in that Grove's fifth becomes Prillip's sixth, etc.
op.83--the cover page doesn't give a number (pub-Richault, 1820), title is Grand Trio Concertante.

Looking at the publication dates, most of these seem to be well after the composition date, so it's not easy to tell whether they would be first printing's that Hummel would have proofread. The op.65 in particular is quite a bit later than the composition date.

On the other hand, if we are trying to be accurate as to what is on title pages and/or Grove, perhaps the solution is to remove the numbers and use keys and opus numbers. It seems Hummel himself didn't number them, and if different people have different ideas as to where to start no.1, or whether to include Variations (which by the way also has flute as the first choice), then any numbering system is going to be misleading.

Opinions?

[KGill]

I agree with that- if he didn't number them himself, and there's a dispute about where to even start the numbering, there's no reason to list them as numbered. I believe a similar situation exists with Medtner Piano Sonatas (except without the dispute). Should the new page titles take key into account?

[Carolus]

Should the new page titles take key into account?

Probably. Ideally, we should follow the pattern established for the Haydn symphonies. Trio, Op.##, B-flat major unless you wish them to be sorted by key instead of opus number.

[KGill]

Done. Should the same be done with the piano concertos and sonatas?

[steltz]

Thank you very much!