[mailing] [mb-style] 'Op. XX No. YY' or 'Op. XX, No. YY'

[Aaron Cooper]

On 11/27/06, Leiv Hellebø <leivhe at broadpark.no> wrote:
> Marco Sola wrote:
> >
> > Just be aware that there's a lot of  'Mazurka in B major, Op. 63/1'
> > around: are they allowed? should they be changed? are they simply not
> > part of this rule that is only about commas?
> >
>
> Spontaneously, I'd say, no, they should not be allowed, and, yes, the
> existing ones should be changed.
>
> Backing up the gut feeling, I'd say:
>
> 1) Two acceptable forms is (are?) one more than is needed.
> 2) Having two will surely be confusing to some, especially new users. We
> risk getting multi-disc releases which are internally or series-wise
> inconsistent.
> 3) For those who'd like to search after all tracks with "Op. 63 No. 1",
> we'd best stay with one.
> 4) 63/1 is perhaps at cross-purposes with AbbreviationStyle.
>
> (That being said, I think 63/1 is an effective, perhaps even elegant,
> way of conveying the information.)
>
> leivhe
>

Doesn't 63/1 mean that the work has two different catalog numbers?
IIRC, there are a couple different K cataloging systems for Mozart
(see: http://www.mozartproject.org/compositions/ca_18.html). I was
under the impression when these two cataloging systems have different
numbers, we represent that like:

"Concerto No. 10 in E-flat for Two Pianos, KV 365/316a: ..."

-- 
-Aaron