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

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2006/11/27, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa at gmail.com>:
> 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: ..."

Maybe a better way to say it would be "Mazurka No. 1, Op. 63", thus
avoiding the possibility of someone thinking the number is a subpart
of the opus.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria