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

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2006/11/27, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>:
> 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.

Or even Mazurka No. 1/Op. 63

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria