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

[Leiv Hellebø]

Aaron Cooper wrote:
> 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?

Well, not always:

MB uses "Hob III/28" (although far from consistently), which according to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_string_quartets_by_Joseph_Haydn

is the same as "String Qt. No. 19 in C minor, Op. 17 No. 4"

> 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: ..."
> 

But (assuming you were bringing up a fifth point against 63/1) you're 
quite right: Even more overloading of the delimiters cannot be any good.

leivhe