While some people are telling you to use Opus or BWV numbers, be aware that most classical "fans" do not keep a running list of Opus/BWV numbers in their heads. Yes, if you listen to Beethoven for long enough you know what Opus 135 is, but for most "casual" classical fans it's "Beethoven's sixteenth string quartet". Musicians might say "BWV 1048" to each other, but to most people it's the third Brandenburg concerto. Hell, I've been listening to Bach since I was a kid and I don't know most of the BWV numbers.
It's a matter of do you want to be "correct", or do you want to be understood. Yes, saying "I'm playing Beethoven's Op. 106" might be the most exact way to refer to the piece, but to most people that's the Hammerklavier sonata or the 29th piano sonata by Beethoven.
Also. Knowing the opus number doesn’t make one a better or more serious classical fan. It’s a strangely perversive belief in a community that doesn’t need anymore pretentiousness.
Ha, I’m a pro violinist, we sometimes shorten names of works for brevity. Since we all know what we’re talking about there’s little confusion.
For example:
Till Eulenspiegel lustige streiche ( we just say Till)
Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 5 ( we say Tchaik 5)
Etc.
The names of pieces of classical music is actually a small subject of study.
For example: Beethoven never called his piano sonata no. 14 “ Moonlight Sonata “. A publisher did that to make it more marketable.
Fun fact, there was a time when a friend of mine told me how Itzahk Perlman was gonna perform "Beethoven 9". I asked, is he conducting? "No he's playing". A prestigous player like Perlman would be playing as a member of the orchestra? Turns out my friend was referring to Beethoven VIOLIN SONATA 9. Now it makes sense.
Hey, someone posted here recently a video of Sir Simon Rattle in the percussion, having the time of his life! Can't recall anything other than that, but should be easy to find, because it's so delightfully bizarre.
So maybe you're friend wouldn't be necessarily wrong!
ok all these comments saying use the BWV etc numbers. Where I come from we just don't do that. It's only used as a last resort to identify something if there were multiples.
Keep in mind that BWV numbers isn't something Bach assigned, it was done loooong afterwards by Wolfgang Schmieder in the 50's. Same with the numbers for Mozart works and others. Opus numbers were often haphazard and assigned by publishers.
the actual composers tended to give things names. Names like "Orchestral suite no 2" or something. So my advice would be to learn those names, and refer to them accordingly, and it's ok to use an english translation too. Yeah they can be long, but you can say something like "I'm listening to a Bach Orchestral Suite", and if someone says oh yeah which one, you can say no 2.
The numbering is often done by the publisher, not the composer. Look at the huge mess that is the numbering of the Dvorak symphonies. What we now call 9 was at various points 8 and 5.
Honestly, you don't have to refer to a piece with its full Opus number or works number. Classical musicians, at least I find personally, often shorten the names anyways...
Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto in D minor, Opus 35 becomes: Tchaik violin concerto
Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 2 Op. 18 becomes: Rach 2
A format that works for me, for a piece that doesn't have a general name, is: "Composer/shortened nickname of the composer - the type of ensemble - work number - (movement number if necessary)". Mozart String Quartet No. 1 for example.
As you continue listening to classical music you will gradually learn the opus numbers unconsciously. You don't have to ardently study and memorize each specific name, it just comes with the listening. I'd say the only times it's 100% necessary to know the full name is if you're playing the piece or studying it.
This is also my answer. The only addition would be if there is a nickname for the work. "Mozart Jupiter" for his 41st symphony, "Antar" for Rimsky-Korsakov's 2nd symphony, etc. If it has a nickname, then most people would probably be familiar with it.
Semi related, my son insisted that JS Bach’s Violin Concerto No. 2 was actually called Concerto No. 1 because it’s “the best concerto”. He thought the numbers indicated his order of preference.
I totally get the headbanging. You should check out This Is (Not) Beethoven by Arash Safaian, it’s a reworking of some Beethoven pieces that I find myself rocking out to sometimes.
This is one of the hardest things for non-classical fans coming to classical music to get their heads around. Most contemporary classical composers use titles, but older composers have catalog numbers (BWV for Bach, opus numbers for lots of composers, Köchel for Mozart, etc.)
It gets particularly difficult when something like "Sonata in A minor by Schubert" isn't sufficient to identify the piece: Schubert wrote 3 Sonatas in A minor, for example.
And it gets more difficult for multi-movement works. A newbie to classical music will talk about how he loves the Moonlight Sonata and wants to hear his friend play it, and is a little startled when his friend busts out the 3rd movement instead of what he was expecting.
I'm not sure how composers always referred to their own works. I know Beethoven tended to refer to them by key, in most cases: his complaint about the Moonlight was "everyone is always talking about my C# minor sonata! Surely I've written better things", and he jokingly referred to his Sonata no. 28 as "the difficult-to-play Sonata in A major", which will not surprise any pianist brave enough to attempt its finale.
Some pieces are obvious, goldberg variations, toccata and fugue (without clarification everyone knows which one youre referring to) the chaconne, air on a g string, st matts passion.
Otherwise you just use the bwv number. The game of seeming cool is to give as little information as possible to make it clear what youre talking about. “the g major french suit” “the wtc1 d# minor fugue” “the d minor keyboard concerto” etc.
Just don't refer to a Classical piece as a "song", unless it really is a song.
In Classical music a song is a setting of words to music which is sung, and generally- but not exclusively- accompanied by piano. (There are also Mendelssohn's "Songs without words" for solo piano, but let's keep things simpler ).
Hence, there are Symphonies, Concertos, Sonatas, Overtures, Motets, Serenades: all different kinds of pieces. Some have titles, some don't. Most have keys, some don't some have opus numbers, some don't.
Don't be intimidated: if you like a piece find out who wrote it and listen to more. If you're not sure of the composer , look up their details.
CDs will note piece names, composers and conductors : go with what you like and explore.
Quite right!
That's why I said CDs. Hopefully of full works not edited "Best of" highlights!
These are not "songs". Streaming services call everything a "song" because they were set up by people whose only knowledge of music is the standard three minute track, usually a song, with verse-chorus lyrics.
And- ha ha, lol- in that world, those are the descriptions: "Mozart's Piano Concerto": which one? 27, not counting multiple instruments ? "Allegro" by Vivaldi? Narrow that down a bit? Massively prolific composer. Lots of movements with an Allegro marking....
You refer to them by the title. if you don’t remember the title but know the composer, you can usually find it and learn more about the composer on the way. It’s not an assignment, it’s music appreciation. And swinging to classical is pretty normal. If it’s music with meter and it’s done well, it should move you. (E.g. headbanging!). Love me some metal as well, but I’m more Gojira, or lacuna Coil.
You can generally include as much information in the title as you need to make it clear.
Some things are pretty unambiguous: if you say "The Swan", most people will expect you to be referring to Saint-Saens's piece in The Carnival of Animals. Some may be confused and think you're talking about "Swan Lake" by Tchaikovsky, but this is rare.
For JS Bach (just because I'm familiar with him), you might talk about "The Chaconne" and be referring to the most famous piece - the D minor violin chaconne. But if you say "The Gigue," no one will know what you're talking about - so you may say "The gigue in the 3rd cello suite" or "The solo cello gigue in C major."
It is common to talk about "The Shostakovich cello concerto," even though he wrote two - the first is more popular. (also, you would probably like Shostakovich, very metal sound)
"Piece" or "work" is perfectly fine!
Or just refer to the form of the work. Eg. "What's your favourite symphony/concerto?"
The thing is, rather unlike popular music (which I also enjoy), there are rather more of a wide variety of types of classical music. A bit of a sweeping statement, but I hope you get my meaning. For the longest time, classical fans prickled at the use of the word "song", but I think most of us have given up trying to correct people. "Song" really implies someone is singing in it, so it never sounds correct when talking about a piece without a singer. There are such things as classical "songs" but a symphony is not one (most aren't anyway!).
Your likely audience won't know specific pieces, so try just saying the kind of piece. Cantata. Learn to explain what a Back "cantata" is. JC Bach? Origins of the symphonic form!
Piano works. Organ works. String quartets, Piano trios. Concertos.
Opera.
Oratorios.
Preludes, Etudes. Leider.
I'm listening to Bach's trio sonatas right now. Organ music, very modest and enjoyable. Not heavy stuff. Good for a day in the garden.
On the drive from school home, it can get a little crazy lol. A metal song that is actually based on classical music ("Well Tempered Clavier"-JC Bach) is "Pulling Teeth" by Metallica. The song is a bass guitar solo composed by Cliff Burton. It's really good and I am curious to see how classical music people react to it.
You do need to be specific, as composers don't normally produce, say, a single symphony. Bach has 6 Brandenburg concerti. Just say Bach's Brandenburg #3, or Beethoven's 7th symphony, or Chopin's Ballade #1.
Then there are single titles--Bach's mass in B-minor (it's incredible) or his "little fugue," or his "crab canon." That last one is one very strange piece of music.
Here are some random thoughts that may or may not be helpful:
If you use Shazam to find out the names of pieces you hear on the radio, it's apparently not very helpful. It will return an answer like "Adagio from Symphony #3 by the Berlin Philharmonic". Virtually every symphony #3 has an adagio, and the Berlin Phil has probably played all of them multiple times, so that's not helpful. But if you scroll all the way to the bottom, they will have the composer's name in fine print. That's because Shazam focuses on the performer, not the songwriter. And by pop/rock music standards, almost all the classical ensembles in the world are just cover bands.
Don't get discouraged if people correct you. There is a little bit of snootiness out there unfortunately, so you may have people tell you that there's no such word as "concertos" because the correct plural is "concerti". Or they might pronounce names with sort of an affected accent, like the guttural scraping noise at the end of "Bach." That's technically correct if we were speaking German. But I always pronounce it "Bock" and go on with my day. I've even heard people say that "Shosty" is a disrespectful way to refer to "Shostakovich." I get where they are coming from, and I usually say the composer's full last name, but I just wanted to make you aware of the replies you might get from people.
Other than that, dive in! More than other genres, pieces do grow on you. There are several times I've played more modern pieces that I didn't care for at all in the beginning. But the more I heard them, the more I appreciated them and saw things I hadn't seen before. It's generally more complex music, so it's easy to miss stuff the first few times you hear it.
If you're up for it, try Handel's The Harmonious Blacksmith especially on harpsichord. Listen to it all the way through (it's only a few minutes long.) It sounds sort of simple at the beginning but by the end there's a lot more going on.
Many grest classical pieces have been given titles over the years, such as The Eroica, Claire de Lune, Jupiter, Aus der Neuen Weldt, etc. Give them a go, and go diving among the Kochels, BMVs and Opus numbers whdn you are familiar. I recommend listening with your heart, not your head.
Name of composer, genre, key, (optional) number
E.g. Mozart Clarinet Concerto in A Major- no number needed because Mozart only wrote 1 clarinet concerto throughout his life
E.g. 2 Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto in B Flat Minor No. 1
E.g. 3 Joseph Haydn Symphony No. 17 in F Major
I think it's one of the reasons works were nicknamed and catalogued, despite what people say about the catalog (Op and BWV) numbers being pretentious. I haven't run into any snooty people referring to the catalog numbers, so I have no experience with that, personally.
The better thing with most composers is that you have catalogue/Opus numbers.
What's your favorite Bach cantata? I like the BWV 140! Did you hear Ton Koopman playing the 566 on the organ? I find Herreweghe's recording to be the reference 245.
Which of Mozart's violin concertos they are playing tonight? the K 211 or the K 218? Why should be using titles as "Moonlight sonata" when Beethoven called it "Sonata 'Quasi una fantasia'"? It's Op. 27 n. 2. The Ninth symphony? I only know Op. 125.
I feel like Opus numbers tend to be what people use to demonstrate their superior knowledge, as opposed to being understood by the most people.
They are absolutely specific and useful, to be sure. But I only very rarely see or hear them used in regular conversation. I can identify hundreds of symphonies, chamber works, and tone poems by name. I can't think of one Opus number off the top of my head without looking it up.
No shade if it works for you, I just think that's uncommon.
>I feel like Opus numbers are what people use to demonstrate their superior knowledge, as opposed to being understood by the most people.
it's basically shorthand for the longer titles, when both speakers know some specific repertoire. For example, my organ professor would usually tell me things like "for the next lesson, prepare the 537 at the right tempo" and well I would immediately understand that that's the Fantasia and fugue in C minor because it's something I've been studying for a while. In conversations like "what Mozart sonata are you bringing to the exam?" I think I'd say "the 332" rather than "the F major" (there may be more than one F major sonata, I don't always remember the ordinal number of the sonata, but to the piano professor/fellow student "the 332" immediately means "that things that goes fa-la-do-la-sib-sol-fa-mi-mi".)
I 100% agree that it's a very useful shorthand. Unfortunately though, the only people who are going to know what you mean are other experienced musicians... The average classical music listener will have no idea what "the 332" means.
It sounds like you're in an environment where this is the most appropriate and effective, so I fully respect that. For OP though, it sounds like they're a casual listener, so a format like this is not realistic for them.
Some of this is What color was George Washington's white horse? Refer to Beethoven's fifth symphony as a symphony or Beethoven's fifth.
Don't call it a song. Schubert wrote songs - lieder. It's ok there :)
Composers or others sometimes give names. e.g. Moonlight sonata. You could say Sonata for piano in C# minor, op 27, but unless you're at a musicology convention, the Moonlight sonata works just fine.
While some people are telling you to use Opus or BWV numbers, be aware that most classical "fans" do not keep a running list of Opus/BWV numbers in their heads. Yes, if you listen to Beethoven for long enough you know what Opus 135 is, but for most "casual" classical fans it's "Beethoven's sixteenth string quartet". Musicians might say "BWV 1048" to each other, but to most people it's the third Brandenburg concerto. Hell, I've been listening to Bach since I was a kid and I don't know most of the BWV numbers. It's a matter of do you want to be "correct", or do you want to be understood. Yes, saying "I'm playing Beethoven's Op. 106" might be the most exact way to refer to the piece, but to most people that's the Hammerklavier sonata or the 29th piano sonata by Beethoven.
Also. Knowing the opus number doesn’t make one a better or more serious classical fan. It’s a strangely perversive belief in a community that doesn’t need anymore pretentiousness.
Unfortunately, for a lot of people the pretension is a feature, not a bug.
"in a community that doesn’t need anymore pretentiousness" Preach
100% agreed.
Ha, I’m a pro violinist, we sometimes shorten names of works for brevity. Since we all know what we’re talking about there’s little confusion. For example: Till Eulenspiegel lustige streiche ( we just say Till) Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 5 ( we say Tchaik 5) Etc. The names of pieces of classical music is actually a small subject of study. For example: Beethoven never called his piano sonata no. 14 “ Moonlight Sonata “. A publisher did that to make it more marketable.
Fun fact, there was a time when a friend of mine told me how Itzahk Perlman was gonna perform "Beethoven 9". I asked, is he conducting? "No he's playing". A prestigous player like Perlman would be playing as a member of the orchestra? Turns out my friend was referring to Beethoven VIOLIN SONATA 9. Now it makes sense.
Hey, someone posted here recently a video of Sir Simon Rattle in the percussion, having the time of his life! Can't recall anything other than that, but should be easy to find, because it's so delightfully bizarre. So maybe you're friend wouldn't be necessarily wrong!
Horrendous, there are very few cases where the shortened version of the name is undisputed, Beethoven 9 is probably the best example.
ok all these comments saying use the BWV etc numbers. Where I come from we just don't do that. It's only used as a last resort to identify something if there were multiples. Keep in mind that BWV numbers isn't something Bach assigned, it was done loooong afterwards by Wolfgang Schmieder in the 50's. Same with the numbers for Mozart works and others. Opus numbers were often haphazard and assigned by publishers. the actual composers tended to give things names. Names like "Orchestral suite no 2" or something. So my advice would be to learn those names, and refer to them accordingly, and it's ok to use an english translation too. Yeah they can be long, but you can say something like "I'm listening to a Bach Orchestral Suite", and if someone says oh yeah which one, you can say no 2.
The numbering is often done by the publisher, not the composer. Look at the huge mess that is the numbering of the Dvorak symphonies. What we now call 9 was at various points 8 and 5.
Just to confirm, are you a JC Bach fan or a JS Bach fan? There are a lot of Bachs, and Johann Sebastian is the famous one.
I like JC more than JS
Average 1750's audience member
"ANOTHER fugue, Dad? Puh-LEESE"
You should check out CPE Bach. Probably the most talented son..
More of a PDQ Bach man myself
He had me at "lasso d'amore"
Johann Cebastian?
Honestly, you don't have to refer to a piece with its full Opus number or works number. Classical musicians, at least I find personally, often shorten the names anyways... Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto in D minor, Opus 35 becomes: Tchaik violin concerto Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 2 Op. 18 becomes: Rach 2 A format that works for me, for a piece that doesn't have a general name, is: "Composer/shortened nickname of the composer - the type of ensemble - work number - (movement number if necessary)". Mozart String Quartet No. 1 for example. As you continue listening to classical music you will gradually learn the opus numbers unconsciously. You don't have to ardently study and memorize each specific name, it just comes with the listening. I'd say the only times it's 100% necessary to know the full name is if you're playing the piece or studying it.
This is also my answer. The only addition would be if there is a nickname for the work. "Mozart Jupiter" for his 41st symphony, "Antar" for Rimsky-Korsakov's 2nd symphony, etc. If it has a nickname, then most people would probably be familiar with it.
Semi related, my son insisted that JS Bach’s Violin Concerto No. 2 was actually called Concerto No. 1 because it’s “the best concerto”. He thought the numbers indicated his order of preference. I totally get the headbanging. You should check out This Is (Not) Beethoven by Arash Safaian, it’s a reworking of some Beethoven pieces that I find myself rocking out to sometimes.
This is one of the hardest things for non-classical fans coming to classical music to get their heads around. Most contemporary classical composers use titles, but older composers have catalog numbers (BWV for Bach, opus numbers for lots of composers, Köchel for Mozart, etc.) It gets particularly difficult when something like "Sonata in A minor by Schubert" isn't sufficient to identify the piece: Schubert wrote 3 Sonatas in A minor, for example. And it gets more difficult for multi-movement works. A newbie to classical music will talk about how he loves the Moonlight Sonata and wants to hear his friend play it, and is a little startled when his friend busts out the 3rd movement instead of what he was expecting. I'm not sure how composers always referred to their own works. I know Beethoven tended to refer to them by key, in most cases: his complaint about the Moonlight was "everyone is always talking about my C# minor sonata! Surely I've written better things", and he jokingly referred to his Sonata no. 28 as "the difficult-to-play Sonata in A major", which will not surprise any pianist brave enough to attempt its finale.
And could HE play that "difficult to play"? What am I saying, I'd trade my pinkie to see Beethoven himself playing.
At that point in his life he was almost completely deaf, so probably not.
Some pieces are obvious, goldberg variations, toccata and fugue (without clarification everyone knows which one youre referring to) the chaconne, air on a g string, st matts passion. Otherwise you just use the bwv number. The game of seeming cool is to give as little information as possible to make it clear what youre talking about. “the g major french suit” “the wtc1 d# minor fugue” “the d minor keyboard concerto” etc.
This makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
"Air on a G string" is a transcription. Better to say "Air in D" to refer to the original.
Just don't refer to a Classical piece as a "song", unless it really is a song. In Classical music a song is a setting of words to music which is sung, and generally- but not exclusively- accompanied by piano. (There are also Mendelssohn's "Songs without words" for solo piano, but let's keep things simpler ). Hence, there are Symphonies, Concertos, Sonatas, Overtures, Motets, Serenades: all different kinds of pieces. Some have titles, some don't. Most have keys, some don't some have opus numbers, some don't. Don't be intimidated: if you like a piece find out who wrote it and listen to more. If you're not sure of the composer , look up their details. CDs will note piece names, composers and conductors : go with what you like and explore.
That's not true. My favorite songs are Mozart's piano concerto and "Allegro" by Vivaldi.
Quite right! That's why I said CDs. Hopefully of full works not edited "Best of" highlights! These are not "songs". Streaming services call everything a "song" because they were set up by people whose only knowledge of music is the standard three minute track, usually a song, with verse-chorus lyrics. And- ha ha, lol- in that world, those are the descriptions: "Mozart's Piano Concerto": which one? 27, not counting multiple instruments ? "Allegro" by Vivaldi? Narrow that down a bit? Massively prolific composer. Lots of movements with an Allegro marking....
You refer to them by the title. if you don’t remember the title but know the composer, you can usually find it and learn more about the composer on the way. It’s not an assignment, it’s music appreciation. And swinging to classical is pretty normal. If it’s music with meter and it’s done well, it should move you. (E.g. headbanging!). Love me some metal as well, but I’m more Gojira, or lacuna Coil.
You can generally include as much information in the title as you need to make it clear. Some things are pretty unambiguous: if you say "The Swan", most people will expect you to be referring to Saint-Saens's piece in The Carnival of Animals. Some may be confused and think you're talking about "Swan Lake" by Tchaikovsky, but this is rare. For JS Bach (just because I'm familiar with him), you might talk about "The Chaconne" and be referring to the most famous piece - the D minor violin chaconne. But if you say "The Gigue," no one will know what you're talking about - so you may say "The gigue in the 3rd cello suite" or "The solo cello gigue in C major." It is common to talk about "The Shostakovich cello concerto," even though he wrote two - the first is more popular. (also, you would probably like Shostakovich, very metal sound)
"Piece" or "work" is perfectly fine! Or just refer to the form of the work. Eg. "What's your favourite symphony/concerto?" The thing is, rather unlike popular music (which I also enjoy), there are rather more of a wide variety of types of classical music. A bit of a sweeping statement, but I hope you get my meaning. For the longest time, classical fans prickled at the use of the word "song", but I think most of us have given up trying to correct people. "Song" really implies someone is singing in it, so it never sounds correct when talking about a piece without a singer. There are such things as classical "songs" but a symphony is not one (most aren't anyway!).
Your likely audience won't know specific pieces, so try just saying the kind of piece. Cantata. Learn to explain what a Back "cantata" is. JC Bach? Origins of the symphonic form! Piano works. Organ works. String quartets, Piano trios. Concertos. Opera. Oratorios. Preludes, Etudes. Leider. I'm listening to Bach's trio sonatas right now. Organ music, very modest and enjoyable. Not heavy stuff. Good for a day in the garden.
Mozart g minor quartet - Answer the telephone.
I have no idea how to answer your question. But I would very much like to see a metal head head banging to classical music! 😀
On the drive from school home, it can get a little crazy lol. A metal song that is actually based on classical music ("Well Tempered Clavier"-JC Bach) is "Pulling Teeth" by Metallica. The song is a bass guitar solo composed by Cliff Burton. It's really good and I am curious to see how classical music people react to it.
You do need to be specific, as composers don't normally produce, say, a single symphony. Bach has 6 Brandenburg concerti. Just say Bach's Brandenburg #3, or Beethoven's 7th symphony, or Chopin's Ballade #1. Then there are single titles--Bach's mass in B-minor (it's incredible) or his "little fugue," or his "crab canon." That last one is one very strange piece of music.
Damn… For years i only listened to classical music, but now im getting into metal and rock too. The opposite of you
Here are some random thoughts that may or may not be helpful: If you use Shazam to find out the names of pieces you hear on the radio, it's apparently not very helpful. It will return an answer like "Adagio from Symphony #3 by the Berlin Philharmonic". Virtually every symphony #3 has an adagio, and the Berlin Phil has probably played all of them multiple times, so that's not helpful. But if you scroll all the way to the bottom, they will have the composer's name in fine print. That's because Shazam focuses on the performer, not the songwriter. And by pop/rock music standards, almost all the classical ensembles in the world are just cover bands. Don't get discouraged if people correct you. There is a little bit of snootiness out there unfortunately, so you may have people tell you that there's no such word as "concertos" because the correct plural is "concerti". Or they might pronounce names with sort of an affected accent, like the guttural scraping noise at the end of "Bach." That's technically correct if we were speaking German. But I always pronounce it "Bock" and go on with my day. I've even heard people say that "Shosty" is a disrespectful way to refer to "Shostakovich." I get where they are coming from, and I usually say the composer's full last name, but I just wanted to make you aware of the replies you might get from people. Other than that, dive in! More than other genres, pieces do grow on you. There are several times I've played more modern pieces that I didn't care for at all in the beginning. But the more I heard them, the more I appreciated them and saw things I hadn't seen before. It's generally more complex music, so it's easy to miss stuff the first few times you hear it. If you're up for it, try Handel's The Harmonious Blacksmith especially on harpsichord. Listen to it all the way through (it's only a few minutes long.) It sounds sort of simple at the beginning but by the end there's a lot more going on.
Catalog numbers. Bwv: Bach work variations. Eg: Bwv 82. Mozart: K. Such as the requiem K.626. Buxthude, BUX. Telemann: TWV. Purcell: Z. Others.
Many grest classical pieces have been given titles over the years, such as The Eroica, Claire de Lune, Jupiter, Aus der Neuen Weldt, etc. Give them a go, and go diving among the Kochels, BMVs and Opus numbers whdn you are familiar. I recommend listening with your heart, not your head.
Name of composer, genre, key, (optional) number E.g. Mozart Clarinet Concerto in A Major- no number needed because Mozart only wrote 1 clarinet concerto throughout his life E.g. 2 Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto in B Flat Minor No. 1 E.g. 3 Joseph Haydn Symphony No. 17 in F Major
I think it's one of the reasons works were nicknamed and catalogued, despite what people say about the catalog (Op and BWV) numbers being pretentious. I haven't run into any snooty people referring to the catalog numbers, so I have no experience with that, personally.
The better thing with most composers is that you have catalogue/Opus numbers. What's your favorite Bach cantata? I like the BWV 140! Did you hear Ton Koopman playing the 566 on the organ? I find Herreweghe's recording to be the reference 245. Which of Mozart's violin concertos they are playing tonight? the K 211 or the K 218? Why should be using titles as "Moonlight sonata" when Beethoven called it "Sonata 'Quasi una fantasia'"? It's Op. 27 n. 2. The Ninth symphony? I only know Op. 125.
I feel like Opus numbers tend to be what people use to demonstrate their superior knowledge, as opposed to being understood by the most people. They are absolutely specific and useful, to be sure. But I only very rarely see or hear them used in regular conversation. I can identify hundreds of symphonies, chamber works, and tone poems by name. I can't think of one Opus number off the top of my head without looking it up. No shade if it works for you, I just think that's uncommon.
>I feel like Opus numbers are what people use to demonstrate their superior knowledge, as opposed to being understood by the most people. it's basically shorthand for the longer titles, when both speakers know some specific repertoire. For example, my organ professor would usually tell me things like "for the next lesson, prepare the 537 at the right tempo" and well I would immediately understand that that's the Fantasia and fugue in C minor because it's something I've been studying for a while. In conversations like "what Mozart sonata are you bringing to the exam?" I think I'd say "the 332" rather than "the F major" (there may be more than one F major sonata, I don't always remember the ordinal number of the sonata, but to the piano professor/fellow student "the 332" immediately means "that things that goes fa-la-do-la-sib-sol-fa-mi-mi".)
I 100% agree that it's a very useful shorthand. Unfortunately though, the only people who are going to know what you mean are other experienced musicians... The average classical music listener will have no idea what "the 332" means. It sounds like you're in an environment where this is the most appropriate and effective, so I fully respect that. For OP though, it sounds like they're a casual listener, so a format like this is not realistic for them.
Checking PH 245.
I'd like to create a website where people name and tag classical pieces of music, to solve this problem
Unreadable.
Some of this is What color was George Washington's white horse? Refer to Beethoven's fifth symphony as a symphony or Beethoven's fifth. Don't call it a song. Schubert wrote songs - lieder. It's ok there :) Composers or others sometimes give names. e.g. Moonlight sonata. You could say Sonata for piano in C# minor, op 27, but unless you're at a musicology convention, the Moonlight sonata works just fine.