Talk:Songs Without Words

New songs?
There's been a mention of new songs recently found and premiered by Robert Prosseda. Have these been musicologically catalogued? That is, is there some sort of opus number for them such that we can formally add them to the list?DavidRF (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish. Mendelssohn is probably the worst offender among major composers of having a large bunch of practically miscellaneous being claimed -- check this page out which lists some extra SWW as well as many many others (HOW many fugues for violin and piano?!). Quite frustrating for my personal catalog, especially with the lack of dates to put them in order... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How thoughtless of Felix! :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger
I have suggested that Opus 62 No.1 (Mendelssohn) be merged into this article. This is also being discussed here. -- Klein zach  06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly merge. It's not so notable that it warrants a separate article (but even if it did, it should not be called "Opus 62 No.1").  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge, absolutely.--Smerus (talk) 07:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. This is not really within my field. Smerus, would you like to carry it out? -- Klein zach  08:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We still have not decided whether we are going to allow experts so this cannot be merged until a decision has been reached
 * do you mean 'excerpts'? I think in any case there can be no general decision on excerpts, it will always depend on how significant they are in the context of the whole. My contention is that that this example is not. --Smerus (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm in favour of making a guideline on 'excerpts' based on exactly the point you are making. I'll raise this on WP:CM. -- Klein zach  00:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to have an article on this just because it's "currently on the 2009-2010, Grade 7 Piano syllabus of the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music" -- what's notable about that? Now, if you want to make an aritcle on No. 6 from Op. 62, that make a bit more sense -- it's easily Mendelssohn's most popular piano piece, and used a LOT in cartoons, etc. I can even see splitting off each book into their own article -- provided there's analysis and such. But this piece? What's special about it? We don't even have seperate articles for each of Mozart's Horn concerti... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - This isn't even one of the more famous of the pieces: The Gondola songs, Spring Song, Tauermarsch, and Bee's Wedding don't have separate articles. Why should this one?  More importantly, this present article needs to be expanded massively; then we might have subarticles for the more famous pieces.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was not a broad enough concensus. There were only three for the merger. Also, you have hardly included any of the opus62no1 into this article. I feel that this topic should have been dicussed more before the merging was carried out.-- Pianoplonkers  ♫   (talk)  13:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also support the merger. Anything that got left out from the merge could easily be added back in, but I don't see much that was left out other than the score snippet.  The play-by-play was truncated quite a bit, but there wasn't that much of interest in the play-by-play... it basically just described ternary form.  I like the idea that we could just expand the article with notes and details piece by piece and if any part starts getting large then we could fork off a book or a song.  Otherwise we'll just end up with forty-eight stubs.  This is my opinion for most of these "sets" articles.  Grieg's lyric pieces, each of Vivaldi's opuses, etc.DavidRF (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My count is 6 in favour of the merger: a reasonable consensus. If Pianoplonkers wants to raise the matter, WP:CM is the right place. -- Klein zach  14:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

additional Lieder Ohne Worte with different opus numbers
A number of Mendelssohn's Lieder Ohne Worte have been recorded as cello pieces with piano accompaniment; some of these have the same opus numbers as the piano pieces listed here, but several carry opus numbers not included in the literature written for piano solo.

For instance,
 * Op. 34, with at least four numbered Lieder;
 * Op. 71, with at least four numbered Lieder;
 * Op. 86, with at least three numbered Lieder; and
 * Op. 109, which appears to contain only a single unnumbered Lied.

On the other hand, at least the following piano Lieder have also been recorded as cello/piano duos:
 * Op. 19 #1; and
 * Op. 62 #s 1 & 6.

I'm not a musician and don't know anything further about the problem than this, but it badly needs to be addressed here. Did Mendelssohn write the Opp. 34, 71, 86 and 109 specifically for the cello or other stringed instrument? These are surely different compositions from any of the 48 Lieder included in the 8 piano Opp., while the section on Arrangements seems to discuss only some of these 48 piano pieces as having been arranged for other instruments.

Mischa Maisky has recorded a number of the Lieder from these four unaccounted-for Opp.; I'm also aware of recordings by Feuermann, Bauer, Harrell, and Isserlis. I'm sure more will be listed at Amazon. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All of these except one are later arrangements of actual songs (with words) by Mendelssohn (see List of compositions by Felix Mendelssohn), and they are therefore not relevant to this article. The exception is op. 109, which was published posthumously as a cello and piano piece - it is not clear whther the composer intended it as a 'Song Without Words' - I will look into this. None of these opp. are in any way 'unaccounted-for'--Smerus (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever Mendelssohn 'intended', Op. 109 is certainly called a Song Without Words now. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this info. But now it seems to raise further questions. How did these arrangements come to be assigned new and different opus #s--by Mendelssohn, or by arrangers, and if the latter, during Mendelssohn's lifetime? Second, is there any direct correspondence between the sequence and numbering of the piano pieces, and that of the arrangements? Finally, I think I would take issue with the statement that the opus #s 34, 71, 86 and 109 are "not relevant to the article," since surely I cannot be the only WK user to have noticed and wondered about the apparent discrepancies. It seems all it might require might be a brief note mentioning these opp. somewhere in the Arrangements section of the article. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, no, the arrangements are of actual songs (written for voice and piano), and someone else made the arrangements, probably by the cellist in the reocrding -- this is pretty common, and there's nothing to note in THIS article about this. It'd be like noting the orchestration of Schubert's Grand Duo in the article for his 9th symphony, or something. If that's not it, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that however and/or when the string arrangements came to be made, somebody--whether Mendelssohn or the various arrangers--thought it would be a good idea to assign new out-of-thin-air Opus numbers for many (but not all) of such arrangements, and with relatively low numbering which gives the distinct impression that they came from Felix's pen itself, and sequentially. The upshot of all this is that anyone familiar with arrangements for cello or other instruments, seeing opus numbers other than for the standard eight opp. for piano, will think they are entirely separate compositions, and be thoroughly confused, as I was. Certainly it's very common for arrangements to be made from original compositions. I'm not familiar with the situation concerning Schubert's Grand Duo, but in general it's extremely unusual for a later arrangement, especially done by someone other than the original composer, to be given not only an entirely new and separate opus number, but a fairly low number that falls squarely within the numbering of the composer's own works. It seems to me that a more usual practice is to retain the original numbering but for instance to add a lower-case letter, or the terms "bis" or "ter" (e.g. in the case of Prokofiev) etc. Note I'm certainly not questioning *why* with the Lieder such low and out-of-thin-air numberings were assigned, but simply pointing out that they make it extremely confusing to anyone with only a passing acquaintance with Mendelssohn's Lieder ohne Worte. And that it would be extremely simple, and certainly worthwhile, to merely mention the fact of separate opus numbering in the Arrangements section of the article. Does this not make sense? Milkunderwood (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit: "...the arrangements are of actual songs (written for voice and piano)..." Huh? These are Lieder *OHNE* Worte.

Milkunderwood (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re-edit: Oh, okay, sorry about that--I missed the explanation given by Smerus, above, that most (but not all) of these cello arrangements are taken from actual opp. written by Mendelssohn *for voice*. That explains it. However, this still leaves the problem that at least in the cello recordings, which are what I'm mostly familiar with, they are specifically called "Lieder *ohne* Worte". So this is correct in a literal sense, but still extremely confusing, since they will naturally be assumed to be from the piano pieces rather than from the true Lieder. Thus I still think it would be useful to append a note here in the Arrangements section to simply clarify the situation. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd wager it's the CD producer simply being cute. After all, they are songs...played without words. With Mendelssohn being the initiator and the main 'name' in the genre, it's unsurprising that it'd happen. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't disagree with your suggestion, but to the casual cello listener who is curious about such things, it's still very confusing to see a composition being called a "Lied ohne Worte/ Song without Words" and not understand that it derives from a song *with* words rather than one of the piano pieces. I still don't understand the objection to appending a clarifying note to Arrangements. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Milkunderwood, I think you are missing the point. Anybody can call anything they like a 'Song without Words', and Wikipedia can't stop them. This article is about the pieces which Mendelssohn wrote and called 'Songs Without Words'. The only cello piece which should be mentioned here in detail therefore is the op. 109 piece, and I am still waiting for the opportunity to research that - I will add a holding comment to the article in the meantime. If a record company is confusing you, complain to the record company, not to Wikipedia. Many of the pieces, and of Mendelssohn's lieder, have been arranged for other instruments (including the cello arrangements you mention), but not by Mendelssohn. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Smerus, your addition to the Arrangements section does the trick for me; thanks very much. I wasn't trying to cause trouble here, but was honestly confused. As I said, I'm not a musician, and frankly, my interest in Mendelssohn in general as a composer is quite limited. Rather, I was approaching this whole thing from a curiosity about cello music, and the opus numbers on various so-called Lieder ohne Worte didn't seem to make sense or match up with the solo piano versions. (I'm familiar only with the piano and the accompanied cello pieces; I can't stay in the same room with somebody singing a Lied.) Your point about "anybody can call anything they like" is well taken; for that matter, anybody can come here to Wikipedia and start editing whatever they like, but at least here garbage will eventually be found and corrected or deleted. But still, I've occasionally gotten the impression that some articles seem to be written by experts *for* experts, without taking into consideration that others with just enough knowledge to be dangerous will also be wandering by, and getting into a muddle. That's what happened to me here (but at least I was cautious enough to post to the discussion rather than messing with the article itself). I appreciate everyone's patience, and the help given. Milkunderwood (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for raising the issue, and I am glad you find the article a bit better now. I will try to find out more about op. 109 but the facts are a bit elusive at the moment! Best regards--Smerus (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Media Section is empty!
"Songs without Words" by Mendelsshon was used in many cartoons, particularly in the "Looney Tunes" cartoon "I Love to Singa" when one of the owls plays it on a flute.Warren67 (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The media section is not empty: it contains the three sound samples to the right of the screen. What you are referring to is use in popular culture, which is considered trivial and inclusion thereof is discouraged by WikiProject Classical music (see this guideline).Best regards. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I just listened to the sound sample for Op. 38 No. 6, "Duetto." It was painful to listen to such a poor performance. The tempo is too fast, and the performance has several wrong notes. Is there a better audio clip that can be used on this site? I know YouTube has a wonderful performance by Murray Perahia, but I'm not sure that could be posted here. AccountantsRcool (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The tempo is a matter of taste & interpretation; Perahia (3:08) takes it much slower than, eg, Barenboim (2:18), which is similar to the tempo here (2:29). But I agree that the playing standard of the file uploaded by User:Mr.Ajedrez is unsatisfactory. I suggest to remove it from the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, if you think it's not appropiate for the article you can remove. I only added it because I found an old performance of it in my computer and thought it was better than nothing for the reader -the problem with audio files is that we have very few and even fewer with professional recording and performance. I still think that a mediocre audio file is better than no audio file, as well as a bad photo is better than no photo, but I can understand the point of view that it's better to have less but excellent. Regards. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The melody of one of these songs is familiar to everyone. It has not only been used in cartoons, but on the Addams Family ("Lurch Learns to Dance") and the Grateful Dead once (maybe more than once) played it after Bob Weir forgot the words to a song (which he did more than once). It's so familiar that it has comedic effect. I note that nearly everyone knows this particular tune (Lieder ohne Worte, Book 5, Op. 62:6), called "Spring Song" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mz5Rtx-Eu0) but few know where it comes from. [Edit: As noted by others, the Opus No. seems disputed.] Wastrel Way (talk)Eric

Book I: Op. 19 or Op. 19b?
Book I's opus number appears here, here and here as 19b, not just 19.

On checking Mendelssohn's catalogue, I see he wrote a set of 6 Songs, Op. 19a, so it would make sense for there to be an Op. 19b. Problem is, I've never seen this designation used anywhere else.

Anyone know anything about this? -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  08:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 19b is right, as per your authorities. I have corrected. --Smerus (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So, why do almost all scores and references omit the "b"? --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  11:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No idea, but my own list says 19b as well, so I'm pretty sure it's in the thematic catalog published a few years ago. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

With piano accompaniment?!
In the introduction to this article the Lieder ohne Worter are described as "a series of short lyrical songs (Lieder), with piano accompaniment." This should probably be: these are Lieder written for piano, and thus "ohne worter", or something to that effect. Or does anyone know the reason for this confusing wording? AloysiusBotycos (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Somebody somewhere might know. Looks like a mistake to me. I have reverted back to a previous version. The question still arises (at least in English) - can songs without words really be songs? Aren't they just tunes, or musical pieces? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC) p.s. congrats on your first ever edit.