User:JackofOz/Music style issues


 * Manual of Style (music)
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music)
 * WikiProject Classical music
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music
 * WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines
 * WikiProject Music/MUSTARD
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD
 * User:JackofOz/Musical styles.

I first raised these matters at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 18 back in April 2009. That led to me setting up User:JackofOz/Musical styles, where there was some very handy discussion, much agreement, some disagreement, but generally a step in the right direction. Why did it never go anywhere? Life intervened. But I intend to capture the best of that page for the revived discussion. That’s not to say that anyone is locked into any position they may have expressed in April 2009. I know myself that my views and opinion change over time.

So, where are we at right now? We have a number of places where matters of style have been discussed and are set out:
 * Manual of Style (music)
 * WikiProject Classical music
 * WikiProject Music/MUSTARD
 * and some totally informal discussion at User:JackofOz/Musical styles.

The intention, as I understand it, is to synthesise them all into WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines.

Opus numbers
The format is:


 * , comma, space, Op.,,.

Thus:
 * Symphony No. 4 in E minor, Op. 87
 * Prelude in C sharp minor, Op. 3, No. 2
 * Ein Heldenleben, Op. 40

Abbreviations such as No. and Op. are always initial-capitalised and followed by a space.

Sub-opus numbers
Some works are only one member of a larger set of works, such as Chopin's 24 Preludes, Op. 28. An individual prelude will be referred to as, for example:
 * EITHER: Prelude in C major, Op. 28, No. 1
 * OR: Prelude in C major, Op. 28/1,

but do not mix these styles in the same article.

Possible errors

 * Symphony No. 4 in E minor Op. 87
 * Error: no comma between name of work and Op.


 * Symphony No. 4 in E minor, op. 87
 * Error: Op. not capitalised


 * Symphony No. 4 in E minor, Opus 87
 * Error: Op. not abbreviated


 * Symphony No. 4 in E minor, Op 87
 * Error: no full stop after Op.


 * Symphony No. 4 in E minor, Op.87
 * Error: no space between Op. and the number


 * Symphony No. 4, Op. 87, in E minor
 * Error: Op. and number out of order


 * Symphony No. 4 in E minor (Op. 87)
 * Error: Op. and number bracketed


 * numerous combinations of the above.

Plural
The plural of the abbreviation Op. is Opp.
 * Brown's songs (Opp. 18, 21, 23, 47 and 93) were all published by Boosey & Hawkes.

Part of the title?
Is the opus number part of the title of the work? In what circumstances should the opus number be mentioned at all?

The opus number should be part of the article title only where necessary to disambiguate. This need should be encountered very infrequently:
 * Preludes, Op. 32 (Rachmaninoff) can only be distinguished from Preludes, Op. 23 (Rachmaninoff) by the opus numbers.
 * But Symphony No. 2 (Brahms) does not need an opus number to differentiate it from Symphony No. 4 (Brahms).

The opus number should definitely be mentioned in the lede. But is it bolded?


 * Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 69, No. 1, is a waltz by Frédéric Chopin, or
 * Waltz in A-flat major, Op. 69, No. 1, is a waltz by Frédéric Chopin.

In a general reference to a work, is it necessary to include the opus number, and if so, it is necessary to link it? This issue also extends to mention of the key. There are at least 5 possibilities:
 * Smith performed Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1 more often than any other concerto.
 * Smith performed Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in B flat minor more often than any other concerto.
 * Smith performed Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in B flat minor more often than any other concerto.
 * Smith performed Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in B flat minor, Op. 23, more often than any other concerto.
 * Smith performed Tchaikovsky’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in B flat minor, Op. 23, more often than any other concerto.

Referring to a work by its opus number
Sometimes, an opus number alone is used to refer to a piece that has already been identified. In a text in which the merits of Beethoven's Waldstein and Appassionata sonatas are being compared, it might be appropriate to say, only after the two works have been fully identified, "In his Op. 57, Beethoven did ... in a more revealing way than in Op. 53".

But a work should never be introduced to the reader by its opus number, such as:
 * Chopin struggled with his Op. 46. This was his Allegro de concert, which ...

Far preferable to say something like:
 * Chopin struggled with his Allegro de concert, Op. 46, which ...