Questions about "K" and numbering worksDOWN 18
tim...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Composer's works are often refered to as
K###. For example, Mozart's Symphony
No. 21 in A is K134. So, my questions are:
1) What word does that "K" stand for?
2) Are "K" and Opus usually interchangable?
3) Is the numbering following "K" always
chronologically based?
4) Must a work be of some consequence to
receive a "K" number. In other words,
would a never fully realized musical doodle by
a great composer receive a "K" designation? I
wonder who decides?
5) Where might I find a complete "K" listing
of Mozart's work?
Well, I hope these questions aren't to basic
for this group. I'd appreciate any insights
you might have.
Thanks,
Tim
Lawrence Snyder
: Composer's works are often refered to as : K###. For example, Mozart's
Symphony : No. 21 in A is K134. So, my questions are:
: 1) What word does that "K" stand for?
The "K" stands for Koechel, after Ludwig von Koechel, 1800-1877. Opus
numbering is sometimes assigned by the composer, sometimes by the
publisher, and sometimes not at all, and as a result is often capricious
and misleading. Koechel decided to remedy this for Mozart's works and
made up a new list. Only Mozart's works have Koechel numbers.
: 2) Are "K" and Opus usually interchangable?
No.
: 3) Is the numbering following "K" always chronologically based?
That was the idea, but research provides conflicting evidence, and tyhere
are some uncertainties. The Koechel list has been revised a number of
times, by Alfred Einstein in 1937, and again in 1964.
: 4) Must a work be of some consequence to receive a "K" number.
No.
: In other words, would a never fully realized musical doodle by a
great composer receive a "K" designation?
Only Mozart has been assigned Koechel numbers. Somce other composers
have been catalogued by other scholars. Schubert has his Deutsch
numbers, after Erich Otto Deutsch, Bach has both BWV and Schmieder
listings, Weber has Jaehns, etc.
: I wonder who decides?
Any scholar who has the time and rescources to do the research for his or
her chosen composer.
: 5) Where might I find a complete "K" listing of Mozart's work?
Look under Koechel in your nearest university library. Since it is
originally spelled with an o-umlaut denied to 7-bit internet readers,
and since libraries in this country often ignore them, check under
Kochel too. Groves Dictionary has a substantial partial list as well.
==============================
Larry Snyder
ldsn...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us
Davis Community Network
==============================
Lyle Neff
Lawrence Snyder <ldsn...@wheel.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>Only Mozart's works have Koechel numbers.
[snip]
>Only Mozart has been assigned Koechel numbers.
Really? "K" (=Koechel) numbers come also from Koechel's catalog of
J.J. Fux's works, I believe.
>Somce other composers have been catalogued by other scholars.
>Schubert has his Deutsch numbers, after Erich Otto Deutsch, Bach has
>both BWV and Schmieder listings,
The BWV and Schmieder (S.) represent the same numbering, because
Schmieder compiled the Bach Werk-Verzeichnis.
>Weber has Jaehns, etc.
FYI, here's some others:
CPE Bach has old Wotquenne (Wq.) and newer Helm (H.) numbering
J. Haydn = Hoboken (Hob.)
D. Scarlatti = Longo (L.); Kirkpatrick (K., newer)
Vivaldi = F. (Fanna); R. (Ryom)
Within the last decade or so thematic catalogs have appeared for
Berlioz (by Holoman), Wagner (WWV, by Deathridge), Brahms (by
McCorkle), Telemann (TWV, by Ruhnke, Menke), Handel (HWV, by the
Eisens), and others, although I'm not sure if their compilers'
initials have been similarly assigned to the numberings as above.
--
Lyle Neff, ln...@ucs.indiana.edu "A libretto, a libretto!
My kingdom for a libretto!" -- C. Cui
James Kahn
>Composer's works are often refered to as
>K###. For example, Mozart's Symphony
>No. 21 in A is K134. So, my questions are:
Actually, only Mozart's (to my knowledge) works are classified
by "K". Schubert's, for example, were catalogued by someone
named Deutch, I believe, so you'll see, for ex. Sonata in Bflat,
D. 960.
>1) What word does that "K" stand for?
Koechel, the one who was responsible for this cataloguing of Mozart's works.
>2) Are "K" and Opus usually interchangable?
No, Opus usually refers to order of publication. Many works are never
published or published out of chronological order.
>3) Is the numbering following "K" always
> chronologically based?
Yes, but the usual K numbers aren't quite chronological, as new
research reorders the works. The K numbers have been revised, which
is why you sometimes see two, like K. 466/421a.
>4) Must a work be of some consequence to
> receive a "K" number. In other words,
> would a never fully realized musical doodle by
> a great composer receive a "K" designation? I
> wonder who decides?
In Mozart's case there are lots of fragments and works of
questionable authenticity that are included in the catalog.
>5) Where might I find a complete "K" listing
> of Mozart's work?
I just e-mailed you one.
--Jim
--
ka...@troi.cc.rochester.edu |
ka...@finance.wharton.upenn.edu |
Margaret Mikulska
>tim...@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote: : Hi,
>
>: Composer's works are often refered to as : K###. For example, Mozart's
>Symphony : No. 21 in A is K134. So, my questions are:
>
>: 1) What word does that "K" stand for?
>
>The "K" stands for Koechel, after Ludwig von Koechel, 1800-1877.
>: 3) Is the numbering following "K" always chronologically based?
>
>are some uncertainties.
"Some uncertainties" is a major understatement. The chronology of
Mozart works is still a problem. Even works entered by Mozart himself
in his own chronological catalogue have been re-dated (by modern
scholars) on the basis of various evidence (paper type, watermarks, ink,
also handwriting, although the last is more important for earlier works).
There are many works by Mozart about which we don't know enough to assign
a date of composition. Among the main problems are:
- lack of primary sources (dated manuscripts or similar documents);
- similarity of Leopold's and Wolfgang's handwriting, at least in WAM's
younger years.
The latter completely stumped Johann Andre, an early 19th-C publisher who
was working for most of his life on a _chronological_ catalogue of
Mozart works (which he never published, although what he did would be
worth publishing anyway) and who attempted to determine the dates of
composition of many works on the basis of handwriting. He was
definitely on the right track in principle; unfortunately, he was not
aware how many of Wolfgang's early works were written down by his father
and how similar the handwriting of the two was. There is a paradox in
this: in principle, he was right in researching handwriting, and the
research on handwriting, developed in the last 30+ years mostly by
the late Wolfgang Plath, one of the most outstanding Mozart scholars,
turned out to be crucial to Mozart chronology; in practice, Andre's
failure to compile a full chronological catalogue discredited, to a
large extent, this relatively objective (compared to stylistic analysis)
method of dating and authentification. The result was a switch to
largely stylistic, very subjective, analysis, exemplified best in the
biography by Wyzewa & St.Foix and then in the Einstein's edition of the
Koechel Catalogue. It didn't work very well.
In any case, the idea is still that K numbers should reflect chronology,
and the subsequent editions tried to assign more reliable dates to
particular works. This led to a rather complicated system of K numbers
which became, by now, almost unusable. (Once a number was assigned to a
work, it was never "recycled" for another work, despite of changes in
chronology.)
>The Koechel list has been revised a number of
>times, by Alfred Einstein in 1937, and again in 1964.
Specifically, there was one minor revision in 1905 by Paul von
Waldersee (K2), two major revisions: Einstein in 1937 (K3) and
Weinmann-Giegling-Sievers (K6) in 1964, and a supplement consisting of a
fairly large number of revisions, compiled by Einstein in 1940s and
published in Ann Arbor in 1947 (K3a). That's all so far; a new edition
should be out by 2000.
>: 4) Must a work be of some consequence to receive a "K" number.
>
>No.
>
>: In other words, would a never fully realized musical doodle by a
>great composer receive a "K" designation?
In principle, every single musical doodle by Mozart, no matter how short
and "inconsequential" gets a Koechel number. Even sketches with a
couple of measures on them. In practice, a very large number of
sketches, drafts, and fragments had been ignored or treated very
perfunctorily by the editors of the Koechel Catalogue. The existence of
these "doodles" is a very important issue, because it shows Mozart's
creative process and destroys the myth, propagated already in the early
19th century, of Mozart as a composer who just wrote down a fully
finished composition and never needed to _work_ on a piece of music. In
view of all the sketches and fragments we have now, this myth is exactly
that - a myth. Just the preserved sketches and drafts exist for one in
ten of finished works (and how much must have been discarded by Mozart
himself when he decided to write something differently and saw no further
use for some sketch). There is also a large number of never finished
fragments: for every four works that Mozart finished, we have fragments
and drafts for one work started and abandoned. All that is not easy to
guess from the previous editions of the Koechel, but the new edition
will remedy this situation.
>: I wonder who decides?
>
>Any scholar who has the time and rescources to do the research for his or
>her chosen composer.
In the case of Mozart, it's not "every scholar". Koechel numbers are
assigned when the catalogue is being compiled. Works (complete or
"doodles") found or authenticated between the consecutive editions of
the K.Catalogue are denoted "KV deest", from the Latin "deesse" (to be
absent). Only when the next edition is being compiled, they get the
numbers. That, of course, means that there is a (small) number of works
whch are "KV deest" ("KV desunt" in plural) right now, because they were
discovered after the publication of the 1964 edition.
Also, in the case of the Koechel Catalogue, it's the publisher -
Breitkopf & Haertel even since, except for the 1947 supplement - that
nominates the editor(s), at least the editor-in-chief, who in turn may
choose co-editors or an advisory board, etc. Not any scholar can just
barge in and do a new edition of the Koechel (actually, Ludwig von
Koechel did do it without being asked by B&H, but that was 19th century,
and Koechel was well-off). The resources needed to compile such a work
are enormous; it takes hefty subsidies from governmental and corporate
entities to cover the expenses of such undertaking.
>: 5) Where might I find a complete "K" listing of Mozart's work?
>
>Look under Koechel in your nearest university library. Since it is
>originally spelled with an o-umlaut denied to 7-bit internet readers,
>and since libraries in this country often ignore them, check under
>Kochel too. Groves Dictionary has a substantial partial list as well.
Apart from the "real", full edition of the Koechel catalogue - the most
recent has over 1000 pages - you can find shorter versions, although
I'm not sure if there is one in English. The most up-to-date
"mini-Koechel" I know, a pocket paperback, is in Italian. A very handy
reference guide, published (not surprisingly) in 1991 or shortly before.
In English, the guide "The Compleat Mozart", edited by Neal Zaslaw and
W. Cowdery, has a near-complete listing of Mozart's works: spurious works
and most of the fragments are omitted. If you need short information
about all finished and a few unfinished works by Mozart, this is a very
good place to look. (The book consists of short articles by various
authors with basic info about every - see above - work by Mozart.)
-Margaret
Margaret Mikulska
>In <3kr794$p...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> tim...@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>
>>4) Must a work be of some consequence to
>> receive a "K" number. In other words,
>> would a never fully realized musical doodle by
>> a great composer receive a "K" designation? I
>> wonder who decides?
>
>In Mozart's case there are lots of fragments and works of
>questionable authenticity that are included in the catalog.
Most works of questionable authenticity are in one of the appendices,
which have a separate numbering scheme. The main part of the Koechel
includes, in principle, only works or fragments of unquestionable or
almost unquestionable authenticity. Of course, as research progresses,
things change, but in principle, there has always been an appendix for
works of questionable authenticity.
-Margaret
Mark Bartelt
| The "K" stands for Koechel, after Ludwig von Koechel, 1800-1877.
And whose name, incidentally, is invariably mispronounced by radio announcers.
It's always rather amazing to me that announcers who do so well with Italian,
French, Russian, Spanish, and the like, and for the most part do an adequate
job with German, manage to butcher "Koechel" so badly. It tends to come out
as "Keshel", "Kurshel", "Kairshel", and worse. If they can't handle German
"ch", and/or can't pronounce umlauted vowels, why don't they just say it as
"Keckel", which isn't terribly accurate, but is probably closer than any of
the other mispronunciations? Or why can't they (as some announcers do), just
admit defeat and say "K"?
I have it on rather good authority that WFMT once had a sign in their studio
which read
There is no 'R' in Koechel!
Sounds like something which should be required reading at all radio stations.
Mark Bartelt 416/978-5619
Canadian Institute for ma...@cita.toronto.edu
Theoretical Astrophysics ma...@cita.utoronto.ca
"Clothes not busy being worn are busy drying." - Dylan, on laundry day
[ singing "It's all right, ma (I'm only bleaching)" ]
August Nelson
>
>| The "K" stands for Koechel, after Ludwig von Koechel, 1800-1877.
>
>And whose name, incidentally, is invariably mispronounced by radio announcers.
>It's always rather amazing to me that announcers who do so well with Italian,
>French, Russian, Spanish, and the like, and for the most part do an adequate
>job with German, manage to butcher "Koechel" so badly. It tends to come out
>as "Keshel", "Kurshel", "Kairshel", and worse. If they can't handle German
>"ch", and/or can't pronounce umlauted vowels, why don't they just say it as
>"Keckel", which isn't terribly accurate, but is probably closer than any of
>the other mispronunciations? Or why can't they (as some announcers do), just
>admit defeat and say "K"?
Etc.
Touble is, it's German. No way to learn its pronunciation except by
demonstration. I had a Professor of Scientific German once in whose class the
first two rows were empty after the first session. To demonstrate how "ch" is
pronounced differently, in a different part of the mouth, depending on the vowel
sound it follows, he would emit a shower of spray with each enunciation,
liberally anointing the occupants up front.
Brings to mind Mark Twain's The Awful German Language.
(Not that he didn't have pretty good fun with French as well.)
I think you're on a lost cause with announcers and other broadcast types. Forget
German--a lot of them need work on English first. Not only pronunciation but
sentence structure, grammar, even literacy. One example I culled not long ago,
by a national network sports announcer: "The Cowboys is a team that doesn't beat
theirselves."
Gus Nelson
=========================================================================
Will Rogers: It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble,
it's what we know that ain't so.
Will Rogers: When the Okies migrated from Oklahoma to California,
they raised the average IQ's of both states.
James C Liu
>tim...@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote: : Hi,
>: 2) Are "K" and Opus usually interchangable?
>No.
When a composer published pieces, (s)he could number the pieces in the
order published. These are Opus numbers. Relatively little of a composer's
output was often published before 1800 (Mozart's six quartets dedicated
to Haydn, for instance, claim K.387 to K.465, but was published as his
Op. 10). What was published was sometimes accumulated out of chronological
order (e.g., Vivaldi's concerti; not all of the Op. 3 concerti were
necessarily written at the same sitting). However, many composers
published just about everything major, in chronological order, after 1800;
hence the frequent use of Opus numbers for those who did. Others (e.g.
Schubert) published wildly out of order, if at all, and have their own
catalogues to help clarify what's what.
>: 3) Is the numbering following "K" always chronologically based?
>That was the idea, but research provides conflicting evidence, and tyhere
>are some uncertainties. The Koechel list has been revised a number of
>times, by Alfred Einstein in 1937, and again in 1964.
Mozart himself started keeping a chronological catalog of completed
compositions midway through his career; Koechel's first effort builds from
that catalog. However, as mentioned, some of the earlier stuff is still
in doubt.
>: 5) Where might I find a complete "K" listing of Mozart's work?
A substantial music bookstore should have Koechel catalogs available; I
believe there was an edition published on the bicentenary of Mozart's death
which includes brief notes on each of the works in the catalog (notes
written by Robert Levin, H.C. Robbins Landon, and the other usual suspects,
if I recall correctly). Philips made a copy of the complete catalog available
as a book suplement to their sampler CD for their Complete Mozart Edition
(Phi 426 735-2).
--
/James C.S. Liu, MD "I have seen the future, and it is like
jl...@world.std.com the present, only longer."
Department of Medicine
New England Med Ctr, Boston MA -- Kelhog Albran
John E. Harrington
> There is no 'R' in Koechel!
Does this mean that I've been pronouncing it incorrectly?
I say: Kurkl
Is that wrong? If so, should it then be Goata for Goethe and Schoanberg for
Schoenberg, Boam for Boehm, and so on...?
-J
--
*******************************************************************************
* DISCLAIMER: Unless indicated otherwise, everything in this note is *
* personal opinion, not an official statement of Biosym Technologies, Inc. *
*******************************************************************************
HEATHER DUNHAM
>From: tim...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
>Subject: Questions about "K" and numbering worksDOWN 18
>Date: 23 Mar 95 02:16:42 EST
>Composer's works are often refered to as
>K###. For example, Mozart's Symphony
>No. 21 in A is K134. So, my questions are:
>1) What word does that "K" stand for?
In Mozart's case, Kerschel. In D. Scarlatti's, Kalmus. I can't think of
any others offhand that use K...
>2) Are "K" and Opus usually interchangable?
No, they are different. Opus numbers were assigned either by the composer
or the publisher (pre-classical usually the publisher if anyone, and often
different publishers used different numbers, try looking up Rameau's works!
Arg!) Beethoven regularized the use of opus numbers. After this point,
they were usually the composers, though not necessarily chronological by
date of composition - more likely date of first performance, or publishing,
or general "release date" Except for Op. Posthumous - means found and
published after teh composer's death.
>3) Is the numbering following "K" always
> chronologically based?
Not always. In the kase of Kerschel (sorry) Kerschel attempted to catalogue
all of Mozart's works, and they are approximately chronological. However,
as already mentioned, chronologicsal could refer to composition or
publication, which can make 2 TOTALLY different time-lines. I think that
Kerschel was trying to be chronological, but there is no guarantee that, for
example, K488 was written just shortly after K487, and a good while before
K500.
In other systems, like BWV for Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (German for catalogue
of Bach's works), they appear to be more or less by genre. For example, the
chorale preludes all seem to fall in the BWV400-500 range. The same is true
od BuxWV (Buxtehude).
In Scarlatti sonatas, the K's are the number in order of publication in
the Kalmus edition. More universal are the "L" for "Longo" numbers - same
logic though, jsut more commonly used. More 'correct' would be the more
recent Kirkpatrick numbers - more organized, etc. Erk, I hope I'm not
mistaken and K means kirkpatrick - I'll have to double check that. but it's
more or less right anyway.
>4) Must a work be of some consequence to
> receive a "K" number. In other words,
> would a never fully realized musical doodle by
> a great composer receive a "K" designation? I
> wonder who decides?
The one who decided is the one for whom the letter is given. K for
kerschel, etc. I don't know who did BWV, probably a group of people. And
actually, they are usually the result of an attempt to catalogue a composer'
s ENTIRE work, including doodles. Unless you mean UNFINISHED doodles,
like notebook scraps. It has to be an entire piece (with, of course,
exceptions like the Requiem)
THeir main purpose is to provide a general universal reference. For
example, scarlatti wrote a LOT of sonatas, that he didn't nbumber. There
are, for example, several in G major. if you read in a scholarly paper "
Scarlatti's sonata in G maj", you say, which one? And they answer "ummm...
the one that goes bum, be bum bum, deeeee-da....?"
As another example, Bach wrote several preludes called "nun komm der heiden
heiland". If you read a book written BEFORE BWV numbers became universally
accepted (not that lon ago) it can be really difficult trying to figure out
which one they mean... as I'm finding out trying to get my TERM PAPER
FINISHED!!! (sorry)
>5) Where might I find a complete "K" listing
> of Mozart's work?
hmm. DOn't know exactly. Try looking for Mozart biographies - often
biographies will include an appendix of the composer's works.
>Well, I hope these questions aren't to basic
>for this group. I'd appreciate any insights
>you might have.
Hope this helps. Always happy to help a relative beginner (we were all one
once!)
Heather the Buzzard
Ross Driedger
>>From: sys...@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Mark Bartelt)
>>> There is no 'R' in Koechel!
>>
>>Does this mean that I've been pronouncing it incorrectly?
>>I say: Kurkl
>>Is that wrong?
Yes! This is a bad pronounciation, typical of some English speaking people.
The vowel sound is not found in English -- something close is in French; Italians
wouldn't dare to make such a sound.
The best thing would be for you to hear a good German pronounciation of it,
but to give you an idea....
Practice saying the name with just an 'o' but thinking 'e' at the same time.
If you go to far with this, it might turn into an 'r'; in that case, you
overdid it.
Ensure, as well, that the 'ch' does not come out as an English 'k'. As tough
as you might think it is, with practice it is quite easy to say once the proper
German pronounciation is set. It sounds soft to the ears, actually.
>>If so, should it then be Goata for Goethe and Schoanberg for
>>Schoenberg, Boam for Boehm, and so on...?
No. Say 'o' and think 'e'. Best to hear a native German say these names.
Basic pronouciation errors are common in foreign languages, but the worst are
those who preteniously mispronounce things as if to imply: "This is the way
those really in the know say this." One particular CBC radio announcer is
infamous for this: he constantly refers to Mozart's opera about the Don Juan
legend as "Don Jeeeovani".
I scream at him every time when he leans on the 'i' in "Giovanni". Any opera
coach worth more than minimum wage will tell the world that the 'i' is only
there to soften the 'G'.
The proper pronounciation is: "Jovanni"
- Soft 'G',
- No 'i',
- Emphasis on the 'nn'. (As if the first n is the end of the 'van' syllable and
the second 'n' is the start of the 'ni' syllable.)
You think we've got it rough? It is much harder for those who don't speak
English to learn our collection of impure vowels, grunts and groans.
Ross Driedger
cs4g...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
============Real men don't need four downs.============
John Pranulis
by Americans to my Berliner friend. He, too, was emphatic that there
is no "r" sound. HOWEVER, this is a matter of perception. There is
no "oh-umlaut" sound eqivalent in English and the shape of the lips
forms a sound that to American ears has the slight ring of an "r" sound.
Taken to extremes, radio announcers hit that "r" pretty hard.
Now, how about the word ADAGIO. It's Italian and radio announcers
say, "ah-dah-zhee-oh"!!
(picky-picky)
:-)
--
* * Mors Longa - Vita Brevis * *
Steve Luyben
On 03-28-95 Ross Driedger wrote:
RD>Basic pronouciation errors are common in foreign languages, but the
RD>those worst are who preteniously mispronounce things as if to imply:
RD>those "This is the way really in the know say this." One particular
RD>CBC radio announcer is infamous for this: he constantly refers to
RD>Mozart's opera about the Don Juan legend as "Don Jeeeovani".
We have a Boston announcer cum musicologist (Robert J. Lerzima (sp?),
legendary for his long pauses, very slow delivery, and relentless
pedantry. I cringe every time he pronounces "Bach" - as if he were
clearing this through. To say more would be in very bad taste indeed!
________________________________________________________
*-=Steve=-* steve....@channel1.com
Boston
* CMPQwk 1.42-21 #1762 The more known about people, the more to admire in dogs.
Daniel M. Debertin
: From: sys...@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Mark Bartelt)
: > There is no 'R' in Koechel!
: Does this mean that I've been pronouncing it incorrectly?
: I say: Kurkl
: Is that wrong? If so, should it then be Goata for Goethe and Schoanberg for
: Schoenberg, Boam for Boehm, and so on...?
If you're really that concerned about the absolute corct German
pronunciation, it's between "o" and "r". To get the right sound, start by
forming the "r" with your mouth, then move halfway to "o", and you should
have something close to the umlaut "o". It *is* a little annoying to hear
someone say "Gerte" or "Schernberg", but it's really not a big deal, as
long as people know who you're talking about.
Daniel M. Debertin
dmde...@gloria.cord.edu
Beware of the Quantum Ducks
Quark! Quark! Quark!
Becky Root
>: > There is no 'R' in Koechel!
>
>: Does this mean that I've been pronouncing it incorrectly?
>: I say: Kurkl
>
>: Is that wrong? If so, should it then be Goata for Goethe and Schoanberg for
>: Schoenberg, Boam for Boehm, and so on...?
>
>pronunciation, it's between "o" and "r". To get the right sound, start by
>forming the "r" with your mouth, then move halfway to "o", and you should
>have something close to the umlaut "o". It *is* a little annoying to hear
>someone say "Gerte" or "Schernberg", but it's really not a big deal, as
>long as people know who you're talking about.
>
If you still have trouble getting the "r" out, here's a way I've had
success in explaining it:
The oe umlaut is basically like the English "e" sound in words like
bed, head, etc., except the lips need to be round. The trick is
that it's hard to get the feeling of rounding your lips without
changing the tongue position of the "e" sound. So, try practicing
like this: Say a sustained "e" sound (like in "bed") until you've
mentally locked in on where your tongue is. Now. put the tip of a
pencil or your finger between your teeth while you say a sustained
"e" sound, now do the same thing, but slowly bring your lips to
incircle the pencil, while saying the "e" as before. If you do that
by changing only your lips, not anything else, the sound will be a
pretty decent German oe, without the offending "r" coloration. Once
you get the feel of the "e" tongue position with the round lips, you
can do this without the aid of the pencil :-) To get a decent German
ue sound, try the same thing starting with an English "i" sound, like
in the word "fit".
Now, if this isn't off topic, I don't know what is.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Becky Root, rr...@uswest.com
U S WEST Technologies
Boulder, Colorado, USA
James C Liu
>>From: tim...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
>>1) What word does that "K" stand for?
>In Mozart's case, Kerschel. In D. Scarlatti's, Kalmus. I can't think of
>any others offhand that use K...
Koechel for Mozart. Ralph Kirkpatrick also did a few catalogs.
>>3) Is the numbering following "K" always
>> chronologically based?
>In other systems, like BWV for Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (German for catalogue
>of Bach's works), they appear to be more or less by genre. For example, the
>chorale preludes all seem to fall in the BWV400-500 range. The same is true
>od BuxWV (Buxtehude).
That's kind of built into the definition of the Werke-Verzeichnis
catalogs; they're thematically organized, rather than chronologically
organized. So that all of the cantatas get grouped together, the concerti
get grouped together, etc. There's also an HWV for Handel.
>Hope this helps. Always happy to help a relative beginner (we were all one
>once!)
No we weren't. Some of us emerged full-grown from out of our parents,
Athena-like in our knowledge ...
Robert S. Coren
Steve Luyben <steve....@channel1.com> wrote:
>We have a Boston announcer cum musicologist (Robert J. Lerzima (sp?),
Lurtsema. And he's no musicologist.
>legendary for his long pauses, very slow delivery, and relentless
>pedantry. I cringe every time he pronounces "Bach" - as if he were
>clearing this through. To say more would be in very bad taste indeed!
It seems to me that Lurtsema prides himself on getting foreign
pronunciations "right"; nothing wrong with that if you don't make too
much of a point of it. He is, on the other hand, a pompous ass. And,
considering that he made a big deal about going to Germany and
studying German 5 or 10 years ago, it's amazing how bad his German
is.
Still, the Boston radio dial wouldn't be the same without him, and now
at least we only have to put up with him 2 days a week.
--
-------Robert Coren (co...@spdcc.com)-------------------------
"Similar economies might be effected in nature if lions could be
converted to vegetarianism." -- Donald Tovey [on the possibility of
peace between the followers of Brahms and Wagner/Liszt]
Ted Floyd
> 3) Is the numbering following "K" always
> chronologically based?
Yes. In fact, you can tell the year of the composition by
taking the K. number, dividing by 25, and adding 1,766.
It really does work (often right to the year, and always to
within a year or two) for all works above about K. 160.
Ted Floyd <AE...@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Diane Reid
>
> In article <3lepke$e...@sonic.cord.edu>,
> Daniel M. Debertin <dmde...@cord.edu> wrote:
> >John E. Harrington (j...@iris77.biosym.com) wrote:
> >: > There is no 'R' in Koechel!
> >
> >: Does this mean that I've been pronouncing it incorrectly?
> >: I say: Kurkl
> >
> >: Is that wrong? If so, should it then be Goata for Goethe and Schoanberg for
> >: Schoenberg, Boam for Boehm, and so on...?
> >
To my way of thinking, you are not off-topic. It's a very important
thing for those of us who have to sing those vowels!
Eugene Holman
>
>I mentioned the writer's complaint about the pronunciation of Koechel
>by Americans to my Berliner friend. He, too, was emphatic that there
>is no "r" sound. HOWEVER, this is a matter of perception. There is
>no "oh-umlaut" sound eqivalent in English and the shape of the lips
>forms a sound that to American ears has the slight ring of an "r" sound.
>Taken to extremes, radio announcers hit that "r" pretty hard.
A native Brooklynite, I've heard it pronounced 'koishel'.
Regards,
Eugene Holman