A specific question really, though no reason it can't anchor a general one.
I was looking some while back at Garland Publications' edition of three symphonies by Ferdinand Ries (symphonies 1, 2 and 9 - now called 1 2 and 7). All three had opus numbers, and the first two seem to have been reprinted, reasonably enough and as seem to have been that edition's usual but not invariable practice, from early published scores. Op.121 (symphony 7 in A minor) however seemed to be taken from a manuscript facsimile. This leaves a few possibilities-
1 -there was a published score but, like many 20th century scores (but unlike, I think, many 19th century ones), it was a manuscript facsimile;
2 -there was a published score but comparison with the manuscript revealed so many errors that it was better to publish the manuscript instead (hrm, shades of certain contemporary works indeed)
3 -there was no contemporary published score.
If 3, it seems unusual (it would not be for the 20th century, but this was a 19th century composer) to assign an opus number to the work. (He did not, for instance, to his symphony in E-flat, recorded by cpo as no.8. I haven't seen that cpo recording, whose notes may clear all of this up completely.) Is there a reason and story here with this work (no.7) (re choices 1,2,3,), and very generally has there ever really been a rhyme or reason of any sort assigning opus numbers to music? (Not for nothing with Krommer's, for another example, confusing opus number situation- double assignments of the same opus # to different works e.g.- did Padrta feel the need to create a more systematic catalog of his output... anyways.)
Eric
I was looking some while back at Garland Publications' edition of three symphonies by Ferdinand Ries (symphonies 1, 2 and 9 - now called 1 2 and 7). All three had opus numbers, and the first two seem to have been reprinted, reasonably enough and as seem to have been that edition's usual but not invariable practice, from early published scores. Op.121 (symphony 7 in A minor) however seemed to be taken from a manuscript facsimile. This leaves a few possibilities-
1 -there was a published score but, like many 20th century scores (but unlike, I think, many 19th century ones), it was a manuscript facsimile;
2 -there was a published score but comparison with the manuscript revealed so many errors that it was better to publish the manuscript instead (hrm, shades of certain contemporary works indeed)
3 -there was no contemporary published score.
If 3, it seems unusual (it would not be for the 20th century, but this was a 19th century composer) to assign an opus number to the work. (He did not, for instance, to his symphony in E-flat, recorded by cpo as no.8. I haven't seen that cpo recording, whose notes may clear all of this up completely.) Is there a reason and story here with this work (no.7) (re choices 1,2,3,), and very generally has there ever really been a rhyme or reason of any sort assigning opus numbers to music? (Not for nothing with Krommer's, for another example, confusing opus number situation- double assignments of the same opus # to different works e.g.- did Padrta feel the need to create a more systematic catalog of his output... anyways.)
Eric