How the new Köchel catalogue came in 24 years late
NewsCornell University has an enlightening interview with its emeritus professor Neal Zaslaw, 85, the man behind the updating of Mozart and his works…. only 24 years behind deadline.
When the contract for the new Köchel catalog was signed in 1993, Zaslaw and the publisher agreed to a reasonable deadline.
“The contract said that I would finish it in seven years,” Zaslaw said. “As the years grew into decades, I was still finding it ‘fun,’ but I began to wonder whether I would finish it before I died.”
Zaslaw was able to tap many new resources that previous Köchel editors lacked: the Internet, a rising generation of scholars willing to communicate and cooperate, and international projects that were inventorying libraries and archives that had never been fully cataloged.
But there was another vestige of tradition that stymied Zaslaw. The legacy of the Köchel itself.
“I consulted a lot of performers and librarians and archivists and scholars and publishers,” he said, “and they were basically saying, ‘You can’t change the numbers by which we know all of Mozart’s works. Mozart’s G minor symphony is Köchel listing 550. Do not assign a new number to that. It will create chaos.’”
Zaslaw came up with a crafty, albeit time-consuming, solution. The previous numbering system has been retained, but “chronological” has disappeared from the book’s title and Zaslaw devised an elaborate new index system for crediting sources.
Now, 24 years after it was initially promised, Zaslaw’s Köchel has arrived, and it is an “astounding relief,” he said….
More here.
“…Do not assign a new number to that. It will create chaos.”
Exactly. There is still confusion when it comes to Schubert symphony no. 7. Or is it 8? Versions of the symphony “From the New World” still are around with no.5 on them. Once a number becomes ensconced in the musical world, just leave it alone.
Generally I agree but … if we revere the “last three Mozart symphonies, Nos. 39, 40 and 41” [and we damn well should] then what of the Mozart Symphony Nos. 42 to 58? To me giving those pieces (very early works or orchestrated string quartets) numbers AFTER 41 — just for the sake of giving them numbers — was just as big a mistake as playing around with Kochel numbers.
As for Kochel numbers there are already some pieces with two Kochel numbers, such as the Concertone for Two Violins and Orchestra, which I always regarded as K. 190 but now seems to be regarded as K 186E, more frequently seen in print as K 186e, but that’s its own problem because K 186e is also the new number for the bassoon concerto!
It’s enough to make me want to settle down with a nice glass of wine and enjoy Mozart’s Symphony No. 37, K. 444. Now THAT’S music.
Indeed it is; one of Michael Haydn’s best!
It’s still disconcerting to note a newly discovered juvenile work having a later number than the K.626 Requiem mass.
I didn’t know that “catalog” was anything *other* than numbers.
While I have the upmost respect for Zaslaw, I think he made a mistake not blowing up the Köchel catalog numbers and starting over because it had become so convoluted through attempts to keep it chronological as new pieces were discovered.
While doing away with the familiar numbers would create some confusion for the current generation, it would also help create greater clarity for all future generations.
This could have also been an opportunity to eliminate the confusing numbering, like the numbered symphonies after 41.