Talk:Rondos, Op. 51 (Beethoven)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Op. 51 or WoO 51?

I've seen in two separate publications these two pieces published as WoO 51, rather than Op. 51. The IMSLP has the #1 listed correctly, but the #2 is listed as WoO instead of Op. Also, the CD Sheet Music collection I have has them both labelled as WoO. They're not the same publication, as you can clearly see differences in the way they're laid out. (For example, the #1 is 6 pages on CD Sheet Music, and 9 pages on IMSLP. There are other subtle differences as well, dynamic markings, note grouping, placement of fingering indicators, etc.) I wonder how widespread this error is. Clearly, the correct numbering is Op. 51, not WoO 51. WoO 51 is supposedly a fragment of an unpublished piano sonata, though I've yet to find a score or recording of it, so it's possible that one of these Rondos is indeed that fragment, but I doubt it. Anyhow, I'm not sure how widespread this error is, but the fact that it's appeared in two unrelated sources might be worth mentioning. Lurlock (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a recording of WoO 51 on Naxos with Jeno Jando. Its the last volume of their piano sonata cycle which includes the Pastorale and then the WoO 47, Anh5 and WoO 51 sonatina/sonatas as filler. There, WoO 51 doesn't sound anything like either of the Op. 51 rondos.DavidRF (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think so, it was just a theory. I still wonder how far back the numbering discrepency goes. It may be that both the publications I looked at copied the same error from some earlier source. It's worth noting that the error appears on the score itself. Both of them have the pieces correctly labeled as Op. 51, but when you look at the actual music, that's when you see that they've been mislabeled. Now, I'm pretty sure that both IMSLP and CD Sheet Music get their much of their content by scanning paper books (rather than storing the music data digitally). Thus I'd guess that the error extends at least as far back as whatever paper publications these two were using, which were, again, different publications for reasons I mentioned before. IMSLP states in their legal pages that their publications must be old enough to be public domain (though I'm sure this rule is often broken). CD Sheet Music is a commercial company that I'm sure has similar internal rules, and probably are more strict about it. Thus the error likely dates back at least 75 years, and probably more if both of their sources were copying from some yet-earlier common source. Lurlock (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]