Schubert's 7th

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The new numbering system may take those of us of a certain age to get used to, but it's a much more logical and accurate numbering system that hithertofore.

My point is that such a change needs to be universally accepted (or rejected) to avoid confusion fro those not "in the know".

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

My point is that such a change needs to be universally accepted (or rejected) to avoid confusion fro those not "in the know".

Yes - education is the key; spread the knowledge

[Suffolkcoastal]

The B minor has always been No 8 for me and that is the way it is going to stay. If we are going to start taking out 'unfinished' works and also change numbering, then Borodin's 3rd will need removing from the canon, Bruckner's 9th will have to be called just Symphony in D minor (unfinished). but the F minor and Nullte will need to be included as nos 1 & 2, so the current No 8 will become No 10 and the last symphony in the canon. Mahler's 10th will need to be excluded from the canon and just renamed something like 'Adagio for Orchestra' (as a number of conductors would probably have preferred). Mendelssohn's will need renumbering and need to include the D Major String Symphony (no 8) at least in the canon, Roy Harris's symphonies will need renumbering with the inclusion of extra works, Enescu's will need to include the early 'Study Symphonies' to the existing 3 mature symphonies and the Saint-Saens 'Organ Symphony' will need to become No 5. It could easily become a minefield once we start fiddling with traditional numbering and where do you stop? We do have the Dvorak precedent granted, but here the opportunity was at least taken to number the later symphonies correctly in chronological order.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Also, see my post 37 for what you would need to do for Mozart. Imagine the "Jupiter" as no. 54.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The B minor has always been No 8 for me and that is the way it is going to stay.

But then what is "No 7", Suffy? Which of the three "unfinished" symphonies that Schubert worked on between No 6 and the work that is always "No8" for you do you decide to call "No 7"? If you are going to start putting in "unfinished" works, then by your own criterion you will have to start calling the B minor Symphony "No 10".

[Roehre]

Well, yes - but with Dvorak we're dealing only with completed, performable works entirely of the composer's sole work. With Schubert, the numbering of just forty years ago had to include an "imaginary" work that didn't exist until Brian Newbould (and others) put it together. (Rather well IMO, but that's another matter.) Alternatively, the Great C Major Symphony was called "Number Seven" to promulgate the myth that Schubert wrote the B minor after he'd finished the C major and died whilst writing the Scherzo! The new numbering system may take those of us of a certain age to get used to, but it's a much more logical and accurate numbering system that hithertofore.

Less prosaic I'm afraid: the C-major D.944 was discovered and performed 1838, 1839 respectively.
Hence this was symphony no.7
The b-minor was premiered 1865, and following no.7, hence no.8.
The problems started with a symphony which was supposed to be composed in Gastein in 1824 (which eventually turned out to be the great C-major). The Grand Duo in C op.140 was supposed to be a piano-score of that Gastein symphony (and was orchestrated by Joachim e.g.)
The symphonies in D (D.615 - one mvt) and E (D.729 - complete except for orchestration) between no.6 and no.7 never have been part of the numbering at all, as wasn't the symphony in c D.2a. The symphony of 1828, until some 3 decades ago thought to be the C-major, is the one in D D.936a, now numbered 10.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Less prosaic I'm afraid: the C-major D.944 was discovered and performed 1838, 1839 respectively.
Hence this was symphony no.7
The b-minor was premiered 1865, and following no.7, hence no.8.

[Suffolkcoastal]

In some respects nos 7 & 10 have more right than the B minor to be included in the canon as both works are at least virtually structually complete (we have the outline of the full work), which of course the B minor isn't, but tradition holds sway that it be included as there are two surviving complete movements. The other two unfinished works including D2 are far more fragmentary. Things should be left as they are, if you start playing with one composer's works and numbering then you should, to be totally fait and consistent, apply this to other composers too.