Mozart

[lordlance]

Just think, all the Complete Mozart box sets will need to be revised and reissued.

That's what they want.

[NumberSix]

From the liner notes in a recent Requiem release:

Since death (strictly considered) is the true final destination of our lives, I have, over the past few years, made myself so familiar with this true best friend of humanity that his face not only no longer holds anything terrifying for me, but even much that soothes and comforts!

And I thank my God for granting me the good fortune of providing me with the opportunity (you understand me) to recognise it as the key to our true blessedness. – I never go to bed at night without thinking that perhaps (however young I may be) I will no longer exist the following day – and yet no one among all those who know me can say that I am morose or sad in my behaviour. And I thank my Creator
every day for this blessedness and wish it cordially upon every one of my fellow beings.

-- Mozart's last letter to his ailing father, 4 April 1787

[Madiel]

So, what do people think of the new K9 edition of the Koechel catalogue saying "oh to hell with it, let's stop trying to be chronological"?

Bad decision in my book. Because even K1 claimed to be chronological, and people will still think the numbering is chronological. K6 tried to fix mistakes, and yes it probably introduced a few new ones. But it was a step towards that work. Now we're being told that actually, the number isn't really supposed to mean anything, it's just a number. Which would be fine if you didn't have all these other indications that it was originally intended to be an indication of chronology.

EDIT: I particularly dislike not trying to link divertimentos/serenades with the marches that were written to introduce them. Who is going to guess that K.334 and K.445 go together? You'll get a clue though if it also says 320b and 320c.

[lordlance]

So, what do people think of the new K9 edition of the Koechel catalogue saying "oh to hell with it, let's stop trying to be chronological"?

Bad decision in my book. Because even K1 claimed to be chronological, and people will still think the numbering is chronological. K6 tried to fix mistakes, and yes it probably introduced a few new ones. But it was a step towards that work. Now we're being told that actually, the number isn't really supposed to mean anything, it's just a number. Which would be fine if you didn't have all these other indications that it was originally intended to be an indication of chronology.

EDIT: I particularly dislike not trying to link divertimentos/serenades with the marches that were written to introduce them. Who is going to guess that K.334 and K.445 go together? You'll get a clue though if it also says 320b and 320c.

The only solution is scorched-earth and a completely new renumbering but that would be problematic as all hitherto references would have old numbering and people might be reluctant to generally adopt the new numbering. So we end up with this band-aid solution...