Re: No 'no.'
Posted by Carter on February 9, 2016, 12:11 pm, in reply to "Re: No 'no.'"
A bit of an over the top reply, if I may say so. Sorry if I gave the impression I was a complete idiot who needed patronising, but I'm not actually. If you write 'Symphony' and 'String QUartet', we can all assume that English is the language employed, so we don't have to worry about 'no.' being or not being the appropriate term. It's English, so you can use it, as indeed you do in the actual reviews. Other sites like Gramophone, BBC Music and Classicalnet don't use your system, so I wondered what was behind your 'innovation'. |
In simple terms: 'Symphony no.1' indicates a composer's first symphony (whether it is or not is a different matter), whereas 'Symphony 1', being unusual terminology, makes me think of the modernist titles like 'Structures I', 'Polyphonie X', 'Dérive II' etc (to name a few of Boulez's by way of example).
I just can't see why you would use this three-glyph-saving system when it achieves nothing but distraction. I admit there are more important things to worry about, but to me it's like reading a review with someone standing next to me chewing gum.