[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fw: Re[2]: Tangentially GG...actually baroque
Yes, I agree with this point. There is no question that
sonata form of the late 18th century grew out of the
brilliant work of Bach and other late baroque composers who
got better and better at organizing their music, and that
those who see furthest stand on the shoulders of giants.
Since we are pursuing this, I would define strict sonata
form in this manner:
First Half
Primary theme in tonic
connecting material
Secondary theme in dominant
connecting material
(optional repeat, meaning that the last connecting material
has to work either towards bar 1 of the first half or bar 1
of the development section)
Development
self-explanatory, but this should visit at least one other
closely-related key besides tonic and dominant
Recapitulation
Same as first half except secondary theme is played in tonic
instead of development
Optional "coda": can be whatever you want
But there is clearly some flexibility here. Witness Mozart
symphony 35: so-called "monothematic," although I can see
several arguable candidates for the secondary theme . . .
Mark
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Fw: Re[2]: Tangentially GG...actually baroque
Author: "R Johansen" <rjohanse@mail.tds.net> at internet
Date: 5/23/96 3:57 AM
Hi all,
While I, by and large, agree with Mark in his definition of the sonata
form, I would like to point to two of Bach's compositions (there are other
examples...), which, I think demonstrate most of the concepts we normally
associate with 'the Sonata'. (They are both recorded by Gould...)
First, consider the English Suite # 1 in A major, BWV 806. This is clearly
a work in which Bach exploits one common idea, or theme (and which I
interpret as one of the "sine qua no sonata" of Mark's definintion).
My second example is more important; I'm thinking of the 3rd piano concerto
(D major, BWV 1054). Here we have a fairly well developed theme in the
first movement, an admittedly kind of nondescript, albeit nice, Adagio
(but what Adagio isn't? (he, he)), and *then* a(n) (although I've never
seen it described as such,) full fledged rondo. There is also (my argument
;-) ) a relationship between all three movements. This is a *sonata*, only
Bach didn't know!
Finally, a few comments on the original posting: To my mind, what makes
baroque baroque is (probably among other things) this:
1. A diatonic (as opposed to chromatic), cantabile or "hummable" theme.
(You can usually translate a Mozart theme into a Bach theme by getting rid
of the accidentals!)
2. There is a(n) (fairly) independent bass line.
3. The middle voices at least *try* to create melodies of their own. In
post-baroque music, the middle voices don't even try to *hide* the fact
that they're there mainly to complete the *chords* (of which there would
typically be three or four). This was epitomized by Johann Strauss jr. and
Franz Lehar. (Just picture what it would be like to play second violin in
"The Merry Widow"!)
4. The main theme(s) get(s) mentioned in other voices than the top
(soprano) one.
I must say I expect reactions to this posting (he-he).
Roy
----------
> From: Mark Williamson <mwilliamson@alston.com>
> To:
> Cc: f_minor@email.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re[2]: Tangentially GG...actually baroque
> Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 9:33 AM
>
>
> Well, that is a fair statement and I certainly won't argue
> with it. And admittedly my remarks about sonata form
> embodied an opinion, although I tried to temper it with
> remarks about my high regard for baroque forms.
>
> I should clarify one thing: by "sonata form" I do not
> necessarily mean the structure of the typical three-movement
> sonata. Typically, the first movement is in sonata form,
> the second movement is in rounded binary form, and the third
> movement is either in sonata, rondo, or sonata rondo form.
> To me, sonata form is a way of organizing a single movement;
> it is not necessary that that movement be part of a
> multi-movement work at all. When a movement is written in
> sonata form, there's a real story line because of the way
> the primary and secondary themes are linked together, then
> developed, then recapitulated, all with that little
> modulatory game that gets played here.
>
> In the 19th century, many large works do get too long and
> hard to follow for me. Some of those works abandon sonata
> form while others (i.e. Brahms) simply adapt it to a larger
> scale. In the 20th century you can find many works written
> in sonata form more on a late-18th century scale (Hindemith
> comes to mind). But for me, its highest use is in the late
> 18th century period. And I do think the three-movement
> sonata holds together very well. The first movement of a
> Mozart sonata may be 4 minutes without repeats, 8 minutes
> with repeats; all three movements may be 20 to 30 minutes.
> That's a nice fairly large-scale work that doesn't go on
> forever. And with a very nice logical organization.
>
>
> Have a nice day, y'all.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
> Subject: Re: Tangentially GG...actually baroque
> Author: "John P. Hill" <jphill@frank.mtsu.edu> at internet
> Date: 5/22/97 8:40 AM
>
>
>
> Greetings to the Collective!
>
> Thanks to Mark for a nice Baroque overview.
> Only one point kind of made me cringe:
>
> > On the other hand, baroque music does not reveal quite as
> > perfect a mastery over form. No fault of the baroque
> > composers: it's just that the ultimate form, sonata form,
> > simply hadn't been invented yet...
>
> Sorry if I parrot some of GG's feelings, but I really don't view
> the sonata as the "ultimate form" at all; I think it's highly
> overrated...
>
> One might reasonably look to any number of Webern compositions or almost
> *any* 12-bar blues for a much more concise and attractive formal
> construction. Sonata form? *Wake me* when we get to the intermission...
>
> just my 2% of a Loonie (Canuck dollar currency)
>
> jh
>
>
>
>