SYMPHONY SEMINAR
SONATA FORM – MODERN DESCRIPTIONS
(F-09)
1. History of “sonata theory”
a) 18th-century descriptions – authors listed
in previous handout
stress formal layout
– esp. double bar and repetitions
All are binary – i.e. movement has 2 parts
I → V
:||: V →
I
emphasize key structure, phrase structure, textures – not much
emphasis on theme
Later writers (Koch, Galeazzi, Kollman) discuss
structure of first section in more detail – 1st and 2nd
groups
Seem to be mainly descriptive – later ones may be
prescriptive also (advice for young composers)
b) 19th-century descriptions – Reicha
(1826) A. B. Marx (1837), LaRue (1954)
stress functional layout – e.g. “exposition,” “transition”
emphasize melody and theme
Most are ternary – i.e. movement has 3 parts
Beethoven is model
Descriptive but also hermeneutic – Sonata form as
narrative, as drama
This is “textbook” description
c) Reactions against textbook – from c. 1900
1) “organic” – Schenker, Tovey, Rosen – forms “grow” out of
content – criticize “textbook by identifying exceptions and by finding
essential structures – Each work is unique (but all have same Urlinie!)
2) “historicist” – Newman,
Ratner – return to 18th-century texts, terms and theories – claim
that 19th-century descriptions misrepresent 18th-century
works
d) “Neo-con” rehabilitation of “textbook”
Bonds, Hepokoski & Darcy
Restore ternary model
See form as “normative” – i.e. set of rules for
composers and expectations for listeners
See departures (exceptions) as “deformations,” i.e. departures
from norms
2. Gene Wolf
in HDM
Student comments?
Very brief – descriptive and historical sections
Stresses coordination of tonality and thematic
process
Ternary model, “three obligatory sections”: Expo,
Devel, Recap (Coda)
“Double return” (Webster) of theme and key at
beginning of recap
Single model - Discusses exceptions in historical
context as predecessors of “full sonata form” – excludes some as ritornello or
rounded binary (e.g. CPE)
Close relation of sonata form and classical style
Mentions “drama” and “tension/release” – e.g. devel
is “dramatic culmination or
3. Rosen Sonata
Forms, Chapter VI
Student comment?
“Sonata forms” vs. “sonata form” – point is that
“sonata” isn’t a “form” but a
family of forms, procedures, gestures, etc.
Critical
features are musical: cadences, changes in texture, phrases
Four sub-families of forms
First
movement – closest to textbook
Slow
movement – w/o development,
Minuet
– This is unusual, no one but Rosen makes this claim
Last
mvt – sonata rondo
What do these have in common?
Co-ordination of harmony, theme, texture (97)
I
→ V
:||: V →
I layout – Acknowledges and uses
3-part labels, but doesn’t seem to consider them central
“Events,” “points of articulation” – departure from
tonic (trans), cadence in V, closing in V and break, return to tonic (retrans),
closing in I – This moves away from “architecture” model toward more of a
“process” model
Additional events [gestures?] – head motif, development,
secondary development, coda – R mentions these in most of his discussions but
doesn’t seem to consider them as defining
4. Hepokoski
and Darcy
Example of return to “textbook”
Ternary model – Expo, Devel, Recap
“Rotation” of themes and textures (replaces “theme”
from earlier model)
Insists that the textbook is a model, an expectation
5 “sonata types” (Chapter 16)
Type 1 – Sonata without development – Second rotation
begins at double bar in tonic – Same as Rosen “2nd mvt” –
Type 2 – Second rotation begins at double bar in
dominant (recaps with 2nd theme) – E.g. Stamitz
Type 3 – Textbook sonata form – “double return”
Type 4 – Sonata-rondo
Type 5 – Ritornello sonata – concerto sonata
What do these types have in common?
HANDOUT P. 17 DIAGRAM (type 3) – How do the other types
match up against this?
Types 1-4 have the same structure of the exposition –
but type 5 has “double exposition”
2nd part differs in all cases: Type 1
moves recap back to double bar, Type 2 moves rotation back to double bar, type
4 goes back to I after expo (so do many type 3 sonatas), type 5 2nd
part is often pretty similar to type 3, but cadenza replaces ESC (essential
structural closure)
If there’s a “norm” is it unstated, or is it type 3?
Discuss diagram
Parsed by “articulations” or “events” – e.g.
transition, medial caesura, closing, double bar
Characterizations of intervening sections (e.g.
“proposes main idea”) – what is status of these?
How do H & D differ from Wolf and textbook?
(Prep)
Acknowledge 5 models rather than 1
Emphasis on points of articulation (like Rosen)
5. Mozart,
Symphony K.16 vs. H & D
Background on Symphony (
Mvt 1 – HANDOUT with H&D style analysis - Type 2
– 2nd rotation begins at double bar in dominant – This is quite rare
in Mozart
Mvt 2 – Type 3 but rudimentary – 2nd group
differentiated by key but not by theme or texture – That’s a problem in recap
Mvt 3 – Type 1 – sonata w/o development – Why does it
sound like a rondo? –
6. Haydn,
Symphony 59 (Fire symphony)
1760s, Esterhaz
Mvt I – Pretty straightforward type 3
Mvt 2 – Very unusual!
- PLAY – HANDOUT – Has type 3 layout, but recaps in “wrong” key – What’s with
the horns at m. 115? – They “blow away” a minor so the movement can finish in A major
Mvt 3 – Is there much point in considering this a
sonata type à la Rosen?
Mvt 4 – An interesting variant of type 3 – 1st
group has 2 versions of theme - Hardly any 2nd group – recaps in 84
with another theme variant – Saves full return for very end
7. JC Bach,
Symphony in Bb Op. 18 #2 (Overture to Lucio Silla)
Mvt 1 – Doesn’t seem to fit into H & D types –
PLAY w/ score – listen for structural junctions
We hear
all the S-A signposts (locate MC, EEC, ESC, Closing area (m.40), feeling of
development (m.75 ff), etc) – But many of these signposts come in unexpected
places
Either
we need to invent a 6th type, or we have to let elements move around
Mvt 2 – Could consider Type 1 with coda – could also
consider as strophic song
Mvt 3 – H & D sonata rondo
8. Is Rosen
better than H & D for any of these movements?
9. (if time) Meaning of
Sonata Form
H & D call this “hermeneutics”
“abstract mataphor of
disciplined, balanced action in the world” (p. 15) – “Sonata as metaphor for
human action (ch 11)
“structure of promise . . .
structure of accomplishment” (19)
Repetition = “ordered formrality . . . grandeur and
public splendor” (21) – “controlling instinctive, libidinal elements” (21)
Compare “drama” in Wolf
These are all meanings inherent in the form, not
specific to particular symphonies
Problems with “hermeneutic” approach
Meaning
of piece
Meaning
of genre
10. “Management
of key and theme”
All descriptions of sonata forms are about this
My labels try to avoid assigning function – so that a
theme or a cadence could have a number of different functions (but “K” is
inconsistent)
Consider possibility that “sonata form” consists of a
limited number of “elements”that composer deploys in time – e.g.
opening
theme,
transition (often several)
closing
material
lyrical
theme
medial
caesura
midpoint
(double bar)
feeling
of development
preparation for return of tonic
double
return
coda
slow
intro
A sonata-form movement will use most of these
elements, but often not all – it can use them in “textbook” configuration – but
many other configurations are possible as well – Listeners know and expect
these elements