Musical Form........Concertos.....Sonatas etc

[Andy Schofield]

Hi All
There often seem to be many who worry about 'musical form'......"is it true Sonata form?".........."that's not a Concerto, there's no cadenza" .....and so on. I'm not too sure that Schoenberg or Messien worried to much about form or indeed that they should have done. To me you write what you feel, using the skills and knowledge you've got, never mind what mathematical equation it adheres too.
What do you think?????

I've just added a Concerto on my site.....(with no third movt cadenza incidentally).....and would welcome any feedback.
Many thanks
Andy.S

[Britt]

An interesting discussion... I do disagree to an extent however; I believe that if something is not a sonata, it should not be called such - there's always a form that the music fits, even if it is fantasy (or whatever you want). I also think that our "forms" and labels should be a little more inclusive - like more of a basic out line that a plot diagram.

While we are on the subject, could someone message me (or just reply here) a list of the various forms and their conatations? Would be much appreciated.

Regards,
Britt

[Fredrick zinos]

As a matter of fact both Schoenberg (especially Schoenberg) and Messien worried a great deal about form. Simply wirting what one "feels" is not composing. It is simply masturbating with the ear. It falls into that category because it is involved with self-indulgence rather than communication.

If the function of music is to communicate, on one level or another with fellows of our sad little species, then like it or not we need to be aware of and abide by the rules that will make those expressions comprehensible.The formal architecture of musical forms is what enables that.

[Ted Peterson]

There is a great deal of music written using the ear only. Several theory books admonish to learn the technic then forget it when composing. Music doesn't communicate much which is in opposition to the popular myth. People can recognize music associated with certain cultures as music from that culture but many contemporary composers compose in styles that transcend country of origin and therefore are not immediately recognizable as using cultural icons as part of the musical language. I would like to know what "rules" are involved in communication outside of accepted forms: AB, ABA, AA'BB'CC'AD, etc. On first hearing, without aculturation, form cannot be discerned by many people; appreciation is learned. But learning intimates acceptance of pre-existing icons or archtypes. So then it isn't communication as much as recognition. So a piece in sonata form is recognized. What does sonata form communicate to you outside of the form and a representation of Western culture?

I have had a piece played where one person commented that the piece made them fell like walking though soft dried leaves near evening and another describes it as walking on the moon and yet another like rubbing a wool blanket. None of these are remotely close to what I was thinking for the passage. So where is communication there?

I wrote a piece called: "Dr. John Wants To Talk To Dolphins" which is a song cycle based on his experiments with sensory deprivation. I wrote the music to reinforce the moods and still some people felt differently about the piece. It worked which was a relief but there was no consensus about what the piece meant.

[Fredrick zinos]

Hello Ted,

Good to have another Californian on board.

What I meant by my comments above, is that composing music, for it to be called composing rather than simply emoting, calls for some sort of organizational process on the part of the writer which hopefully has an end-point in producing some sort of response in the listener, possibly even a cathartic one. The good 'ol ABA (Boy sees girl, Boy loses girl, Boy gets girl) usually works. Or call it the dilectic of unity and variety, or any of a thousand other names, its usually more effective than random sound.

For example, if you go to your keyboard and ball up your fists and pound away for 30 seconds and then for the next 30 seconds open your hands and press with the palms of your hands and then go back to the closed fist technique, you will have produced (except by extraordinary coincidence) nothing resembling music... or did you? The ABA form imparts a sense of organization even though the sounds themselves are probably nonsensical.

With respect to communication, the specifics of the message, as you point out, are or may be a matter entirely left up to the listeners. Everyone may interpret the sounds differently, but those sounds are, I would argue, more likely to evoke response when they are organized, as you suggest, into patterns that are recognizable, which after all may not be a bad definition of "form."

Finally, I would not disagree with you that there is a great deal of music written using the ear only. But that does not mean that organizational principals are entirely lacking. The writer may not be conscious, for example of ABA form, but that doesn't mean it wasn't inadvertently employed. In fact truly randomized sound is rather a difficult stunt since we are wired for organization. Conscious use of form in music, I think ,is akin to the editing process in writing. Certainly you have had the experience of making a composition better (more effective) by deleting what is irrelevant.

Someone asked Michaelangelo how he came to sculpt "David" He responded that he got a good chunk of marble and simply cut away anything that wasn't David.

As with the example of pounding your fists on the keyboard, above, form is no substitute for content, but content without form runs the risk of being incomprehensible.

[Kristofer Emerig]

Fredrick:

I'm a little dissappointed; Reading six paragraphs written by you without one hilarious remark feels like stepping down to that last stair you thought was there. And I was astonished at your mentioning of the classic fist-palm-fist concerto structure. That's exactly the template, coincidentally, that I used for my Concerto in Ab ! Thanks for the link.

[Kristofer Emerig]

In my readings, the most thoughtful descriptions of Concerto describe it as a set of techniques, rather than a strict form, a description which is even more applicable regarding Fugue. The purpose of the aforementioned set of techniques and the resulting form is expression through the contrast (and concert, somewhat) of two opposed "instruments" of unequal mass. Tovey said the same, in different words, and I believe that's the crux of it.

[Fredrick zinos]

The vast majority of my"hilarious remarks", are, I assure you, unintentional. This, because English is my second language and I have no idea what the primary one may be.

BTW, that DOES remind me of a comment by the late great Eugene Ormandy who, due to his Hungarian upbringing, once stated "I never say exactly what I mean to say but I always manage to say something similar."

At reheasal; Ormandy "What do the winds have at bar 90?"
Oboist; "Nothing maestro, 8 bars of rest"
Ormandy: "Ok, bring it out a little more."

Your concerto in Ab is very very good work.

[Kristofer Emerig]

Thanks Fredrick:

I followed your link, but I can't view the score. Maybe some add-on or viewer I need to install is responsible. Do you have an audio of the fugue?

[Patrik Ohlsson]

The rules of form has always been flexible, the composers who are famous were the ones who changed/improved or broke the rules.
If you ever heard music, before you started to compose your own, you would be subjected to some kind of rule. But describing: "Writing what you "feel"". As:"Masturbating with your ears" is not only incorrect but likewise contradictional. Even if you write what you feel, you always fall under personal rules of what you think is beautiful and not and that's what makes music personal. Even if you write by very strict rules like many famous composers did, they still added more or less personal taste and therefore broke some rules. Only in some homophonic church music all rules are followed without exceptions, but that music has no or little personal value or emotional value to most people.
"The function of music is to communicate" Yes it is. But it's as much a reflective tool inwards as an emitter outwards to other people. The most interesting music I think is from composers like Arvo Pärt who uses music to express his feelings outwards both as a reflection of the world and of his perspective. Music is not only CRAFT it's ART.

[Patrik Ohlsson]

The importance I think is that a solo instrument leads the orchestra and carries the theme. Everything else comes naturally I think. Like varying the movements, creating codas in the end of pieces. But breaking these rules doesn't exclude it from being a concerto as long as there is a solo instrument playing with accompanying orchestra. Of course it's nice to separate the different genres of classical music into concertos, sonatas etc. But it's unneccesary to force further rules and exclude music just because it doesn't apply to what a monk decided 500 years ago.

It's always good to learn all techniques of composing even if they are presented as rule and not option. You just need to distant yourself and be objective. Thinking "outside the box" is not anarchistic and anti-art. Thinking inside the box doesn't have to be anti-avantgarde. Appreciate new thoughts and honor the old.

[August Champlin]

An interesting discussion! Does musical form matter? It's such an abstract construct, musical form. To make it more concrete, let me draw an analogy from writing.

As a writing teacher, I know form does matter. For example, when I teach my students to write a story, I first teach them the basic elements of good storytelling and story structuring, illustrating it with examples, of course, from actual stories. Those who pay attention write better stories than those who doze off during this lesson or decide to throw caution to the wind. In fact, most of the "bad" stories I get from students could have been much better had they simply followed the rules of story structuring.

In music, forms play a similar role. Who hasn't thrilled at the sounds of John William's music to Star Wars? It's great, but after about five minutes, I've heard all I can stand of it. Why? Williams is a better composer than I will ever be, but he is not a master of larger forms. He writes for the cue--short, dramatic musical gestures. But even his crisp, brilliantly orchestrated, thrilling themes wear out their welcome when repeated too often. What I've always wished for was that Beethoven would come back from the dead and simply adapt the themes of Star Wars into a real symphony of four movements, each in an appropriate large-scale form. Why? Because large-scale forms, such as sonata form, allow ideas to be developed, not just repeated. They allow for pieces of greater length, because they allow for a balance between focusing on a given theme and introducing enough variety to keep the listener from becoming bored. In other words, forms allow composers to achieve unity, variety, and coherence. Without them, our compositions begin to sound like mere medleys or mantras.

So whether a concerto has a cadenza in the third movement or not should matter less than whether it carries the listener logically, step-by-step through a journey from beginning to end, a journey that seems goal-driven, emotionally invested, and rewarding. As anyone who has taken a journey knows, a map is a good thing to have, and not just for the tour guide, but also for those who follow behind.

[Patrik Ohlsson]

I agree. Form is a natural way to start of your composing and creates a natural structure which is logical to follow. But form is also like the support wheels of music; the safe option in the learning process. To write freely you need to challenge yourself and not always play it safe. Form teaches you structure and logic, but so does listening to other composers and analysing their works, even in a more constructive manner. Simple logic: Form teaches does and don'ts often in a very general way, composers acts in specific situations, with specific instruments and sounds and sets dynamical does and don'ts.

I have never studied form and never read a single book about musical form, it doesn't prevent me from logically structuring a piece. Now I'm not a very experienced composer but since I'm very interested in music I search, listen and analyse my way forward and I have probably developed more in the last year or two then I've ever done with anything. The problem I see is that young musicans/composers/writers needs more practical experience, more resources to try out great softwares to actually get started composing and hearing what they've done. It probably takes most people about a week to read through a theory book of musical form, but if you can't try or challenge the theories through making a piece or a movement then it will be a week wasted and a heep of information thrown away. No human will do anything good if they aren't doing it full-heartedly, and in music the reward is the music you make, and that's atleast what keeps me going.

An interested composer finds through trial and error the way to structure his pieces in a logical as well as personal way, and, therefore thinks and goes the pioneers way. He doesn't solomly obey form dogmas but objectively scrutinizes all sources of information no matter how fancy or absolute they are. Stand on your own two feet, use what helps you to develope and be objective to anyone trying to teach you anything.

I think books are good, I think you can learn alot from every single composer that have existed, but you shouldn't be like them. You should extract what helps you, being and composing the way you want, very much so when it comes to form.