Talk:Sonata

message: Adapted from 1911 enc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodium (talk • contribs) 03:22, 13 March 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial text

message: What is a sonata?  I could not answer this question after reading the article for 2 minutes.  The intro paragraph starts in about 'Chapter 4' of sonatas. 173.167.180.11 (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Filled out cello sonata, created violin sonata and viola sonata - stubs with brief history and lists, both could use at least some thoughts about the balance problems caused by the most common combination (that is, with piano, especially the cello/piano case) and a more detailed examination of the history of the violin sonata from the violin solo --> violin/continuo --> piano with violin added later --> true duo (more, or, less) than I actually gave.  With Mozart partially responsible...  So, questions - do these articles belong at all; anyone who plays these string instruments care to think about balance questions; should a sonata-type category be created in which these can be subsumed; string duo to give a home to the Ravel, Martinu, the great Kodaly, Mozart K423/424 (and FJ Haydn's 6 and JM Haydn's 2, and their predecessors, for it had a history too as much as sonatas,)  ... ... et caet... Schissel 13:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subarticles (category, even) 

message: Stirling has made sweeping changes to the article. I am quite concerned about some of these, especially those affecting the section "The sonata in the Classical era". While there is a little good and accurate new information, some of it has more to do with sonata form than with the larger structure of several movements that the article is supposed to be about, though this is not made clear. And a good deal of useful information (about the sequence of movements in the Classical sonata) presented nowhere else in Wikipedia is summarily obliterated. Moreover, Stirling has introduced careless errors that will need fixing by some poor navvy. 
Specific points:
The Classical era took the sonata structures it found in the Baroque, and began to concentrate on both simplifying the number of harmonic transitions possible between sections of the work, and at the same time, increasing the complexity and length of each section, and creating a much greater wealth of transitional methods at a composer's disposal.
On a natural reading of this, it concerns evolution of the sonata form (and relations among its various sections). As such it is about the internal structure of one kind of movement. But this is not signalled, so the newcomer is likely to be confused. Surely this material belongs in the article Sonata form. There are also expository infelicities and aberrant punctuation here.
Theorists of this time begin writing on the standard patterns of first movements, which would later form the basis for the defintion [sic] of Sonata form. At this time the sonata undergoes a change in usage, from being a term for applied [sic] to many different kinds of small instrumental work, to being more specifically applied to chamber music genres with either a solo instrument, or a solo instrument with the piano.
Note first the shift in tense, from "took" and "began", above, to "begin" and "undergoes", here. The wording of the first sentence is indirect and inelegant. There is a confusion in the second sentence between sonata and the term "sonata", along with other awkwardnesses.
Mozart and Clementi, and then Beethoven and Schubert, would establish the piano sonata as a fundamental genre of piano music for playing in solo concerts, and as the standard reference against which other works were measured. In contrast, at the time the Theme and variations was the most remarked upon and covered genre of piano music, particularly because of its use in improvisation.
A new shift in tense, with "would establish". The last sentence is wayward and oddly elusive. What exactly does "covered" mean in "most remarked upon and covered genre"?
The classical [sic] sonata for instrument was usually in three, not four movements, a form later described as the "concerto-sonata form" by some authors.
("Classical" should be capped, as it was consistently in this section before the edit, in conformity with established style in the music articles.) While many Classical sonatas had just three movements, it is perhaps misleading to say that they "usually" had three rather than four. Contemporary writers, according to New Grove, didn't see it that way. And for expository purposes it is perhaps best to present a four-movement standard, which enables the three-movement variants to be more lucidly explained. But of course, all of that is now dropped.
In sum, I find the edit, especially for the now much smaller section on the Classical sonata, most retrograde. Such a pity that we can't preserve what is good here! And I say nothing about the deficiencies in material in other sections of the article.
I'd revert things, but I don't want to get into an interminable struggle. I am not optimistic, if careful and valuable work (which I admit I had a hand in, here) is simply disregarded. I leave it to others to work out how to deal with this. --Noetica 22:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: RFC me then. Stirling Newberry 22:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of a recent edit 

message: Some rationales for the edit I just did:
1) I think much of the material about which Noetica is complaining is redundant with existing material in sonata form or even in sonata itself; so I removed it and added cross references where appropriate.
2) I agree emphatically with Noetica that an article about sonatas should give the basics--it's a corollary of the principle that we serve our readers, not ourselves.  Here, the basics would include the typical musical forms of sonata movements and what keys they are in.  I've restored this material in edited form (I changed Noetica's very short sections to bulleted items, hoping this will be a bit less distracting.)
3) I removed this paragraph:
:Mozart and Clementi, and then Beethoven and Schubert, would establish the piano sonata as a fundamental genre of piano music for playing in solo concerts,
because my past reading leads me to believe it is erroneous. The piano sonata was house music in Classical times, and became a vehicle for concert performance only during the Romantic era, with the so-called "invention of the piano recital" by Liszt.
4) For future editing, I think it would be helpful to put in more examples--I think it's a bit dull to give general claims about a musical form without citing actual instances.  I put in a couple, but more are needed.
Opus33 17:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another try

message: I dispute this assertion of Stirling's concerning Opus33 and myself: "the two of you are incapable of good manners, good faith or counting." It is offensive and uncalled for. Without giving any of the obvious replies that spring to mind, I shall restrain my exuberance. I may well take action about it in the appropriate place, along with action about what Opus33 and I seem to agree is Stirling's substandard and disruptive editing of this article.
Stirling is right that the three-movement form was well represented in the Classical, but I have explained why it may be a good idea to take the four-movement form as a norm for expository purposes. I did not do my best work when I wrote "the sonata took on a fairly well-defined standard form (well exemplified in the work of Joseph Haydn)" without further elaboration. Stirling is right that few of Haydn's keyboard sonatas have four movements; he is factually wrong that "exactly none" have four movements, since both HobXVI:6 and HobXVII:8 do (so I believe, but I have not my copy of the score to hand, where I am). Stirling is way off the mark concerning Mozart. I wrote explicitly "many Classical sonatas (notably Mozart's) had fewer movements", so I had already clearly allowed for Mozart.
Stirling writes concerning Beethoven: "I have before me the compete piano sonatas of Beethoven - again - how many are in your asserted standard form versus three movements." My answer (again, without having my scores to hand): Well, at least six appear to fit the "standard form" precisely (Op. 2 Nos. 1,2,3; Op. 7; Op. 22; Op. 28). Note the preponderance of his earlier more "Classical" sonatas here. Several others show only one of the alterations from the standard that I had given as possibilities, and in the analysis of just about all of his piano sonatas the standard is a useful guide.
Stirling writes: "There is no reference in that period to the description of a four movement work as the basic "sonata" from which others are omitted." But even if that were true, it is not relevant, as has been pointed out repeatedly. He continues: "Both of you are confusing a later POV with - namely that of the Romantic era - with the classical practice." I dispute this. As I have just demonstrated, in presenting what belongs here (and nowhere else) about the overall structure of the Classical sonata, Opus33, some others, and myself have used an excellent device for exhibiting crucial facts. Stirling has sought to expunge all of this. As I have shown in detail, he has done this with little care in his writing (see my section above, and also at Classical music era and at Haydn). Much of the material he put in its place is irrelevant (at best) to the theme of the article.
Opus33, thanks for your useful work on this, supplementing my own supplementing of others' good work. I shall not yet do any reverting or other editing, but wait for any interested others to take action (like reverting to your last version, fixing just a couple of minor things perhaps). I agree that examples would help, and had thought to do some of that, though I see you have already made a good start. We must try to suffer the recent interruption gladly, I suppose. --Noetica 21:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My comments on recent developments 

message: <sorry for delay in replying; Opus33 only edits on Sundays>
Stirling Newberry is correct that most Classical sonatas have fewer than four movements.  In my earlier edit, I was entirely focused on fixing other problems with this article (see my comments above) and I missed this point.  Mea culpa.
Stirling Newberry also asserted that I was being rude.  To be honest, I just can't see this; I don't think my remarks were insulting in any way, nor were they intended to be.  Indeed, I made them as a courtesy, to justify a revert.  
It can be further noted that I didn't accuse anybody of being unable to count, nor did I defy anyone to "RFC" me.  Stirling Newberry did both, and I think it would be appropriate for him to apologize for doing so.
Concerning issues of courtesy in general, I greatly recommend for their wisdom the Wikipedia guides Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which I hope Stirling Newberry will consult.
Lastly, since my edit seems to have been interpreted by Stirling Newberry as based on malice, I would like to assert what I take to be the principles of good encyclopedia editing that underlay it.  
*A good article should be well organized, putting the basics up front and the elaborations later on--or even in separate articles.  Everything should be in its place, with no unnecessary duplications.
*It should include a full complement of links to appropriate Wikipedia articles, and cite its sources.
*It should read smoothly and be free of grammar and spelling mistakes.
We can disagree on whether the edit by Stirling Newberry that I mostly reverted lived up to these surely uncontroversial values.  My judgment was that it largely did not, and that is why I edited it.
The dozens of edits made by Stirling Newberry during the past week seem to have improved things somewhat, though I do believe that further editing would still be beneficial.
Thanks for listening, Opus33 06:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hyacinth 01:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A reply for Stirling Newberry

message: Famous is necessarily a subjective criterion. My method so far has been to run through google on various periods and pick up the sonatas listed, plus emailing with various critics I know. If someone feels a sonata listed is marginal and should be removed, by all means do so. And there are certainly sonatas which belong on the list which are not there yet. This, of all things, is something where progressive consensus should be able to reach a better list than any one editor. Stirling Newberry 01:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just skimming through the list I can think of a bunch that ought to be there -- I can add some later -- how would you think they should be organized?  alpha by composer by era?  chronologically by composer by era?  by instrument by era? (that's actually a good way to research them) Antandrus 01:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no preference, whatever people feel is best, I've been doing "roughly chronologically", but overlap makes this difficult/impossible. There are certainly more to add (Haydn, Beethoven, Bocherini). There should also be a baroque list as well. Stirling Newberry 01:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Sonatas 

message: i need to translate an article for the italian wikipedia, about the sonata.
i know it's ignominous, but we still miss this entry.....
i'm sorry for me beeing so ignorant, but since i found this and that, which one is the best for me to translate?
thanking you all in advance
 --joana 15:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  translation needed (and help)))) ) 

message: I'm just wondering if there's a reason why the list of famous sonatas is not in alphabetical order? Karol 20:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
I tried to keep them roughly chronological. But am agnostic on how they are to be ordered in the final version. Great additions Eric. Stirling Newberry  20:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering 

message: When one searches for "Sonata", one arrives at Sonata, a disambig page. I think that the article about the musical Sonata should come up directly, as it is the predominant meaning (not the car or the sedative, which are deduced from the musical term). Is it ok with everybody if I move the disambig page to Sonata (disambiguation) and move this page to Sonata? Peter S. 02:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making Sonata a direct-link article 

message: The sonata form article has a contrast at the begining of the article. Should a similar contrast be here. --Gbleem 23:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonata Form 

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for time! -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These pages state that "requesting moves" is not for "Unobstructed, uncontroversial moves".  Any user can do it himself.  If nobody objects to moving this article to Sonata, as User:Peter S. suggested, I will go ahead and do it. --Crabbyass 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, sorry for not following the procedure. My bad. (btw couldn't we create some sort of macro so that this becomes a 1-step affair?) Peter S. 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Request 

message: Sonata (music) → Sonata – There doesn't seem to be a reason for the "(music)" in the title.  There is already a Sonata (disambiguation) page.  The only other pages with the word "Sonata" in them are Hyundai Sonata and Sonata Form.  There is no Sonata (car) or Sonata (musical form).  Both of these terms derive their name from the musical term term "Sonata".  Therefore, it should be its own page, without the "music" in brackets.  I tried moving the page myself, but it won't let me: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move.  Sonata already re-directs to Sonata (music), so this could be the reason why I'm getting the error - it does have 3 previous edits (it used to be a disambig page until Sonata (disambiguation) was created).  User:Peter S. requested the move 8 months ago, and there has not been a single objection. Crabbyass 19:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Tis done.  (I had to delete the redirect page to allow the move.)  Antandrus  (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support --Usgnus 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add any additional comments --Crabbyass 19:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Tis done.  (I had to delete the redirect page to allow the move.)  Antandrus  (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Beethoven belongs with the Vienna Classicists here, and I have moved him back to the Classical era. Added Haydn, Dussek and Clementi, but by no means exhaustive in any of the three. Stirling Newberry 01:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonatas 

message: One of the most monumental sets of sonatas of the late 20th century comes from Olivier Greif. Do people think he is important enough to include? I am inclined to say "no" simply because of the scarcity of recordings and performances. But he at least deserves a better article. Stirling Newberry 16:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of him. But why do we have a "famous sonatas" section anyway? A List of sonatas would involve much less decision work about what is and what isn't famous, and we could limit "famous sonatas" to just a few from each era, maybe. - Rainwarrior 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a really easy rule of thumb, any sonata that has its own article would probably be famous enough to include in such a list (but I still believe we should start the new article... I think I'll do that now.) - Rainwarrior 19:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olivier Grief

message: I have at present removed this from the page:
JW Davison wrote in his The Works of Fredrick Chopin, on page 7 (1843):
:Such are the impressions to which we are subject under the influence of this wonderful work – a very triumph of musical picturing – a conquest over what would seem it be unconquerable – viz. – the mingling of the physical and metaphysical in music – the sonata representing a dual picture - ...the battle of the actual elements and the conflict of human passions – the first for the multitude, the last for the initiated.
I said before that it is entered without introduction, and its significance is dreadfully unclear. If it has a place in the article, it must have proper commentary explaining its meaning (if it has one) and relevance to the sonata. I am not opposed to it being put back as long as it is given some context. - Rainwarrior 19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You also seem to have posted this to my talk page, I have responded there, but I do not understand at all what you mean by any of this. I am not sure what a "bad faith edit gang" is, nor have I attacked you personally (other than perhaps calling you "angry", which was not meant as an insult, though at this point it is a comment I wish I had not offered). I also fail to see what it is you think I have won. Were we competing for something? - Rainwarrior 06:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davidson quote 

message: I am not a music expert by profession, but I thought Liszt wrote only one sonata, perhaps the most played piano sonata of them all, in B minor? (the article implies more than one: "(..)those of Franz Liszt, (...)" --Pim Bussink 00:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liszt 

message: I typed "sonatina" into the search box and was redirected to sonata. Which would be fine, except that the sonata article doesn't mention sonatinas at all. Should it? Or is the redirect from sonatina inappropriate? Telsa (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sonatina redirects here

message: I have created a re-direct page to, ‘Piano Sonata No. 17 (Beethoven)’, so that the link to the article on Beethoven’s, ‘Tempest,’ sonata is no longer red. (Red links annoy me!) ♫ The Grand Harp ♫ (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The red link next to the link to the article on the, ‘Waldstein,’ sonata should not be there. I suspect it is a deleted image. I will remove the link. ♫ The Grand Harp ♫ (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Link Removed 

message: Does anyone feel like splitting the article based on the sonata's time period? I find myself linking to Sonata#The_sonata_in_the_Classical_period often, because I mean to compare to the Classical, Beethoven-esque Sonata only, not the sprawling post-Romantic or Contemporary sonatas. ALTON .ıl 08:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split 

message: is a person that loves me  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.61.117 (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sonata 

message: I've read this article twice and then started reading the Sonata form article and I still couldn't explain to someone exactly what a sonata is. This article is very passive and painful to read. The early portions of the article focus on the word sonata and not on the music. The latter portions focus on what academics think of the word sonata and again neglect the music. The entire introductory section relates only to the word (using means, term, designating, word, applied). Only once is there any reference to the sonata itself, but even that is passive, being only a vague classification, alongside the fugue. It isn't even the primary point of the sentence that it's in.
If this doesn't make sense, substitute something like a car or a piano for sonata and re-read the article.
By the way, can someone decide if the 'Classical' era is an Era, era, or period?
For what it's worth, the article on fugue has similar issues. The one on concerto however, has some clarity. It would be nice if someone who was reasonably knowledgeable on the subject would write an article, or even a section within, describing what a sonata is, perhaps even the reasons why a composer would call their composition one. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.7.241 (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure we all might like a much simpler explanation. However, it seems to me that the lead paragraph makes it perfectly clear that a sonata is a piece played by instruments, and that this is in fact a vague definition, but one that has been in place throughout history. It is the job of the article itself to clarify what the term means in different historical periods, geographical locations, and other contexts. If it does not presently do so (and I have not yet reviewed it thoroughly) then, yes, it needs fixing. I'll have a look and see what I can do. BTW, is there a meaningful difference between an era, an Era, and a period? Capitalization is a matter of style, but it seems to me that "era" and "period" are synonymous.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Returning after a couple of days and closer scrutiny, I see exactly what you mean about "painful to read", though I'm not sure what you mean by "passive". The prose frequently reads like an entry in the Bulwer–Lytton Fiction Contest, and the entire discussion of historical changes to the form is covered twice—first in brief, and then in sometimes excruciating but not actually very helpful detail. I have made a tiny start on this problem, but a huge amount of work remains. Thank you for calling attention to this mess.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. By passive I mean that the text doesn't really say anything. Nothing happens, things just become. For example, the sentences in the opening paragraph beginning with 'The term, being vague…' and 'The term took on…'. At the end of the day, I hope that the first paragraph includes something to the effect of, 'A sonata is a musical composition with the following characteristics…. ' By the way, stating only that a sonata is a piece that is played would apply to a jug and spoon if someone ever wrote down what was played. All instrumental compositions would be sonatas. It may be true or not, but if it is, then that is what the article should say. I look forward to the product of your efforts. — ogenstein (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I think I understand now what you mean by "passive". Unfortunately, depending on what period of history you are referring to, a "sonata" really is "any instrumental composition" (in the 16th and early 17th century, for example). Since in addition the particular characteristics of sonatas in the late-17th and early 18th centuries are quite different from those of the Classical and Romantic periods, there is a real problem with trying to start this article in the way you suggest. (And the 20th-century sonata tends once again to cover a very broad spectrum of instrumental composition, if not quite so broad as was the case in the Renaissance).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly 'is' a Sonata?