Talk:Sonata form

message: "...however, coming as it did after Beethoven's death and long after the heyday of the form as used by composers, it already had a slightly abstract and retrospective character. It still has wide currency and provides the theorist with a range of indispensable analytical terms, therefore before the larger arguments over sonata form can be considered, it demands a summary."
Wow! That was such a stupid (and unfounded and un-researched) statement that I felt incredibly motivated to remove it. Many composers after Beethoven used sonata form. As a matter of fact, a GAZILLION composers in the 19th Century after Beethoven used sonata form. A huge number of 20th Century folks used it and I've been noticing that here in the 21st Century, though it is not as popular as it was in the 19th, composers from time to time really DO use sonata form. 
There's other garbage in this article but I'm already beside myself with... I don't know, but I'm beside myself with something!... that I just can't bother to correct anything else in this article. Please, please, please, someone who knows what they're doing... will you please fix this article and deliver it from its current lowly form and exorcise the imbecilic demons that possess it? Gingermint (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive Errors

message: I think a lot of the problem is that it's impossible to produce a clear characterization of sonata form in all eras at once.  So I've compartmentalized:
*labeling the basic description of sonata form as specifically covering the Classical sonata form
*moving all discussion of Romantic and Modern sonata form to their own sections.  
I've also deleted my summary (and Stirling's amplification) of Rosen's view that the Romantic composers were "cooking a dish for which the ingredients were no longer being prepared".  Since Rosen's point is controversial, it seems better (at least for now) to approach the Romantics afresh; that is, in their own terms, and not as deficient classicists.
I hope Romantic music experts among us will consider reorganizing and tightening the Romantic and Modern sections--these sections will need help of this kind, given that I imported extra material into them.
Opus33 01:40, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Requires historical approach

message: I have removed this paragraph:
:Increasingly through the 20th century criticism has focused, not just on works, but on recordings, and hence on different interpretations of the same work by different orchestras and conductors. This has lead to a focus on audible features of a recording, such as taking repeats or not, and on the manner of presentation. One controversial area is the rise of "Historically Informed Performance", which seeks to use scholarship to discover the playing and intepretive styles used to perform works at periods in the past. The hotly debated questions of the feasibility or advisability of this project often overshadow the questions of tempo, dynamics, relative weight of sections of the sonata and "meaning" which are brought to bear in interpretting works and performances.
I don't see as it has anything at all to do with sonata form. Historically informed performance isn't limited to works in sonata form (indeed, many such performances are of works which predate the emergence of sonata form). --Camembert
:Thanks, Camembert, for taking this on; I agree with you completely.  Opus33 18:10, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical performance

message: Once again the generic term for a work in sonata form is "sonata". Hence when discussing the sonata form, "sonatas" refers to all works in sonata form, not merely "piano sonatas".
Stirling Newberry
:Is that really true? Such a general meaning of "sonata" is new to me, and I'd have to say it's non-standard. Can you (or anybody) give an example of a writer using it in this way? In any case, it seems to me misleading at best to call a tone poem (for example) which happens to be in sonata form a "sonata", so I think it's a usage best avoided in the article.
:I feel similarly about the use of "sonata form" to mean "the structure of a sonata" (ie, four movements, quick-slow-minuet-quick) - even if some writers do this (do they? if so, who?), it is unusual and potentially misleading: the normal usage of "sonata form" (at least in my experience) is in reference to a single-movement structure. --Camembert
:I agree that 'sonata form' is (almost?) universally used to refer to the scheme of a single movement, and not the form of pieces which are multi-movement cycles. Stumps 10:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sonata vs Sonata form

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 15:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  translations 

message: "Thus,the second subject of the Waldstein sonata for piano is in E major, four fifths higher (C -> G -> D -> A -> E) than the tonic key of C major (...)"
As far as I know the relationship between E and C is not normally thought of as being "four fifths higher", although it is technically correct. More acccurately, E major has a mediant relationship to C major, because they are a third apart. Beethoven got very interested in these median relationships, i.e. he would modulate to keys minor and major thirds "above" and "below" the tonic. -Rich
:You're quite right. I've edited the article accordingly. Also I removed the remark about how Beethoven never modulated two fifths higher, which is speculative and also pointless if you consider the "four fifths higher" thing as a mediant instead. The answer to that question would of course be that he never modulated from, say, C to D simply because it's not a dominant or mediant, the two relationships commonly employed. You might as well ask why he never modulated a tritone of a major seventh. EldKatt (Talk) 11:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediant relationships

message: The article currently starts out saying that the term 'sonata form' can be applied both to a single movement and to multi-movement pieces in the form of a sonata, but then goes on — without being particularly clear about it — to discuss the single movement usage of the term.  I think as it stands the opening sets the whole thing off in a confusing manner.  I think the term 'sonata form' is almost always used in the single-movement sense, and I propose that we tidy up the opening to put less emphasis on the multi-movement interpretation of the term. Anuone violently disagree? — Stumps 13:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and made some straightforward changes, moving (for now at least) the few sentences about multi-movement forms to the article Movement (music) ... separate articles on three movement form , concerto form, etc. are probably worth starting. — Stumps 10:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonata Form versus Multi-movement cycle 

message: I have removed the merge-with Sonata forms tag, and the matching tag from that article.  I have replaced the mereg-with of Sonata  forms with a cleanup tag.  The Sonata forms article is a verbose, confused, and opinionated mess copied from 1911 Britannica.  The content - which mostly related to multi-movement cycles (see previous discussions above on this page) does not belong here, as it is - at least nowadays - a very non-standard usage of the term 'sonata form' (bordering I suspect on the erroneous).  Confusing the multi-movement scheme of sonata-like pieces with the exposition/development/recapitulation scheme of single movements in 'sonata form' (standard usage) would simply detract from this article. Stumps 10:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a n effort to cleanup up the oldest article tagged for cleanup I am redirecting 'Sonata forms' to 'Sonata form' since it appears to be mostly copied from 1911 Britannica. I did not merge any of the lengthy 41k long 'Forms' article into this already meaty article. Please see it's revision history if you would like to extract material. I am not familiar with the subject and probably not the best candidate to pick and choose which content to include (if any). Barkeep Chat | $ 16:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge-with Sonata forms 

message: Stirling Newberry, what do you mean by "classical and normative" and "post-normative", according to your edit summary. Marcus 23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical, "normative", and "post-normative"

message: Currently the 'Overview' section starts with two quotations.  This seems a little odd, and reads as though it may be debris left from a POV dispute.  The sentence "Since the clearly most frequent usage is to use the term sonata form to describe the form of individual movements, and the term sonata without hyphen as applying to whole works, this article will focus on the schematic of the sonata allegro form as a movement layout" also seems to much like a barrister carefully stepping through an argument (Quite possibly I'm the guilty editor! I remember making some sort of attempt to remove the multi-movement discussion from the article a longish time ago).
I'd prefer to see a simpler more direct statement of the consensus position, and we could put the quoted excerpts in the footnotes if we really thought them necessary. Any objections? Stumps 07:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice assessment, Stumps. Yes, this may indeed be seen as an old battleground of sorts. I do hope that the battles are long over! As things stand I don't want much involvement with the article. If you agree that the term sonata form should be understood as applying to a single movement only, usually one of several movements in a larger work, it would be great to see the lead and the overview section simply saying that, clearly and without fuss. I think the Rosen and EB quotes would go very well in footnotes. And if you were to tidy what you can of the remainder of the article, that would earn you points in music-article-editor heaven. I'll be happy to step in to do some copyediting if that seems necessary later; and I'm sure others will want to come back then also. Beyond that, I still think that the whole suite of articles connected with sonatas needs reform: preferably coordinated reform. – Noetica 09:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Stumps's suggestion is just fine. Opus33 21:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 'Overview' section 

message: I am unfamiliar with any sonata forms that utilize an "unresolved recapitulation."  I think it would fitting to provide some examples of this, or remove this text.  Tjonp 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of this either, and unless someone provides a source, I'd be happy to see the section get deleted.  Opus33 21:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the section, if someone can provide examples, they are welcome to undo my edit.  --Tjonp 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will find this only after sonata form had ceased to live, as in the Brahms F major cello sonata. Double sharp (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Unresolved Recapitulation

message: Because of the dramatic power of sonata forms, and because most composers of opera have written works in which one expects sonata form, even if few  (a symphony by Georges Bizet, a string quartet by Giuseppe Verdi, and a piano concerto by George Gershwin -- none of these being trivial works), one should not be surprised to find sonata forms within operas. Operatic overtures such as those of Die Zauberflöte and Die Meistersinger are obvious enough, as are such stand-alone works such as Brahms' Tragic Overture and Mendelssohn's overture to the incidental music for A Midsummer Night's Dream. 
Such an operatic scene as the triumphal celebration of the Egyptian defeat of the Ethiopians in Giuseppe Verdi's Aïda seems to have a sonata form. Would a section mentioning operatic works and oratorios be appropriate? To be sure, we may be more attentive to the vocal performances within operas to notice any musical structures, but that is no excuse (in my opinion) for neglecting opera. Even the most operatic of symphonies and song-cycles -- let us say Mahler's Eighth Symphony and his Das Lied von der Erde are themselves in sonata form. 
It's a suggestion because I have no qualification as a creator or critic of music; I am merely a consumer.--Paul from Michigan 14:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, we would need to cite reference sources.  My own knowledge is limited here, though I can point out that Charles Rosen likes to treat certain sections of Mozart's operas (e.g., the "finales" at the ends of acts, or the sextets in The Marriage of Figaro and Don Giovanni), as inspired by sonata form.  I find these particular assertions by Rosen to be more intriguing than proven, but wouldn't mind seeing them reported in the article.  Opus33 17:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They cannot possibly be "inspired" by sonata form when that was not a thing in Mozart's time that you could be inspired by. It was just the way one would write. I would admittedly not go so far as saying that the average 18th-century listener would be surprised if a piece of music did not go to the dominant (or a substitute), as this is not really a requirement in lighter movements (e.g. there are no large sections in the dominant in the slow movement and finale of KV 570). But whenever one needs a complex and tightly organised structure, it is absolutely necessary. Double sharp (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In opera 

message: "Subsections of works are sometimes analyzed as being in sonata form, particularly single movement works, such as the Konzertstück in F minor of Carl Maria von Weber."
Can someone please amplify or clarify the above? I find it impenetrable as it stands. Pfistermeister (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsections of single-movement works...? 

message: "Exceptions to the recapitulation form include Mozart and Haydn works which often return to the second subject group when the first subject group is elaborated at length in the development." 
Seriously: this article, as it stands, is *a shambles*... Pfistermeister (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  And what on earth does this mean??  

message: From my opinion, in chapter "History of sonata form" the term "by the likes of Czerny and so forth" should better be modified or deleted. Czerny as composer - in some of his works at least - was certainly not one of the "likes and so forth". In his first 100 works there are several most remarkable ones. An example is his Sonata in A-flat op.7 which is far and wide being recognized as masterwork.
The subsequent term "the composers of the day - both major and minor masters - were writing works that flagrantly violated some of the principles of the codified form" is - without giving exaples (Who are those "major and minor masters", and of which kinds are their works?) - a Weasel term. So, also this should better be modified.85.22.0.56 (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor suggestions 

message: The section on monothematicism needs some work. Firstly, there are two conflicting value judgments concerning the practice: in the third sentence, it is suggested that even though Mozart was capable of writing many melodies, he sunk to the level of a melodically less inventive composer in writing a monothematic exposition; contrast this with the fifth sentence, which elevates Haydn for doing the same thing. Secondly, as the section itself points out, "monothematic" is misleading, as such expositions have multiple themes. What is really meant is "main theme transposition", i.e. the theme initially presented as the principal one reappears in the second half of the exposition transposed into the new key. EvanCortens (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monothematicism 

message: It has been suggested that Recapitulation (music) be merged with Sonata form. I didn't add the tag to "Recapitulation" so I wouldn't know why. Any thoughts? Hyacinth (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge: [[Recapitulation (music)]]

message: It has been suggested that Exposition (music) be merged with Sonata form. I didn't add the tag to "Exposition" so I wouldn't know why. Any thoughts? Hyacinth (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge: [[Exposition (music)]]

message: This might sound like a stupid question, but what's a "Home Key"? I've never come across the term before. I only know of the following ways to describe a relationship between keys
* Tonic
* Supertonic
* Mediant
* Subdominant
* Dominant
* Submediant
* Leading Note
It's in the article under Recapitulation > second subject group :)
Gaymanrory (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned in the article, home key is a commonly used term for the tonic. (see Exposition, First subject group).--Francesco Malipiero (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

text: See key (music) and home. Hyacinth (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Key? 

message: I don't suppose any of the geniuses that have made this article into the piece of sub-logical wreckage it is today have even the *faintest idea* what is wrong with an opeing sentence that goes-- 
"Sonata form . . . is a musical form that has been used widely since the early Classical period"...??  Pfistermeister (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes, "sonata form could not be defined until it was dead" (Rosen, p. 30). But the point is that the works that usually get this label are from that time. Double sharp (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Anachronism

message: :"The first required section is the exposition. The exposition presents the primary thematic material for the movement: one or two theme groups, often in contrasting styles and in opposing keys, connected by a Bridge Passage (not to be confused with the term 'transition', which has a very different use)."
Since the article goes on to use "transition" exclusively (as far as I tell), the parenthetical statement quoted above makes this article self-contradictory. It is also something of mystery to me, as most of the literature I've read prefers "transition"---in fact, though I've heard the term "modulating bridge", I've never seen the term "Brigde Passage".
Any objections to changing it to:
:The first required section is the exposition. The exposition presents the primary thematic material for the movement: one or two theme groups, often in contrasting styles and in opposing keys, connected by a transition. (or, perhaps, ...modulating transition)?
-- Mahlerlover1 (talk | contributions) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Having not received any objections, I have gone ahead with the edit.-- Mahlerlover1 (converse) 01:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge/Transition 

message: Is this piece an example of a sonata form movement with a short transition instead of a development? ShangKing (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. This has also been called slow-movement sonata form or cavatina form. Double sharp (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Marriage of Figaro]] overture