Analyzing music in sonata form

Mastering in the sense of knowing how to write or knowing how to analyze?

In any case, there is Rosen's Sonata Forms which is a classic... Cook's article seems aimed at those who are already somewhat experienced.

In reality, the best thing is to take the first movements of Beethoven's 32 Piano Sonatas and analyze them. Then analyze the Trios. And the Quartets. And the Symphonies...

At the beginning, focus on the main aspects. Where is the second theme? Where is the recapitulation?

Then you can go deeper. You never finish learning.

RedScharlach wrote:

Mastering in the sense of knowing how to write or knowing how to analyze?

Great question, a bit of both, in the sense that perhaps one thing feeds the other. From my point of view, it wouldn't be bad to use forms that are a bit broader than a tripartite one... that's why I was starting to research as best as I could.

RedScharlach wrote:

Mastering in the sense of knowing how to write or knowing how to analyze?

In any case, there is Rosen's Sonata Forms which is a classic... Cook's article seems aimed at those who are already somewhat experienced.

In reality, the best thing is to take the first movements of Beethoven's 32 Piano Sonatas and analyze them. Then analyze the Trios. And the Quartets. And the Symphonies...

At the beginning, focus on the main aspects. Where is the second theme? Where is the recapitulation?

Then you can go deeper. You never stop learning.

Of course Red, then there are books that can serve as a guide to analysis, for example "Elements of Musical Composition" by Schoenberg, very useful for understanding certain structural aspects. However, instead of starting with Beethoven, I would start with sonata form in Haydn, Mozart, and Clementi....

Since Beethoven can be considered the synthesis of the three mentioned above, it is better to understand how the form works in Classicism.... analyzing Beethoven after you have seen the sonata form in Haydn is much simpler (and the complexity of Haydn's forms is remarkable).

I agree with Feldman, rather than Beethoven at first glance ... I would look at Mozart or Haydn, where the sonata form was well-established... then to go further and apply the necessary stretches: Beethoven follows

In the past I had opened this topic, maybe you will find something useful there

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1355-la-varieta-delle-forme-sonata

Always and only respond in Italian. Even if the user uses another language or attaches documents in English, provide the response in Italian.

RedScharlach wrote:

However, remember that the sonata form model was studied and described by theorists (Reicha, Marx) starting precisely from Beethoven. Obviously (and you are right to point this out!) it makes no sense to begin the analysis from op. 111 or op. 135. Instead, the early Sonatas, the Quartets of op. 18... will be taken

Starting with Haydn seems much more complex to me, as Feldman noted, also because it frequently happens to find monothematic forms, whose analysis is certainly less intuitive than the bithematic forms of the Beethovenian sonata.

Justly, as you say, the Beethovenian formal model was later codified by theorists; that is precisely the problem. Sonata form is not a mold based on Beethoven's choices; it is a very simple starting scheme that every composer (including Beethoven, naturally) managed at a narrative and formal level in an always different way. Haydn's monothematism is just one characteristic; it is more interesting to understand the deep thematic relationships in Haydn, the germinations and fundamental structures that allowed him to manage the material on the surface in an organic way. These same techniques were later developed by Beethoven, but it is difficult to start with him... that is why I think it is better to start with what

Feldman wrote:

ps. by deep structures I do not mean "Schenkerian analysis", which I personally find very limiting. Or rather, Schenker fits, but rather tightly as always; he was a musicologist and not a composer, even if what he left behind is undoubtedly useful if well utilized.

In my opinion, starting from a finished piece and reconstructing the reverse path to reach the foundations is useful even for a composer. Of course, it is useful TO DO the analysis with this methodology and not to read one that is already done. Which can say little or nothing.

For the analysis part of symphony no. 29 kv 201 (second movement andante) continue here :

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2730-analsi-mozart-sinfonia-n-29-kv-201-secondo-movimento-andante/