Sonata Form Workshop 2012

Regarding the Strings version by Alessandro Gozzo

I like the minor part much more; the major one is too contrasting... when I say too contrasting, I mean way too much.

AleGozzo wrote:

i would like to know from you if you find any nonsense in the structure or in the "tonal play".

2 examples:

- the 1st theme closes almost immediately; after the response, the bridge arrives right away.

- I chose to give the 2nd theme, in the recapitulation, G-minor, but I imagine G-major would have been more logical ......

I don't think I fully understood your requests.

Regarding the first question, I would only worry about the proportions.

As for the second question, in a language like yours, the last problem is the tonalities, in the sense that I think it is right that the two poles—which are the 2 themes—are felt; the rest is just more or less adherence to a certain style.

um thanks! if you like them I'm glad, even if the problems remain ...

that one for strings actually has some very pleasant ideas and by working on it better and with more effort it could have become a good piece .... but I could also have ruined what is good about it, so it's better not to try ahah

on the orchestration, I don't think there can be 2 string orchestras together (and how do you place them on stage?) but maybe I am wrong.

moreover with samples it sounds decent, but live I don't know if it is a good orchestration, opinions on the matter are welcome

as for the response to the piano piece, the answer is as simple as possible: a progression that maintains coherence with the elements of the presentation and fulfills the function of "continuation". This is because the presentation does not seem to me reducible to a precise division into phrases and is just an extension of the tonic with the last measure going to the subdominant. Therefore, I managed it as a "hybrid form" that requires continuation.

(I am referring to Caplin's formulas - A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven)

of course I am curious to hear if anyone else has found a good solution for a less mechanical response to the progression (which, by the way, can also be more masked, and not as explicit as mine)

regarding the change of texture at the recapitulation, I don't know, it seems normal to me that the recapitulation leads to a break in texture with the development; if it is too marked here, it could also be [that] all those 32nd notes are quite an eyesore, especially if combined with a flat and computerized playback

Ale, I am of the opinion that first a thing must sound... then the rest follows, in the sense that if it is correct and doesn't feel off...

> regarding the orchestration, I don't think there can be 2 string orchestras together (and how would you place them on stage?)

> but maybe I am wrong.

True, thinking about a group of ten, I had a problem perhaps more than a double string quintet... assuming it is used, winds for sure.

> moreover, with samples it sounds decent

In fact, compliments also on the IT setup

> but live I don't know if it is a good orchestration, opinions are welcome on the matter

In general, string orchestra, little of their main characteristics (aside from some pizzicato). You could have used at least vibrato and tremolo somewhere.

Question, are the slurs phrase slurs or were you thinking of bowings?

I would have handled the fills differently, with some dyads... I don't see space for harmonics; in short, you didn't create a "musical" opportunity.

The use of divisi within divisi seems to me to be handled in an un"structured" way in the sense that there doesn't seem to be a design (or even musical) to "justify" them... they seem a bit used out of necessity.

Regarding individual instruments, particularly the management of pizzicato

Violins, for the unison parts in the "divisi" couldn't you make them play by indicating different strings... so as to enrich the melodic line? In the end, it is the theme.

In cases like the divisi at measure 89: why do you double the Bb? It's the third of the chord... better other notes, no?

After the divisi, I would put them together

Violas at 86, divisi is missing if these were your intentions

cb: between 12 and 13, for example, you don't give him time to switch to pizz... put a G quarter note, it's just a doubling of the vc.
cb: at 79 if you put the notes this long, a double bassist will play them with the bow... pizzicato notes should be at most a quarter note, otherwise it is ambiguous and you leave time (also visual) at 85 to pick up the bow again

Obviously said by someone who doesn't claim to know much, but these are just types of things that in my opinion could be improved (or where I would work on them), most are just about "calligraphy"; in my opinion it is important, otherwise when you give the parts to the orchestral players you spend 2 days explaining what to do... and consequently higher costs for the performance.

AleGozzo wrote:

> regarding the response of the piece for piano, the answer is as simple as possible

> a progression that maintains coherence with the elements of the presentation

> and fulfills the function of "continuation."

...and that's an understatement!!!

> The presentation does not seem to me reducible to a precise division into phrases and is only an extension

> of the tonic, with the last measure going to the subdominant.

That's what it was... that's why I didn't fit in the 4 [measures], something had to be added.

> So I managed it as a "hybrid form" that requires continuation.

Exactly, now I also better understand what my teacher meant. Well done Ale.

> obviously I am curious to hear if anyone else has found a good

> solution for the response that is less mechanical in its progression

> (which, by the way, can also be more disguised, and not as explicit as mine)

I stick to the idea that yours works; who knows the original... it's a bit of a question I'm obsessing over.

> if it is too marked here, it could also be, all those 32nd notes are quite an eyesore,

> especially if combined with a flat and computerized playback

Maybe that's it, but listening to it a few times, I got used to it.

> I am referring back to Caplin's formulas -

> A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven

I opened this topic... so we can talk about it, I don't know it

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/1600-caplin-a-theory-of-formal-functions-for-the-instrumental-music-of-haydn-mozart-and-beethoven/

thanks for the indications destroyed, I reiterate indeed that the piece is not well-cared for from many points of view, anyway now I will look at them all properly

Pleasant Ale, aside from what Destroyed wrote...

Why didn't you give the A that starts the piece to the second violins? In my opinion, it's not coherent; that note is not part of the theme's melody... I understand that you then develop that melodic cell, but it seems to me that the asymmetry of the parts has been skipped, and therefore the logic of the delays which is characteristic of the theme.

Melodically as well, the initial A burns the melodic line a bit (which I would have given to the soloist and then in the recapitulation I would have played with the orchestra... just an idea like any other), then on that A Bb A B A A G you play with it quite a bit, so okay... although in the long run, when you develop it, perhaps it doesn't result in being extremely effective... just by ear.

It certainly can be felt that it is yours; I like it when you do the pseudo-minimalist....

Talentuoso wrote:

Why didn't you give the A that starts the piece to the second violins? In my opinion, it's not coherent that way; that note is not part of the theme's melody... I understand that you then develop that melodic cell, but it seems to me that the asymmetry of the parts has been skipped, and therefore the logic of the suspensions which is characteristic of the theme

mmm interesting, on paper you are certainly right; I hadn't realized I had extrapolated something as an important melodic cell that was not part of the melody given in the theme. But is it really like that? I mean, if you listen to the fragment provided, do you not perceive the A-Bb as a melodic element, regardless of how it is written?

The fact that I undermine the justification for the suspension is secondary because it is not such a rigid harmonic language.

In short, it's true that it is a distortion of the given theme, but in my opinion, it legitimizes it

AleGozzo wrote:

mmm interesting, on paper you are certainly right, I hadn't realized that I had extrapolated as an important melodic cell something that was not a melody in the given theme. But is it really like that? I mean, if you listen to the given fragment, do you not perceive the A-Bb as a melodic element, regardless of how it is written?

The fact that I undermine the justification for the delay is secondary because it is not such a rigid harmonic language.

In short, it is true that it is a distortion of the given theme, but in my opinion, it is legitimate.

obviously it is just my point of view, but if you imagine an interpreter performing... the A will be played p and the Bb mf, a note that will be held while the other voice (we are in a contrapuntal context) moves along ...in fact, then even the G stops to make room for the chromaticism. While the bass sustains.

The score will then support this type of listening, or at least what I imagine or what I played to myself ...

In my opinion, interpreting the first A in the melody creates a redundant melodic fragment, too many As; I would have chosen it immediately in another melodic context like A G A Bb C D... etc.

Clearly, you wrote the piece and I did not, so you are right in the sense that you then use that element, so it is intended and not gratuitous ... but it seems a bit redundant or different from the initial idea to me. It's welcome, of course one does what one wants, but I think one should try to improve the material (if possible), no? What do you think?

Clearly the opposite because you made this choice; I just wanted to know the reasons and understand if only I would have behaved differently ...

Holy Talentuoso, it seems to me we are seeing this topic more and more clearly... gosh!

Anyway, for the way he conducted it, Gozzo's idea seems very respectable to me!

Zaccaria wrote:

Holy Talentuoso, it feels like things are becoming clearer and clearer to me on this topic... gosh!

Anyway, based on how he conducted it, Gozzo's idea seems very respectable to me!

Of course Zaccaria, you can tell that he thought about it and developed it ... I was just trying to understand more. I wouldn't have gotten there ... maybe because it's not in my DNA

Talentuoso wrote:

What do you think?

mah, I continue to think that the situation is acoustically too ambiguous to take a clear position: the dynamics with which you play it will be as you say, but it is still a context of upbeats/downbeats; I don't think that if that were a melody note, you would play it very differently.

Furthermore, it is a classic anacrusis beginning with a single note in the medium-high register; to me, it is definitely melody (can one start in anacrusis with a single note and consider it as a harmonic note that prepares a suspension? I would say it's very "virtual" ....)

as for the fact that it then becomes redundant, this is perhaps the fault of how I treated it, separate from the discussion regarding considering A-Bb as a melodic element.

anyway, you did well to raise the issue, it seems interesting to me

Talentuoso wrote:

i would have chosen it immediately in another melodic context like G A Bb C D...etc.

Sorry, but the first violin plays (melodically speaking):

A Bb A G Eb

Practically, it is your own example in mirror form...

In my opinion, the theme lends itself to it; it is part of its ambiguities. Well done Ale for catching even this element...

In this phrase, I think there lies the essence of the whole discussion:

>I wouldn't have gotten there

Ok, you've convinced me ... on the core of the topic, ok. The development and writing had misled me a bit, which in my opinion implies what I am saying. Let's hope to see other proposals.

small paper for destroyed:

In general, string orchestra, little of their main characteristics (aside from some pizzicato). You could have used at least vibrato and tremolo somewhere.

i used the bare minimum; introducing effect elements would have required having to develop a much more complete and structured piece.

Question, are the slurs phrase slurs or were you thinking of bowings?

bowings ... who knows if I got them right?

The use of divisi within divisi seems poorly "structured" to me in the sense that there doesn't seem to be a design (even musical) to "justify" them ... they seem a bit used out of necessity.

the need for divisi is mainly in the bridge, where I wanted more lightness and alternation between high and low registers; and then in those passages where I had too many lines to play.

Violins, couldn't you have played the unison parts in the "divisi" by indicating different strings... so as to enrich the melodic line? In the end, it is the theme.

good idea!

In cases like the divisi at measure 89: why do you double the Bb? It's the third of the chord... better other notes, no?

true, I could have left only the D in the first violins and only the Bb in the seconds.

Violas at 86, divisi are missing if these were your intentions.

yess

cb: between 12 and 13, for example, you don't give them time to switch to pizz... put a quarter note G, it's just a doubling of the vc anyway.

in slow tempo I don't think it's a problem, I think I've already seen passages like that in scores, then whoever plays it adjusts themselves.

cb: at 79 if you put the notes this long, a double bassist will play them with the bow... pizzicato notes should be at most a quarter note, otherwise it is ambiguous and leaves the time (also visual) at 85 to pick up the bow again.

true, an example of carelessness

I'll do it this way, I always get tangled up with the quote function

>> Question, are the slurs phrase slurs or were you thinking of phrasing arcs?

>> arcs ... who knows if I got them right?

It depends on what you had in mind. You would need to have it played and see if the result is the same as what you expected

>> cb: between 12 and 13, for example, you don't give them time to switch to pizz...

>> put a quarter note G, it's just a doubling of the vc.

> in a slow tempo I don't think it's a problem, I think I've already seen such passages in scores,

> then whoever plays it will adjust themselves.

They have always discussed them with me, do you have any examples at hand?

eh a memoria non ricordo, che poi magari ho preso un granchio....sicuramente è meglio essere più prudenti

me:

- I chose to give the 2nd theme, in the recapitulation, G-, but I imagine G major would have been more logical ......

AbateFaria wrote:

I don't think I fully understood your requests.

(...)in a language like yours, the last problem is the keys in the sense that I think it is right that the two poles, which are the 2 themes, are felt; the rest is just more or less adherence to a certain style

I mean that, especially in the piece for strings, the change of mode in the 2nd theme led me to vary the melody a lot, it might seem more like a development than a re-presentation of the 2nd theme .... or not ?!

AleGozzo wrote:

nintendo that, especially in the piece for strings, the mode change in the 2nd theme led me to vary the melody a lot, it might seem more like a development than a repetition of the 2nd theme .... or not ?!

I find it interesting and not out of place at all.

Fragment of a talented [person]:

you gave a sharp push to the dissonances almost immediately; I have the impression that it is a bit abrupt, even if it is too short to give a definitive judgment.

i would be curious to see how you fare in the subsequent measures, in my opinion you are at risk of getting "stuck": proceeding with such marked dissonances leads you to disorder; re-proposing the initial measures is a step backward; introducing new material is dispersive.

what did you have in mind?

Mine is arriving tomorrow too.

Commentary on AleGozzo's piano version.

It is clearly a central movement of a sonata, given that it is too short to be a first movement and lacks the form to be a third/fourth movement; let's say it could fit in a "sonatina," but it is nonetheless quite coherent in terms of form.

First of all, I played it and I must say that it flows well and is a pleasure to play, even if some parts are not very pianistic, especially where the left hand holds long notes steady, which lose consistency on the piano. I would have accepted it if the tempo had been fast, but with a slow tempo, it does not render properly.

The modulating bridge does not work: it is too similar to the main theme and, if it weren't for the change of key, one wouldn't perceive that it is a bridge.

The second theme, in my opinion, is not centered: it has more or less the same progression as the 1st theme, with the supporting note always returning, and the accompaniment is too static and identical to the 1st.

The second modulating bridge also has the same problem as the first; in fact, it could even be mistaken for a repetition of the theme.

The development, however, is beautiful... sufficiently rich and varied, as is the pedal coda which fulfills its function very well.

The sonata form structure is certainly there, and on this point the piece is centered; although it is pleasant to listen to and perfectly playable, the fact that the piece flows in any case does not fully validate it, at least in a themed workshop like this one.