Sonata Form Workshop 2012

raffaeleb wrote:

I am also trying to analyze Strauss

Bar. 0/31 Theme A G-

Bar. 32/58 Theme B C-

Bar. 59/74 Development of theme A

Bar. 75 / 78 Development of theme B

Bar. 79 /88 Development of theme A

Bar. 89/99 Recapitulation of theme A G-

I would say we are there.

raffaeleb wrote:

From this point on, so many sixteenth notes begin that one becomes a bit satiated

As I have expressed previously, I appreciate the harmonic research but

I return to saying that the sixteenth notes were a bit indigestible for me, so it seems like nothing new is happening, as it seems to me someone before me has already noticed.

Sorry, but I think you have a double limitation: in understanding what I wrote and in analyzing the piece, particularly the development which, from what can be gathered from your writing, stops after 16 bars out of 73, and clearly just as the difficult part begins.

I wrote:

> I feel a background of sixteenth notes at various points (often harmonic filler, see pedal zone)

> but the eighth notes are clear and decisive.

Let's talk about the eighth notes, those that an interpreter should make heard and a musician should grasp:

From 100 to 105: first theme in E+ (mode change; the first theme had only been heard in the minor mode)

From 106 (actually the last note of 105) to 113: second theme in E- (mode change; the second theme had only been heard in the major mode)

And notice how it gets there: in 2 notes it goes to E+ and in 2 notes it returns to G-… I am talking about the close of the exposition.

Moving on, one should hear:

From 113 (actually the last note of 112) to 116: 4 bars of the second theme, doubled in octaves in the bass

From 116 to 120: first theme: 5 bars of the first theme

If you continue with this exercise…. the sixteenth notes don't matter, but what matters are the increasingly close entries, at "wide" values (eighth note), of the 2 themes alternating (v/fusion)

In reality, one of the two eventually wins and it closes on an F# pedal, a fifth of B-, where what counts are still the eighth notes, the tail end of the first theme (exactly at 135); what you must look at is the first bar of the theme and what it becomes in this area

I wrote:

> When the sixteenth notes become important, one can tell

> because they are important formal elements of the piece.

And here, eventually, the sixteenth notes are no longer filler or an ornament like in the exposition at 33 as you identified (enriched by what? Precisely by the sixteenth notes. Why is it called development? …precisely)

Now I say, look closely at the part from the last note of bar 148 of the first (B#)

Moving forward, do you like Jazz? Have you realized that the first pianist from 163 does his own thing with a sort of solo—yes, in sixteenth notes—but while the second pianist tackles a chromatic descent on the first theme (note: the notes that count are eighth notes)

If you want, I can go on, but I believe it would be useful for you to perform the analysis firsthand, as you did for the exposition, to understand more

… and then even the recapitulation has its surprises, and not just those

I thank Raffaele and Talnetuoso for their interest in my piece and this little "challenge" aimed at pulling the threads of the discussion

However, I am a bit disconcerted reading this sentence from Raffaele

raffaeleb wrote:

I'll say again that semichromes were a bit hard for me to digest, so it seems like nothing new is happening

Frankly, if someone writes like/dislike... it is relatively a problem; one enters the sphere of taste and one's own listening training.

But if someone tries to justify a matter of taste with elements that should be objective but which in reality are not (the development was not analyzed by Raffaele or an analysis was not explicitly provided), I am not having it.

Therefore, it would have been more correct and "elegant" to say that there was no time to look at it...

Talentuoso identified some important elements; I don't know if he said everything he found, but surely the "fundamental" elements for truly understanding the piece are still missing... moreover, I am surprised that some macroscopic things escaped Raffaele (always referring to the development, but not only).

To give you a little help, the developmental logic is very Wagnerian, but the formal treatment is of an entirely different nature... as are the harmonic contents.

In short, it's not that I wrote the piece inspired by X or Y... so, if one really wants to challenge oneself with bouts of analysis... let the analysis be done.

Frank, I hope you aren't too disconcerted.

Don't worry, I had noticed the passage in E major 100-104, E minor 105-110.

Also, my analysis was intended to be only indicative from a certain point of view to identify the coda that I mentioned to Talentuoso.

As for the matter of the sixteenth notes, well, it is an aesthetic judgment (of my own taste). That is, something I wouldn't have chosen to do.

I didn't say you were wrong; rather, I told you that in my opinion it is rich with very articulated harmonizations, which is why I stopped in front of the sheer amount to untangle in the development. Furthermore, I had written that I hadn't touched the development, but it was to indicate the part that had gone a bit wrong for me. Effectively, I think this judgment is due to the fact that the MIDI dynamics probably play those parts that Talentuoso calls filler notes too loudly. In fact, looking at it, you can tell there is something else underneath.

In any case, Frank,

Did I get the "formal" analysis of the exposition right, or did I get it wrong?

Moving forward, do you like Jazz? Have you realized that the first pianist at 163 is just doing his own thing with a sort of solo, yes in sixteenth notes, but while the second pianist slogs through a chromatic descent on the first theme (note, the notes that count are eighth notes)

Nice formal definition of a solo (Doing his own thing)

Anyway, I think it is a solo; maybe it doesn't seem very jazzy to me, but I agree with you regardless.

raffaeleb wrote:

Indeed, I think this judgment is due to the fact that the MIDI dynamics probably play those parts that talentuoso calls filler too loudly. In fact, looking at it, one can understand that there is something else underneath.

See Raffaele, I have noticed in these initiatives that the judgment of taste changes as the quality of the playback improves... but it cannot be like that in the pieces we write ourselves, because what matters is the score (and what we must hear while reading it)... at most, we could do without it in the presence of an eventual interpretation (or "equal" ones, see some playback proposals... Geppino, CromaDiBrera, etc.)

The mp3 that we usually put on is purely indicative; one cannot base a judgment (not even of taste) on it. When we did the LAB on the theme of Rachmaninoff or tried not to put an mp3 for passion, well... 0 comments. Aside from (a couple of users) afterwards... ergo, it is a facilitation that, however, cannot be used as a reference for an evaluation.

>As far as the matter of the sixteenth notes is concerned, well, it is an aesthetic judgment

>(Of my taste) Meaning that I wouldn't have chosen to do them

Ok, but you wouldn't have put them in the exposition either... right? Otherwise what do you do, halfway through the piece, in the most animated part, you put a rhythmic pause of 70 bars...?

You understand that it doesn't hold up; you cannot evaluate someone else's piece according to your own aesthetics... it should be done according to that of the composer of the piece who wrote it and what they show in that moment. If there is an element in the exposition, one expects it to be developed. If you don't like it then, that's a different story... but at this point, it cannot be spoiling only in the development but already from the exposition.

Anyway, I am not demanding that you perform the analysis of such a substantial piece; I know well that it takes a lot of time. You have correctly segmented the exposition, although, to understand what follows, perhaps one needs to contextualize the enrichment you mention in the second presentation of the 2 themes and better detail how the coda is structured... which, as it happens, justifies quite a bit of what happens where you got "lost" in the development.

Sooner or later the original design of this piece will come out; for now, thank you for your interest.

raffaeleb wrote:

Actually, I think this judgment is due to the fact that the MIDI dynamics probably play those parts that talentuoso calls filler too loudly. In fact, looking at it, you can tell there is something else underneath.

There, ... so it's not like I was being funny

Well, regardless, we have all cleared things up a bit.

I know, talented one, that you weren't being funny.

Thank you anyway for the chat.

For me, these little "squabbles" are very stimulating.

I take more interest in the forum and thus it triggers my curiosity.

As far as the development part is concerned, I don't know if I can "analyze it".

Ok, but you wouldn't have put them even in the exposition... right? Otherwise what do you do, halfway through the piece, in the most animated part, you add a rhythmic pause of 70 measures...?

Perhaps I would have put them in the exposition, but I would have used them little in the development.

Anyway, I repeat, it is just an "acoustic" impression of the MIDI. I still have to do the detailed analysis.

raffaeleb wrote:

Well, anyway, we have all cleared things up a bit.

Ok

raffaeleb wrote:

I still have to do the detailed analysis.

I was curious to know what Gozzo thinks, since we compared notes a bit on the treatment of the subject... or even RStrauss, it's not that his interesting considerations wouldn't be useful here.

Anyway, I think Frank will spill everything later, as usual

...by the way...the original?

Talentuoso wrote:

I was curious to know what Gozzo thinks

Gozzo, unfortunately, is still holding his breath for a few more days due to lack of time

distractedly I listened to it (very good !!) and I am following you; and I see that it must be analyzed well, otherwise the blows will fly

I emphasize the predominance that the sheet music must have ... the analysis must absolutely be done without playback, which is only an aid.

In fact, there are often those who only provide the playback and I have punctually abstained.

So let's go back to doing analyses on the sheet music and then listen to the playback ... in fact, I would propose posting only the sheet music at first and then, once the discussion is finished, posting the mp3s.

Frank, I am looking at it ... I tried playing both parts and I liked it, although in several places I found it not very pianistic.
entering into details as soon as possible.

rstrauss wrote:

in several places I found it unpianistic.

What can I say, I certainly did not treat the pf in the conventional way. It seems playable to me anyway. Aside from the reprise (where for time reasons I did not include the adjustments from the exposition), in the rest of the piece I divided the parts taking into account the possibilities of pianists. I proposed a fingering for the only truly tricky point ...

Anyway, I will wait for your notes

Strauss is fine like this. Why delay the mp3s?

They are excellent for following the sheet music.

Of course, they misled me, but you make a mistake once and then you learn

Frank wrote:

What can I say, I certainly didn't treat the pf in the conventional way. It seems playable to me anyway. Aside from the reprise (where for time reasons I didn't include the exposure adjustments), in the rest of the piece I divided the parts taking into account the possibilities of the pianists. I proposed a fingering for the only truly tricky point ...

Anyway, I will wait for your notes

It is playable without great worries even at first sight.

What I wanted to say is that your nature as an organist shows through.

raffaeleb wrote:

Strauss is fine like this. Why delay the mp3s?

They are excellent for following the score.

Of course, they misled me, but you make a mistake once and then you learn.

precisely to force those who are not used to analyzing music based solely on the score.

All the analyses I have done on this forum were done without listening to the playback or, at worst, by playing the piece on the piano.

Even with the orchestra one can... a pianist is still able to play the main parts and therefore analyze the orchestration at the same time (this work greatly benefits those who want to compose) ... whereas someone who is not a pianist should still be able to isolate the theme and the various sections.

You will see that after the analysis, the playback will have an entirely different meaning.

Frank's Version

Let's go in order:

I sincerely find the slow-tempo introduction with long notes and empty octaves to be a bit too long. It has no connection to anything that happens afterwards, and unfortunately, the piano part written this way doesn't really work. If the tempo had been faster, it might have made sense.

The coda, however, works much better: the rallentando and diminuendo provide that sense of ending that was needed.

Regarding the general form, I have nothing to say; I believe it is properly centered, and the E major moving to E minor is very apt.

As mentioned in several places, the writing is not quite pianistic: bars 49 - 56 / 139-144 (Pf2) / 197-204 are the most exposed points.

Technically, it does not present any particular difficulties.

You haven't marked the pedal, so I assume there isn't any.

at bar 4 you marked a crescendo which is impossible with held notes.

A pity about the triplets in 195 which could have continued, personal taste.

Aside from this, I have nothing negative to note.

I believe the central part from 100 onwards is the most successful: the development to reach the climax at 123 and following is excellent.

Excellent also from 149 onwards with the theme recalled and exchanged between the two pfs.

Even the reprise at 174 works properly with the pf2 flourishing.

From 205 onwards, the sixteenth notes that flow continuously, even if exchanged between the 2 pfs, work very well with an increasingly tight rhythm until 241 where the 1st pedal begins.

Bar 248 further quotation of the theme on a tonic pedal: I like this very much too; together with the coda, it creates a sort of closing of the circle.

Despite the small notes above, all in all an excellent piece.

Compliments Frank.

I really like yours too, Raffaele. You made us wait, but I think it was worth it