The Concerto From a Compositional Point of View

It is an instrumental composition based on the formal structure of the Sonata, characterized by the expression of two forces that are sometimes in agreement... and sometimes in opposition.

Challenging discussion, just to throw a bit of meat on the fire, what type of concerto are we talking about? (soloist, grosso, etc.)

aaa wrote:

two forces

Ok, but of what nature?

In my opinion, it can be defined as one of the orchestral forms, see the Overture, the Symphonic Poem, the Symphony.

Arzigovolato3 wrote:

Ok, but of what nature?

For example a soloist or a group of selected performers ...on one hand and on the other hand a full orchestral group.

Lucas wrote:

In my opinion, it can be defined as one of the orchestral forms, see the Overture, the Symphonic Poem, the Symphony.

IT fits

Lucas wrote:

In my opinion, it can be defined as one of the orchestral forms, see the Overture, the Symphonic Poem, the Symphony.

What form does the overture have?

And the symphonic poem?

Are we sure that overture and symphonic poem can be defined as "forms"?

All of this has the air of a déjà vu, I wouldn't want to say...

As far as I know, there has never been any talk of a concert and anyway, in Italian, 'forme' (forms) has many meanings; no one has spoken of a formal scheme... if that is what you are aiming for.

Forms, scopes, nuances, use whatever you like... the concept seems clear to me and besides, there are plenty of manuals that use these terms, so it isn't self-referential.

"One of the orchestral forms" seems perfectly intelligible to anyone; rewrite it your way... let's see if it still makes sense.

Lucas wrote:

[...] in Italian, 'forme' has many meanings; no one spoke of a formal schema... if that is what you were aiming at.

"Form," in music, is precisely the term that designates the formal schema of a composition; therefore, speaking of the concerto as an "orchestral form" is already prone to misunderstanding in itself; but if one then adds "see the overture, see the symphonic poem, the symphony," the misunderstanding worsens. I, potentially, would have used the term "symphonic genre," which is nonetheless debatable regarding the concerto, but certainly more appropriate for the overture and the symphonic poem, which are types of composition without a fixed formal schema. For the symphony, a separate discussion should be made, because the classical symphony, in its formal structure relative to the first movement, reflects sonata form; therefore, in fact, not even the symphony can be considered a form in itself.

PS as for the "déjà vu," I was referring to the fact that, in another forum, there was a heated discussion on the same topic, precisely because people kept confusing form with genre. Users who participate in both forums have certainly understood. I was not referring to you.

Look, while reading a formal analysis text, I had categorized the phrase I cited as one of the ways of the language—specifically Italian and not musical technical jargon—to identify a macro-category.

Consider Foscolo's “The fluctuation of forms” … clearly, when speaking about music, perhaps a misunderstanding could be just around the corner.

In general, your remark could also serve as a discriminant to understand whether a text is genuine or not; unfortunately, I have the bad habit of asking for any bibliographic references to support a theory; since you write books (by the way, congratulations on your latest publication), it is possible that there might even be a text by yours on the subject.

If you could pass me the references or point me toward a book that speaks in the terms you indicated, I would be very pleased.

In the meantime, the different points of view on the matter are recounted in this topic; whoever reads it will form their own opinion.

Carlos wrote:

avrei usato il termine «genere sinfonico», che comunque è discutibile per quel che riguarda il concerto

... true, that "pasticcio"

As a title for a paragraph, Lucas might even work, but going into detail and therefore... entering the world of the concerto? How would you integrate the macro information from aaa?

aaa wrote:

For example a soloist or a group of chosen performers ...on one hand and on the other hand a full orchestral group.

Ok, so it's clearer ... but it all seems a bit too "macro" to me ... I don't know if you understood what I mean.

Lucas wrote:

Look, reading a formal analysis text, I had placed the phrase I cited as one of the ways of the language—therefore Italian and not musical technical jargon—to identify a macro-category.

See Foscolo's “The fluctuation of forms” … clearly, when speaking about music, perhaps the misunderstanding could be just around the corner.

Of course: especially if the same term is, in the context being referred to, a technical term, as is the case here.

Lucas wrote:

In general, your remark could also be a deciding factor in understanding whether a text is genuine or not; unfortunately, I have the bad habit of asking for any bibliographic references to support a theory; since you write books (by the way, congratulations on your latest publication), it might even be that there is one of your own texts on the subject. If you could pass me the references or point out a book that speaks in the terms you indicated, I would be very pleased.

Funny. I have the bad habit of reading so many of them that, honestly, I don't look for bibliographic references for a forum post, nor have I written so many lately, if only I knew... rather, if you found that expression in a formal analysis text, can you tell us which text it is, what do you say?"}

Carlos wrote:

can you tell us what the text in question is, what do you say?

Sure, Savasta... synthetic but effective, at least for getting a good idea.

That's why I was asking for reference texts, to go a little further ... but it feels a lot like trade secrets, when someone asks ... then suddenly they become mysterious

Lucas wrote:

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

No no, what a joke? No secret: the truth is that a) I finished my studies a while ago and don't have the books on hand to quickly recall everything I say; if I had to look it up every time I write a post to find "where I read what," truly, I would go mad. Personally, I have never heard that text, not even in the conservatory, but there are composers around here more knowledgeable than me regarding the recommended bibliography. Really, believe me: no "trade secret."

Lucas wrote:

... but it sounds a lot like trade secrets to me, when someone asks ... then suddenly one becomes mysterious

today in the age of the internet this phrase seems a bit strange... you just have to search a little and you can find plenty of texts on these things ... some good, others less so, but you just have to look.

in the old days I used Schoenberg, but I've never heard of Savasta.

Savasta is a compendium, a schematic (and concise) synthesis, aimed at those who want a review tool for old complementary harmony exams.

I am not saying it is useless or poorly made, but it has certain pretensions that do not constitute an exhaustive treatment of the subject.

The point is that formal analysis methods focus on some "general" aspects (forgive my exaggeration) to arrive at understanding form, periods, phrases, etc..

Then there are specific texts dedicated to concerto X, the sonatas of Y, the symphonies of Z

Experience in these fields allows for the development of analysis techniques that can also be applied to concertos, which cannot all be the same... we range from the concertos of Corelli to those of Rachmaninoff... just to mention someone.

And they certainly cannot be the same, neither in language nor in structure; clearly, even within the generality of the response, I find AAA's suggestion apt because it goes beyond the two areas I have just mentioned (namely form and syntax) and focuses on the presence of "forces" which can indeed be of different natures, move in different ways, and with syntaxes from different eras.

Ok guys, I didn't think I would start a discussion in these terms, which, moreover, I find very interesting.

Let's do this: getting practical, if you wanted to write your own concerto, how would you approach it?

rstrauss wrote:

... just search a bit and you'll find texts on these things in abundance

What do they discuss regarding the concerto? I'm asking?

rstrauss wrote:

back in the day I used Schoenberg

This is already a clue, do you remember if there was a section dedicated to the concerto?

I'm asking because

Carlos wrote:

the truth is that a) I finished my studies a while ago and I don't have the books on hand to quickly recall everything I say; if I had to look through them every time I write a post to find "where I read what", honestly, I would go mad.

If you ask someone where they studied fugue, everyone remembers where, the same goes for harmony, for orchestration ... and on form...?... nothing...

It simply seems strange to me if someone spent a few years studying it.... that's all.

Anyway, this discussion is a bit OT, I opened this topic on formal analysis.

http://www.pianoconc...nalisi-formale/