# Unity of movements?



## msegers (Oct 17, 2008)

When I listen to a piece of music in several movements, I have trouble understanding what holds the movements together. Sometimes, I feel that the different movements represent contrasts with each other, that they are joined by a sort of creative tension. 

Then, at other times, I wonder if there is some kind of development (without getting into a rather arbitrary programmatic reading of meanings from or into the music) from movement to movement. 

I know there are in some standard forms, but still within those forms, what keeps the second movement of one symphony from being interchangeable with the second movement of another?

What is the logic that unifies a work - concerto or symphony or string quartet or whatever - from movement to movement?

I know this must seem very basic... must seem that I'm missing a very basic point... but, I am, and I would appreciate any insight from the many insightful people on this forum.


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

Actually this is one hell of a question!! It is often difficult to describe in any tangable way what cohession exists between movements of large scale works. As a player I often wonder if it would be possible to 'switch' slow movements as you suggest. However after hearing the 'prescribed' slow movement it then seems imposible to chage it. As a composer I still wonder, but there is some thing about the whole mood of a work that make the flow kick in between movements. It seems to me that the answer is lurking so deep in my subconscious that I will never be able to answer you honestly. 
It would be great if some one hear actually knew theoretically what is going here!
FC


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

Some would say that you can interchange the scherzos of Bruckner's Symphonies without sounding too dis-jointed but I wouldn't dare try it!!...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Assuming you're not talking about something obvious, like Beethovens' 5th symphony having the same four note motif intertwined throughout all four movements, could it be something as mundane as the movements being composed roughly at the same place and time in the composer's life?

But that isn't always the case I guess, as many composers kept modifying their pieces through the years, Bruckner one of the most notorious for this, and they also often work on several unrelated pieces at the same time.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2009)

Weston said:


> Assuming you're not talking about something obvious, like Beethovens' 5th symphony having the same four note motif intertwined throughout all four movements, .


That motif occurs in quite a few of his other works I have noticed, perhaps I should have made a note of them.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> That motif occurs in quite a few of his other works I have noticed, perhaps I should have made a note of them.


Not to mention R.Strauss's (first? I think he only made 1...) Piano Sonata - the ending fist movement is almost identical to the ending first movement of Beethoven 5.

The later in music history the easier it is to find strong connections, Beethoven on really. There are still connections between movements with Mozart, I remember an analysis of his Haffner symphony and the motives throughout the symphony.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Thank you for bringing this topic up, msegers.



post-minimalist said:


> However after hearing the 'prescribed' slow movement it then seems imposible to chage it.


What if someone "fools" you into believing something is the prescribed slow movement when it is actually not? Can you smell something fishy going on?



Andante said:


> That motif occurs in quite a few of his other works I have noticed, perhaps I should have made a note of them.


String quartet in Eb, Op. 74 'Harp' is one. (Movt. 3) And in the opening of the Apassionata is another well-known instance.


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

msegers said:


> When I listen to a piece of music in several movements, I have trouble understanding what holds the movements together. Sometimes, I feel that the different movements represent contrasts with each other, that they are joined by a sort of creative tension.
> 
> Then, at other times, I wonder if there is some kind of development (without getting into a rather arbitrary programmatic reading of meanings from or into the music) from movement to movement.
> 
> ...


This is a great thread! has got me really thinking!..
I guess there must be a familiarity issue with it as well. A certain piece is laid out in a certain way to form a cohesive whole. Has to do with textures, moods, program and emotional state of the composer at the time.
But then, for ex. Mendelssohn's Scottish Symphony was dabbled at various points throughout his life. Yet it comes across as being a unified work (to me at least).

Also one has to have respect for the composer. I mean if you started chopping and changing movements of a composers works then that would be downright rude!

I guess it's like cutting pieces of different paintings by great artists and putting them together in a sort of sordid jigsaw puzzle. You just don't go down that road..:


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Copland mentions something known as _la grand ligne_ in his book, _What to Listen for in Music_. Perhaps it has something to do with this topic?

The last sentence of the second paragraph (here) gives some idea of what it is about.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

David C Coleman said:


> I guess it's like cutting pieces of different paintings by great artists and putting them together in a sort of sordid jigsaw puzzle. You just don't go down that road..:


That would be what, Cubism? 

The other day I was at a music label's website about to sample one of their Mozart discs. I clicked on one of the tracks and it started playing something that was definitely twentieth century, or at least I thought so. I was shocked first, but then I realised that I had - by mistake - also clicked on another track a few seconds earlier. I assumed that the second click would have overridden the first, instead of opening the player in a separate window.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

msegers said:


> What is the logic that unifies a work - concerto or symphony or string quartet or whatever - from movement to movement?


Great question, albeit unanswerable (I suspect). I think the analogy with pictures is a helpful one: suppose we take a great composition like Constable's _Haywain_. If you load that into a picture editing program and start selecting out separate rectangles, you could, for example, pick out the house on the left; the sky study at top right; the central horse and cart; the distant landscape on the right. If you do this carefully, you can get four separate, attractively composed pictures of a house, a sky, a distant landscape, and a cart. And very nice too. Viewed individually (and if you knew nothing about this famous picture), you might wonder if there is any link connecting them, other than a stylistic one (the painter's brushstrokes etc).

Yet Constable did put these four images together in a way that we could never have predicted beforehand, yet which, once done, produces a composition which is far more deeply satisfying than any one of them, taken one at a time. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but explaining quite how this has come about is by no means easy to do. Ruskin's 'Law of Help' is the most useful approach I know, whereby every element of the picture is felt to be composed so as to 'help' everything else, in an organic way. For most of us this can only be seen in hindsight, but part of the imaginative power of the great artist is that he can create this kind of mysterious holistic structure.

Isn't a symphony (say) something like this? It's possible to enjoy it one movement at a time (Classic FM chops symphonies up like this all the time); and we may be able to distinguish no direct links relating one movement to another (just as the house, sky, cart, and landscape are distinct entities). But they are in fact linked by the imaginative power of the composer; and when we listen to the entire work, we feel the 'rightness' of the whole as greater than the sum of its parts, even though we may not be able to explain why in strictly logical terms.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Also one has to have respect for the composer. I mean if you started chopping and changing movements of a composers works then that would be downright rude!


I agree, but that has absolutely nothing to do with why it is unified. Plus, what of Mahler 6?



> Great question, albeit unanswerable (I suspect).


Basically, there is no answer for it as a whole, however there would be many answers on a case by case basis.


----------



## msegers (Oct 17, 2008)

Thanks, friends, and I say that sincerely. I didn't know if I was going to be blown off the forum in response to my question. I'm really enjoying the thread, I think especially because no one has given me the _one_, right answer. It seems we are having a real discussion here. As *Yagan Kiely* says, "there would be many answers on a case by case basis. "

Right, *Weston*, I'm not talking about something so obvious as a repeated motif (a string that the beads hang onto), although that would be one very basic way that the movements are unified. Then, *Andante* mentions that the motif occurs in other works... so, does that mean they are all one? (No, I don't think so.)

By the way, *David C Coleman*, I wasn't suggesting cutting and pasting movements from different works (even different composers) - but it does open up quite a "what if" thread. (Compose your own symphony by selecting favorite movements from symphonies by different composers...)

I want to quote the sentence *opus67 *linked to: Boulanger particularly emphasized "la grande ligne" (the long line), "a sense of forward motion…the feeling for inevitability, for the creating of an entire piece that could be thought of as a functioning entity." Perhaps the gestalt of the piece? I think that sums up things excellently: it's there, you can't identify it logically, but you feel it, intuitively?

Great point, *Elgarian* - the comparison to a painting. I suspect part of my problem is that I am dealing with music by drawing on an analogy from another branch of the arts. With my literary background, I try to "read" a piece of music as I would read a novel, even a sentence. I know why the sentence reads, "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog." Because English nouns lack declensions, if we changed the word order, we'd change the meaning, "The lazy dog jumped over the quick brown fox." Now, why we say "quick brown fox" rather than "brown quick fox" (unless "brown fox" is a distinctive kind of fox - think of the difference between a "black bird" and a "blackbird" - I cannot say. Would I notice if you shuffled the chapters of Joyce's _Ulysses_ around? Probably not, but things would be different in, say, a mystery novel. In Julio Cortazar's novel _Hopscotch_... well, from the title, you can imagine what happens. You can read the chapters sequentially, or you can hop about in a different order.


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

Well basically, I put it down to the skill of the composer..I am not a composer (although I did compose a simple piece in music class hundreds of years ago...) So he or she knows how to link their movements texturally, emotionally and formally.
Take Beethoven's 2nd Sym. - after the powerful, almost stormy first movement, the beautiful, elagiac 2nd movement is a perfect antidote..But then what did LvB do in the 9th symphony? 1st movement 15 minutes of stormy D minor, yes! 15 further minutes of stormy D minor followed by beautiful elagiac Adagio...Sigh...there is no easy answer!!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Isn't a symphony (say) something like this? It's possible to enjoy it one movement at a time (Classic FM chops symphonies up like this all the time); and we may be able to distinguish no direct links relating one movement to another (just as the house, sky, cart, and landscape are distinct entities). But they are in fact linked by the imaginative power of the composer; and when we listen to the entire work, we feel the 'rightness' of the whole as greater than the sum of its parts, even though we may not be able to explain why in strictly logical terms.


I quite agree, and would add: a 2nd [slow] mov heard as a stand alone work is never "IMO" as impressive as when heard after the 1st mov that it was meant to follow, particularly with Shostakovich where you can get a loud, dissonant raucous 1st then a sublime 2nd "as if to make up for the 1st" if you can follow me


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Andante said:


> a 2nd [slow] mov heard as a stand alone work is never "IMO" as impressive as when heard after the 1st mov that it was meant to follow, particularly with Shostakovich where you can get a loud, dissonant raucous 1st then a sublime 2nd "as if to make up for the 1st" if you can follow me


Yes. There's a similar effect in architecture. If you look down the line of a gothic building, for instance, at certain points there's an awareness of stress - that is, effectively a call for support - and then an architectural answer to that, as we realise the support is provided (often ingeniously and elegantly). All those awarenesses occur almost simultaneously in this case, of course, whereas in music it's sequential in time, but in each case an awareness of need is generated, which is then satisfied. That's occurring all the time on a small scale _within_ a movement, but on a larger scale it will occur too - very much as you say, Andante, with one thing being provided 'as if to make up for' another - so that separately they don't make a coherent whole, but together they do.

A culinary example: roast beef is good on its own; so is Yorkshire pudding; horseradish sauce, however, is a bit hard to cope with on its own. But roast beef AND Yorkshire pudding AND horseradish sauce is a whole new experience.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Or as the punchline of a joke is not as funny without the build up leading to it, and is even funnier with the masterful timing and delivery of a comedian. So it could be all about context and timing - and with music there are even more elements to be in context than with a joke.

The thing about the painting gestalt - paintings are generally composed as a whole, then the details built up over the rough whole. Are entire multi movement music compositions composed this way too - as a general outline with details slowly emerging? Or are they composed movement by movement?

I'll bet the answer is yes to both or it varies from one composer to another.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Very interesting forum. I'd just like to add how its interesting that there are famous pieces of music that are excerpts from longer works which are not as well known. Examples include Bach's Air on the G string from Suite No. 3; Khatchaturian's Adagio from Spartacus; Offenbach's Barcarolle from the Tales of Hoffmann. There are many other such examples. I myself have been listening to classical music for the past two decades but I do not know the pieces that these works are part of. I may have heard them on the radio but I am not very familiar with them. So a piece can be famous (and I suppose have some meaning to people) even though it may be 'orphaned' from the piece which it is a part of.

The reverse is that there are pieces that can't be separated, not matter what becuase they are so integrated and complete only in themselves. This is especially the case if movements are linked, like in Vaughan Williams' Symphony No. 4 or Sibelius' Symphony No. 7. Years ago CBS put out a series of records/tapes and later CDs called the composer's greatest hits series. On one recording you had excerpts from works of one composer. Sometimes it would spread across two volumes. But the point is that some composers were omitted from this series because their works simply should not be divided (among other reasons like thier popularity, I guess). This is particularly applicable to composers of long works like Mahler, Stravinsky and Shostakovich. I mean, what is the value of an excerpt of a work like The Rite of Spring if you haven't heard the whole? You have to appreciate the whole work of art, like the painting and literature analogy above.


----------



## opus67 (Jan 30, 2007)

Hi, Andre, welcome to TC.



Andre said:


> Years ago CBS put out a series of records/tapes and later CDs called the composer's greatest hits series. On one recording you had excerpts from works of one composer. Sometimes it would spread across two volumes. But the point is that some composers were omitted from this series because their works simply should not be divided (among other reasons like thier popularity, I guess). This is particularly applicable to composers of long works like Mahler, Stravinsky and Shostakovich. I mean, what is the value of an excerpt of a work like The Rite of Spring if you haven't heard the whole? You have to appreciate the whole work of art, like the painting and literature analogy above.


I think the names you mentioned were left out because their compositions were (and still are) _not popular_ for easy listening like Beethoven, Mozart and Vivaldi were/are.  Every musical work, right from the earliest one up to the most recent and revolutionary, is best savoured as a whole rather than in pieces.


----------



## juliante (Jun 7, 2013)

What is the logic that unifies a work - concerto or symphony or string quartet or whatever - from movement to movement?

A question which i assume vexed Brahms for many years prior to publishing his first symphony.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

This is a big and complex subject. Let's just take the symphony. In it's early years, as developed by the likes of Haydn and Mozart, the only "logic" was one of key relationships. Thematic relationships were essentially nonexistent. There were no "program symphonies" to add any unification.

Then along comes Beethoven and his Fifth Symphony. What was so revolutionary: here was a full four movement symphony where the initial thematic motiv, that dit-dit-dit-dah (three shorts followed by a long) permeates not just the first movement, but is encountered throughout the entire rest of the symphony. Unified to the hilt! Berlioz took the hint - and the idee fixe was born into the Symphonie Fantastique.

Schumann explored thematic unification, especially in his Fourth. Brahms clearly understood the power of thematic unification, but sometimes it takes real digging and analysis to see it, much less hear it. The Third is a well-known example where he ties the work up by bringing back the opening theme to close the finale. Much less obvious is the Second: those first few notes in the basses that open the symphony reappear, often quite subtle, throughout. Just listen to the opening notes of the finale - same notes, different tempo and rhythm. 

Dvorak also mastered the idea. It's easy to hear in the Ninth, but it turns out the Eighth is much more rich in detail: the whole symphony is based on a simple idea of a G major triad. The work's obvious appeal has made it a favorite of audiences and players, but for musicologists and hopefully some conductors, it's this underlying logic and connections that are so appealing.

Tchaikovsky was not subtle at all and quite brazen in his cross-referencing in the Fourth and Fifth.

Then of course comes Sibelius - the Second is a stunning tour de force of symphonic unification through thematic development.

Why bother? Somehow this unity creates a very satisfying, emotionally complete musical experience. Consciously or not, the brain gets those connections, I don't think you need a PhD in music theory to understand what just happened. So I guess that's the logic behind it - to make a long, complex work unified, rounded and satisfying.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Generally speaking it's the transition between ideas in a movement that helps it go from one place to the next. The better this is stated by the composer, the easier it is for the listener to follow.

A symphony in three or four movement is usually written in sonata format meaning each section has a beginning (exposition), a middle (development) and an end (recapitulation). There may be more than one theme or idea stated in the development before a main idea returns in the recap.

Perhaps the greatest symphony of all, *Beethoven's 5th*. shows you how this works in the third movement labeled scherzo but to me more of an andante.

It starts slowly, perhaps at a walking speed, with an ominous-sounding idea (exposition) in the lower strings that is soon joined by woodwinds. Then the brass takes over in a march, soon joined by strings. Then it goes back to the lower strings (development) and a flute takes over with a solo soon joined by cellos and basses that echo the earlier refrain and sounds creep forward until the ominous beginning is back ... then timpani slowly beat out a cadence (recap) leading to the finale when all hell breaks loose.

What happens in the third movement is speeds are almost uniform throughout and not all the instruments have starring roles. the ideas are all related; they don't jump around either in speed or instrumental use. This sets a pace to move on from the quieter second movement, bridging over to the furious finale.

The Beethoven 5th symphony, one of the greatest works of any art form in history, is one of the easiest symphonies to track this way because it is written so compactly and perfectly. But it also sets a pattern that any symphony can logically follow throughout its movements.

If only everything could be as good as Beethoven's 5th!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> This is a big and complex subject. Let's just take the symphony. In it's early years, as developed by the likes of Haydn and Mozart, the only "logic" was one of key relationships. Thematic relationships were essentially nonexistent. There were no "program symphonies" to add any unification.
> Then along comes Beethoven and his Fifth Symphony. What was so revolutionary: here was a full four movement symphony where the initial thematic motiv, that dit-dit-dit-dah (three shorts followed by a long) permeates not just the first movement, but is encountered throughout the entire rest of the symphony.


But as I pointed out in Cyclic form in classical works, that dit-dit-dit-dah in the Beethoven 5th isn't even a "thematic" motif, it's only a "rhythmic" motif, as far as 'motivic relation of the 1st movement with the 3rd movement' is concerned. When the rhythmic motif is reused in the third movement, it's not even used the same way tonally (ie. The "thematic material", "G-G-G-Eb - F-F-F-D" is NOT shared. Only the rhythmic tendencies are shared.)
By the same logic Beethoven's 5th is "unified", there are lots of works (preceding the symphony) that must be considered as being "unified".

ex. Mozart divertimento K334: _"the first three movements are all based on inspiring upwardly striving themes, whilst for the last two the melodic ideas start at a high point and move downwards."_ (Duncan Druce, 2003)



hammeredklavier said:


> Yes. Again, take a look at:
> [ 2:36 ]
> 2m36s





hammeredklavier said:


> Also the descending chromatic passages in the second themes of the outer movements of the 40th symphony exhibit cyclic tendencies.
> [ 0:54 ]
> [ 19:30 ]
> 54s
> 19m30s





hammeredklavier said:


> I. Allegro has "Rhythm 1" as its principal rhythmic motif: [ dotted 1/4 note - 1/8 note - 1/8 note - 1/8 note ]
> View attachment 131092
> 
> 
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> + certain motivic similarities in these passages:
> 
> II. Menuetto
> View attachment 131131
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> F-A-C-C-C-C
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> By the same logic Beethoven's 5th is "unified", there are lots of works (preceding the symphony) that must be considered as being "unified".


That's quite true - using the same rhythmic framework but changing notes is certainly a way to unify a work. The question is, how deliberate is it? Beethoven used it, so did Bruckner. My knowledge - and interest - in pre-Beethoven music is quite minimal and limited.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

This also changed a lot over time. In the classical period, many symphonic movements seem very interchangeable; certainly symphonies can still have different "feels" to them, but on the whole if you switched around different opening movements in Haydn symphonies you can probably get convincing "new" Haydn symphonies. However, as time went on more composers sought to give more "unity" to their works in more overt ways. Beethoven's fifth to Berlioz's idea fixae to Wagner's leitmotif are all examples of this.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

It's certainly not something I (or many others) haven't thought of from time to time. Whether certain movements really "go together" or we're just used to hearing them together is not an idle question. Aside from mood, contrast, key relationships (which many composers plan out ahead of time), thematic or rhythmic relationships, I think the fact the composer wrote them to go together indicates some plan, even if it's not immediately apprehensible. Although there are some forms (suites, serenades, divertimenti) that seem just an agglomeration of movements that lack the "structure" we tend to hear in more "serious" forms. I've often thought that Brahms' D major Serenade is like that -- a collection of movements that more than anything else show us Brahms learning to be Brahms.

On the other hand there's Mahler's Fourth, whose last movement was written as an independent song something like ten years before the rest of the symphony, whose first three movement had to be written as if meant to lead logically and inexorably to a pre-existing finale. And he pulled it off, maybe as only Mahler could have done.


----------



## caracalla (Feb 19, 2020)

msegers said:


> With my literary background, I try to "read" a piece of music as I would read a novel, even a sentence.


If the analogy is with a novel, perhaps it should be with one divided into three or four very distinctive sections. Or, perhaps more aptly, with a volume of novellas subtly linked by theme, time, place or character. In the latter case, the reader may or may not consider the linkage to be of any great importance. Certainly it is commonplace (and accepted practice) to judge individual pieces on their own merits with little regard to the whole: "No 2 works brilliantly, 1 & 4 don't do much for me, and 3 is just weak." If that's the general view, we needn't be surprised to find No 2 preserved in later collections and compilations, and the others quietly buried along with the linkage. Probably we treat composers (at least later composers) with more respect and consideration than we do authors, but I'm not convinced there's any good reason why this should be.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

This discussion reminds me of a notable example.

*Beethoven*'s *Große Fuge, Op. 133 *was originally written as the final movement of his six movement *Quartet No. 13 in B♭ major, Op. 130*, written in 1825. When the publisher told him his 4th movement sucked, so Beethoven wrote a new last movement and simply swapped it in. Barely an inconvenience. _Interchangeable_. And the orphaned movement was simply published separately.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

msegers said:


> When I listen to a piece of music in several movements, I have trouble understanding what holds the movements together. … and I would appreciate any insight from the many insightful people on this forum.


I know I've pondered this very issue on occasion -- like every time I listen to a multi-movement sonata, symphony, or concerto. As you've already been told, there is no one easy answer. Yet, I wonder what Forum members might make of analyzing one of the works of your choice which you find seemingly disparate in movement integration. (Does that make sense?) In other words, can you select one work with several movements where you do not hear (or see) any obvious connective threads -- key, theme, rhythm, orchestration, style, tone-row use...? Perhaps there will be insights available from readers.

But this is a great issue to pursue when listening. I tend to suspect that most great music is rather integrated from movement to movement and that movements from separate works are not willy-nilly interchangeable. Such is perhaps more evident, as was suggested already, in post Classical-era works, and that one might more easily fool the ear by interchanging Haydn movements than, say, Beethoven or Brahms or Tchaikovsky movements.

I would suggest that the greatest elemental tie is motif or theme, and that a theme can bear a disguise that may need a bit of decoding before one recognizes it as related to the "theme" of one movement vs. another. All that retrograde and inversion stuff comes into play. I even suspect that the two themes of classical sonata form often tend to have a close relation, if we tear them apart closely enough. Great compositional minds tend not to think in random terms (except for maybe John Cage) when assigning thematic subjects to a work. Integration proves a valuable asset of form.

Speaking in literary terms, one can look at a Shakespeare play, say, _Macbeth_, and see that images repeat. You have items such as "blood" and "darkness", clothing and birds and supernatural elements repeating in all manner of ways throughout the script. This gives the _Macbeth_ play a certain texture lacking in other Shakespeare plays where the texture differs due to the change of imagery elements. (And in Shakespeare, the chosen images always link closely to the plot line of the story. -- For example, the clothing images in _Macbeth_ often relate to stolen robes and ill-fitting garments, in a play about a man who steals the robes of the King through murder, in a play written for a new English King, James, who had come from Scotland and taken over the English throne of Elizabeth, literally "stealing" the robes of the King. _Macbeth_ is a commentary against the Scottish King James, and so many of the images in the play refer to James and his nature and habits.) Within this "texture" the story-line can still develop, even in a total opposite shifting (as it does in _Macbeth_), from a man of goodness becoming a man of evil. In fact, imagery of opposites is powerful in the play, too. So, this keeps the fabric of the play unified even though one may be in Act One or Act Three or Act Five, where the plot is greatly different. Characters such as Macbeth can be dynamic (changing) even while maintaining a unity by design.

Such happens in music, too. There are images of color (orchestral tones, instrumental sounds and effects) that lead to unity. Motifs and themes (linear note combinations) and their various transmogrifications that tie things together. Harmonies (the specific manner in which chords are built differ greatly from one composer to another) also add unities.

Good question, much to think about here.

And now I have an urge to re-read _Macbeth_ on top of everything else. Who'd have thought?

What familiar work of some renowned composer features multiple movements in which you fail to see relationships from one to another? Perhaps someone here could help enlighten us to what the unity might be? I would be interested in that.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

pianozach said:


> This discussion reminds me of a notable example.
> 
> *Beethoven*'s *Große Fuge, Op. 133 *was originally written as the final movement of his six movement *Quartet No. 13 in B♭ major, Op. 130*, written in 1825. When the publisher told him his 4th movement sucked, so Beethoven wrote a new last movement and simply swapped it in. Barely an inconvenience. _Interchangeable_. And the orphaned movement was simply published separately.


Dickens rewrote the ending of _Great Expectations_. Surely this doesn't mean chapters in Dickens' novels are interchangeable.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SONNET CLV said:


> I would suggest that the greatest elemental tie is motif or theme, and that a theme can bear a disguise that may need a bit of decoding before one recognizes it as related to the "theme" of one movement vs. another.


In pre-Romantic instrumental music, there are elemental ties that are "conceptual" (ie. in terms of 'general shape of melody' or 'general layout of form') rather than 'direct reuse of themes'. I think this is because the Classical instrumental style (at least in the 18th century) encourages neat, rigid form, but discourages:
1. Having themes in a movement that don't contribute to its development. -Having themes carelessly lying around in a movement as a way to achieve the movement's unity with other movements.
2. Having a gigantic finale movement (like Beethoven's 9th Symphony).

Classicism encourages large, multi-movement forms, (the bread-and-butter of Classical form). And in this idiom, if a composer keeps using similar themes in multiple movements of a work, things can get boring, -and leaves little room for him to introduce more variety of thematic material in the subsequent movements. 
But if he does both (keeps bringing in themes from previous movements AND introducing more themes in the subsequent movements), he would end up with something like Beethoven's 9th Symphony, and 18th century Classicism would not have allowed that.






I'm convinced that the solution to this was to use more indirect, "conceptual" factors to unify movements. For example, I find the kind of 'autistic' quality in Mozart K499 (that's not often found in his other works) interesting. In three of its movements, the first violin plays lines that feel like "heart beat fluctuations" in terms of ornamental shape and dynamics. (sort of like Friska from Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody No.2, I suppose). So in cases like this, I think the relationship (between movements) is not "directly thematic", but "indirectly conceptual". 









I. Allegretto (2:24)







III. Adagio (12:17)







IV. Allegro (20:40)








I know these portions aren't exactly similar in pitch, intervals, rhythm, but they give me similar impressions of effect. It could be argued they're just "stock phrases", but I think Mozart had an extraordinary sense of altering and allocating "stock phrases" in the right context. (The Lutheran hymn motif, 'D-C#-D-E-F' of the requiem is another good example.)







II. Menuetto (8:33)








-----------------
And btw, I also find it interesting that the 40th symphony has the descending chromatic fourth, G-F#-F-E-D#-D as its recurring concept: I / II (2nd violin, Bar 6) / III (bassoon, Bar 36) / IV



hammeredklavier said:


> Take for example, the 24th piano concerto, where the "double exposition" and "double solo counterpart" of the first movement are balanced by the "double variations" of the last movement. Or string quintet K515 where the outer movements share the common concept of rising chromatic scales in the inner parts.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

An example of movements having different thematic materials, but similar gestures:





abrupt, simultaneous whole rests in all 5 parts:
"The idea used in the first movement of an advancing momentum brought to a sudden
stop is again explored." 
(Elizabeth Dalton, 2016)
[ 0:22 ]
[ 27:00 ]








/

part-writing involving slurred half-notes and chromatically-driven eighth-note figures:
[ 4:15 ]
[ 28:06 ]








/

ascending chromatic figures accompanied by descending tones composed of longer note values:
[ 4:44 ]
[ 26:20 ]


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

*[ 1:21 ] (1. Adagio - Allegro)
[ 26:50 ] (3. Finale: Presto)*

These are of course not the only time Mozart uses loud chords in overture style, but we don't find the _same exact gesture_ in his other late symphonies. 
( "1 long loud chord -> soft answer -> 1 long loud chord -> soft answer -> ..." ) 
Not exactly "recalling of themes", but still an effective way to establish a proper sense of ending while retaining the "neat" Classical symphony format. It's worth pointing out the arpeggiated figures aren't in dotted-rhythm in this particular case (unlike a lot of his works in overture style). To me, the similarity gives an impression somewhat reminiscent of the linking of material in the outer allegros of Fantasie K608: [ 0:01 ] , [ 8:09 ]. 
Perhaps Mozart's way of thinking in this was somewhat close to the way in which he wrote the openings to the overture and "a cenar teco" of the opera he wrote for the Czech, the following year.

----------






Likewise, this is not the only time he uses the descending chromatic fourth from G to D: "*G-F#-F-E-Eb-D*", but in this work, it shows up in all movements, almost like a recurring concept.

*[ 0:54 ] ( 1. Molto allegro )*







*[ 1:03 ] ( 1. Molto allegro )*








*[ 6:26 ] ( 2. Andante )*


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

*[ 15:18 ] (3. Menuetto)*








*[ 19:29 ] (4. Allegro assai)*







*[ 22:16 ] (4. Allegro assai)*


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I've never been affected by unity or disunity in multiple movement music. It has always seemed to me the movements are intended to either create or less subtly build contrast between sections and that the beginning and end always seem to have more in common.

I once characterized the Mahler 7th symphony as an underwater excursion. The first movement was full of joy and anticipation of things to come. The second movement, a moderate piece labeled nachtmusik, was the vessel going down to the bottom. The central scherzo was the exercise of searching the ocean floor. The fourth movement, another nachtmusik piece at a marginally faster pace, was the excursion ended and the vessel returning to the surface. The finale, which begins with a boiseterous noise akin to Wagner's Meistersinger overture, is the joy and exhultation of a job completed and coming back to earth (or water.)

This metaphor helped me make sense of the music which is unusual in that it has five movements, two labeled night music, and has the odd nickname "song of the night."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Likewise, this is not the only time he uses the descending chromatic fourth from G to D: "*G-F#-F-E-Eb-D*", but in this work, it shows up in all movements, almost like a recurring concept.


descending arpeggiated diminished sevenths:

*I. Allegro con brio (1:22 , 6:14)*







*IV. Allegro (21:58)*













-----



hammeredklavier said:


> I think the most unsung masterpiece among Mozart's divertimentos is K.334. This one shows a lot of his "eccentricities" (ie. the first movement hesitatingly settling in the distantly-related key of F major to start development before going through a maze of chromaticism), which would be more fully expressed later in the "Haydn" quartets. So many interesting elements of contrast; not just diatonicism (in the expositions and minuets) vs. chromaticism (in the developments [2:50, 7:45, 9:55, 33:38] or trios [15:20, 25:00, 27:50]), but also other elements such as: the first two movements mirroring each other on similar motivic fragments (sonata-allegro in D major vs. variations in D minor) as the last two movements (minuet vs. rondo), the other movements (sonata-allgro vs. rondo-allegro) mirroring each other in the "bridge sections", etc.
> *1. Allegro (0:01)
> 2. Tema con variazioni (6:38)
> 1. Allegro (2:12)
> ...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"The energetic last movement, another sonata-form movement in 6/8 time, connects back to the first movement with its octave drop in the main theme."

























-----

"The finale starts off with a falling dotted fanfare motif similar to the one that starts the opening movement. The answering phrase and the movement's second theme have a contradanse character."

























-----

"The form is not a true italian overture or a da capo overture. The first movement unfolds as if in sonata form, with no expositional repeat. The two theme groups are stated amidst transitional material. Still in the first movement, a development begins that leads to the first theme of the exposition being worked in a number of keys. At the point where the music is in the dominant and seemingly ready to drop move the tonic for a recapitulation, the music segues to the slow movement. The slow movement is in rondo form (ABACAB). Again, right when the listener is expecting the rondo refrain to return, the music segues to the third movement, which continues the development of the first theme from the first movement before a "reverse recapitulation" is performed where the two themes of the first movement are recapitulated in opposite order."


----------

