# The importance of form in classical music



## dove (Sep 25, 2014)

Hello all,

I would love to hear your opinions. I was taught that the sophisticated forms and musical structures of the classical music from late baroque, through classical and romantic period, were one of the most important and defining qualities of this music. and so, for instance - if you are listening to a movement that is written in sonata form, but you don't know what a sonata form is, you might still be able to enjoy the melodies and beautiful colors - but you will miss one of the most essential aspects, the "developmental" quality of this music, the epos, the journey the music goes through, the plot. therefor you will never be able to fully appreciate this music. The sophisticated forms and structures of classical music are among it's main points of pride, makes it unique among other musics, and separates it from most pop music in that that it's also an intellectual music (not only emotional), because one needs to study it in order to fully appreciate it. so it appeals to the mind as well as to the heart.

I took this notion for granted, however when i present it i often encounter strong resistance. Do you agree with this notion? all of it? some of it? none? I would appreciate your answers. As you can tell I am not a native English speaker so forgive me for my English. Thank you!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

dove said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I would love to hear your opinions. I was taught that the sophisticated forms and musical structures of the classical music from late baroque, through classical and romantic period, were one of the most important and defining qualities of this music. and so, for instance - if you are listening to a movement that is written in sonata form, but you don't know what a sonata form is, you might still be able to enjoy the melodies and beautiful colors - but you will miss one of the most essential aspects, the "developmental" quality of this music, the epos, the journey the music goes through, the plot. therefor you will never be able to fully appreciate this music. The sophisticated forms and structures of classical music are among it's main points of pride, makes it unique among other musics, and separates it from most pop music in that that it's also an intellectual music (not only emotional), because one needs to study it in order to fully appreciate it. so it appeals to the mind as well as to the heart.
> 
> I took this notion for granted, however when i present it i often encounter strong resistance. Do you agree with this notion? all of it? some of it? none? I would appreciate your answers. As you can tell I am not a native English speaker so forgive me for my English. Thank you!


I don't accept that form is required for great music - I think it can actually get in the way. That said - I think sonata form generally works well - music needs contrasts and it's natural for a composer to write in such a way. Popular songs are often in a type of sonata form ababc(a)b - though, of course, their bridges (c) don't generally have nearly as much development.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

dove said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I would love to hear your opinions. I was taught that the sophisticated forms and musical structures of the classical music from late baroque, through classical and romantic period, were one of the most important and defining qualities of this music.


Three things.

1. It's not right to start with with "late baroque" Form was important, very important, to Ockegham for example, and to Abelard.

2. It's interesting you end with "romantic period" Form was important to Babbitt and Boulez.

3. I think Satie and Cage and Feldman blew away the idea that form is a central part of classical music. They may even have demonstrated that it is a _damaging _concept.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I’m a long-time listener and I rarely if ever think about sonata form or any other kind of form as a way to enjoy a particular piece of music. That kind of analysis is an intellectual process and I believe that the music is a way to free oneself from conscious thought. I don’t believe in thinking and thinking and thinking about the music while the music is going on. It can spoil the experience. I do not feel that it’s necessary to understand such things, but I do feel it can be an enjoyable experience to follow how ideas are developed, and that can be followed, learned or studied if one wants to. I believe you could learn but I think listeners benefit by not burdening themselves with certain expectations about what they need to do to enjoy the music. It can be enjoyed directly without analysis and elaborate explanations. I believe that most composers compose without expecting the audience to understand the mechanics of their works though some do because it’s of natural interest to them. I generally don’t think about form or keys or compositional techniques because I feel that’s up to the composer rather than the listener. The listener is intended to be on the receiving end without necessarily knowing what the composer does. I can’t remember the last time that I wondered about the form of a work though I could investigate it if I wanted to. I would rather focus on my instinctive reaction to what I’m hearing and that’s where the enjoyment comes in and that doesn’t require analysis but only direct experience.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ That is more or less how I feel, too. I don't think very much about how a composer achieves what s/he achieves. But I do like a sense that the music is going somewhere. I guess composers have many options for achieving that. Some music seems a bit directionless - perhaps more like a painting than a story - and that can be effective, too.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Some of the effects of what the form achieves like structure and counterpoint can be appreciated by listening only, like sonata form, fugues, canons, rondos. When you get into chromatic and atonal music, that is when it is less recognizable like Bartok's or Webern's canons.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Three things.
> 
> 3. I think Satie and Cage and Feldman blew away the idea that form is a central part of classical music. They may even have demonstrated that it is a _damaging _concept.


Such a claim is equally senseless as it is provocative. At best it may hold true as to these composers own music only.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

premont said:


> Such a claim is equally senseless as it is provocative. At best it may hold true as to these composers own music only.


And what of Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_? It's very episodic - moving from one section to another without much in the way of recapitulation; from memory, the quiet clarinet / flute trills section returns once I think.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Without form, you have a musical blob that defies comprehension. If there's one thing that separates truly great conductors from lesser, it's that the former have an firm grasp on the form of the music. They see the big picture. Furtwangler, Karajan, Walter, Reiner, Toscanini - masters of form. Why do some Bruckner recordings ramble? Because the conductor didn't do the analysis of the form. Lesser composers had trouble with form. Someone like Richard Wetz had all the technical skill you could imagine, yet his music often seems incoherent - he lacked control of form. A ballet like Rite of Spring of course is episodic - it's not a symphony and why would there be a recapitulation or any other trapping of Sonata-Allegro design? The great Tchaikovsky ballets are a collection of individual numbers, but I assure you that every single one of them has a formal design - sometimes the form is really simple to understand (Waltz of the Flowers) and sometimes more complex (Waltz of the Snowflakes). Form "simply" organizes the music into something the brain can follow. And yes, that's the problem with a lot of the crappy music written by the avant garde composers - in their monumental egotism they believed they could eschew form, they knew better than the great masters of the pass. They didn't, and the lack of interest in their music is deserved. Any successful art demands form, be it architecture, painting, dance, sculpture, theater. You the listener may be not be aware of how Mozart constructs a rondo, or how Brahms puts together a chaconne, but the ear surely picks it up.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

premont said:


> Such a claim is equally senseless as it is provocative.


If you look at music written over the past 30 or 40 years, so much of it is written intuitively, at least in the sense there seems to be hardly any system of composition or structure to the whole. I'm thinking of Eastman, Oliveros, Radigue, Feldman, Nono, Ferneyhough, Holliger, Merzbow.

Arguably all these composers have a "formal" debt to Satie, or maybe to Cage's interpretation of what Satie was doing.



premont said:


> At best it may hold true as to these composers own music only.


And that intuitive music seems to be part of mainstream classical music now, but clearly not in the past. I don't think anyone's saying that Brahms didn't write music in sonata form.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

It's true that form is considered a "point of pride" in classical music. I'm not sure the emphasis is warranted. An enormous amount of great music is basically ABA or theme and variations. There is also a large body of great music whose form is dictated by the Latin Ordinary mass or a handful of other liturgical texts. I don't think any of that music is inferior to the more formally complex music that came later.

That's just for the traditionalists. I also agree with Mandryka about form in more recent music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> Without form, you have a musical blob that defies comprehension..


No! Why? You could have a continuous organic evolution, like in this for example








mbhaub said:


> And yes, that's the problem with a lot of the crappy music written by the avant garde composers - in their monumental egotism they believed they could eschew form, they knew better than the great masters of the pass. They didn't, and the lack of interest in their music is deserved..


This just makes you sound like an old reactionary. Someone who's just not able to adapt to the new.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

The Satie has no form? Have you ever read the score? Listened to the music? It's organized clearly with phrases that are quite clearly heard. The use of repeated intervals and chords (very complex, too) gives it a sense of wholeness. The whole suite (all three) may have been an experiment in new forms, and it works. 

As to you last snarky comment. We've tried it - and it did not work! The average human brain insists on order (form) in practically everything, and that's one reason (among others) that popular songs are popular: they're easy to understand. They have formal balance, they make sense to the mind. I am well aware of "through-composed" works in many genres. (You think I didn't learn anything sitting through two semesters of Schenkarian Analysis?) But even those, like Urlicht from Mahler 2, have a form - it's just not a simple ABA one. The music I refer to is the atonal, "chance" music. Aleatoric. Some "difficult" composers like Carter, Babbitt, Ligeti, Stockhausen all understood the importance of form in their music, either on the small or grand scale. And most contemporary composers have figured it out too - form matters. Aaron Copland used to write about the essential elements of music: Melody, harmony, rhythm. Form certainly should be included. Read Hugo Leichtentrit, Jan LaRue, Walter Piston - they make a better case for the essence and need for form than I can.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I've been to plenty of concerts with people with no exposure to and little understanding of classical music. They got Beethoven's 5th and the Brandenburg concertos knowing diddly about sonata format. They also loved Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, the Hallelujan chorus and Tchaikovsky's First Piano Concerto too.

The same people, trying to sit through and enjoy a Mahler symphony, were lost. One commented to me once what he disliked about Mahler was, "He gets going in one direction and stops and goes somewhere else." This is the essence of Mahler.

I think the point is the greatest music speaks to everyone whether they know anything about music or not. Music that perhaps isn't so great and/or takes a lot of exposure to "get" may require either some knowledge of the way it's put together or greater patience.

Anyone that is a musician and/or understands sonata format has some advantage but it doesn't mean they enjoy music more. Most people that listen to CM aren't musicians just like those with great appreciation of cinema, art and literature typically are not filmmakers, painters or novelists. 

I am mostly self-taught and find the more I know is of little help in finding music I enjoy listening to at home or in concert. It is of great help in learning and performing new music, however.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm with mbhaub. "Form" is nothing more than audible relationships between one instant of music and another. It's simply the opposite of chaos or randomness. Form gives us a reason for one sound following another. It's what makes sounds more than mere sounds; its what makes them make sense; it's what makes them a "piece" of music; it's what makes sounds into music. 

Form can be highly patterned or very free and open-ended. It can function on a large time scale or moment by moment: even the simple repetition of a note or rhythm is form. We don't have to be conscious of its presence for it to have its effect. Form is therefore fundamental.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Does this music have a form?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> Does this music have a form?


There is more than one meaning of the term 'form' in music. There is one that includes short repetitions as in jazz solos. This Feldman piece has lots of repetition, so it does in a more basic sense.

https://canada.humankinetics.com/bl...ive-musical-form-with-repetition-and-contrast


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

So, let me get this straight...

If classical music does not follow sonata form, it does not have _any_ form?

Yeah...

Not buying it.

I hear form in late 20th and contemporary classical, despite not having sonata form.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Does this music have a form?


Absolutely! It sets forth a motif and subjects it to repetition and variation.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> Without form, you have a musical blob that defies comprehension. If there's one thing that separates truly great conductors from lesser, it's that the former have an firm grasp on the form of the music. They see the big picture. Furtwangler, Karajan, Walter, Reiner, Toscanini - masters of form. Why do some Bruckner recordings ramble? Because the conductor didn't do the analysis of the form. Lesser composers had trouble with form. Someone like Richard Wetz had all the technical skill you could imagine, yet his music often seems incoherent - he lacked control of form. A ballet like Rite of Spring of course is episodic - it's not a symphony and why would there be a recapitulation or any other trapping of Sonata-Allegro design? The great Tchaikovsky
> ballets are a collection of individual numbers, but I assure you that every single one of them has a formal design - sometimes the form is really simple to understand (Waltz of the Flowers) and sometimes more complex (Waltz of the Snowflakes). Form "simply" organizes the music into something the brain can follow. And yes, that's the problem with a lot of the crappy music written by the avant garde composers - in their monumental egotism they believed they could eschew form, they knew better than the great masters of the pass. They didn't, and the lack of interest in their music is deserved. Any successful art demands form, be it architecture, painting, dance, sculpture, theater. You the listener may be not be aware of how Mozart constructs a rondo, or how Brahms puts together a chaconne, but the ear surely picks it up.


 I don't think avantgarde composers of the 20th century "abandoned " form . They developed new ways of constructing musical compositions, whether you like the way they have constructed them or not . They have also brought aleatory, or chance elements into some of them, and John Cage often used pure chance elements in his music . It oftener requires repeated hearings before you understand the more complex and esoteric works of certain composers . 
Philip Glass writes music based on repetition , but Elliott Carter wrote music that is so lacking in repetition it's extremely difficult to follow on first hearing . But Carter was a master composer whose music shows amazing craftsmanship . You never get the feeling of returning to the opening theme , because he pretty much abandoned the use of themes . In Schoenberg's 12 tone works, there ARE still recognizable themes which are actually not difficult to recognize . But once you get accustomed to it, Carter's music no longer seems chaotic .


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> The music I refer to is the atonal, "chance" music. Aleatoric.


This seems a narrow area of CM. Yet your earlier post seemed to dismiss the value of whole swathes of 'modern' music. Please correct me if I'm misreading you.

For some of us, there is satisfaction to be gained in listening to music, 'getting it' without being able to identify the component parts and their names. At other times, it's useful to have some pointers (not labels) that say, "See what Mahler is doing here...and this bit...and how he returns to this theme, but with a variation."

So, if the question is, "Is form important to the listener's understanding?", my answer is, it depends on the listener's needs.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Here's a better example of formless classical music maybe, which judging by its reception is very well appreciated


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

What is form made up of? Variation or changes in blocks that are larger than a few notes. Playing with the melody or the rhythm or dynamics or "voicing" (such as different instruments). It is hard to see how any music can totally lack form. I suppose form may be unplanned or can appear to lack a coherent or rational structure - indeed that might be closer to nature (in the way that landscapes usually are). The OP is about the _importance _of form, the role form plays in the music we experience. If we can accept all music has form and relies upon it (as well as other qualities) to do what it does then we can look at how form influences what we experience when listening to different music. It may turn out that some of us only enjoy music with formal structures while others are also (or only) interested in music with a looser approach to form.

I wonder if we can map from the earliest days the dominant forms and structure of different periods?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

The reason I posted the Feldman is that he denied having a compositional system, he said he was proceeding entirely intuitively. I don't know how Oliveros composed, the music seems formless to me, but it is very popular in some circles. Another example would be something like the Cage etudes, where he used random processes to compose, but I'm not quite sure how. Something like this seems to me to be without any form.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Here's a better example of formless classical music maybe, which judging by its reception is very well appreciated


Not formless at all. It exhibits one of the most basic of formal principles: unity (provided fundamentally by the drone or pedal point, the persistent return of the fifth above it, and then by the return of certain other scale tones at varying intervals) within variety. It also exhibits the formal principle of growth and metamorphosis, moving gradually toward a greater richness of harmony and figuration. This sort of slowly evolving sonority and figuration is far from new; Wagner did it (in far less time ) in the prelude to _Das Rheingold: _






Of course some accused Wagner of being formless too. It's just a matter of expanding our notion of form.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> The reason I posted the Feldman is that he denied having a compositional system, he said he was proceeding entirely intuitively. I don't know how Oliveros composed, the music seems formless to me, but it is very popular in some circles. Another example would be something like the Cage etudes, where he used random processes to compose, but I'm not quite sure how. Something like this seems to me to be without any form.


Ah yes. Random processes. Even Nora the piano cat would turn up her whiskers at this. It's the sort of thing that would cause most humans, undoctrinated by cultural dogma, to ask the violinist, "Jeez, why don't you play something?"


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Costello: You seem like a nice young man, what do you for a living?
Abbott: I'm a composer.
C: What kind of music do you write?
A: Aleatoric music!
C: Well, what's aleatoric music?
A: It's random?
C: What's random?
A:The music is random!
C: And you "write" it?
A: Yes, I'm an aleatoric composer.
C: Of random music?
A: Yes!
C: That you wrote?
A: Yes!
C: How do you know what music to write next?
A: I don't, it's random!
C: So you're a composer of random music that you didn't write?
A: Correct, I'm an aleatoric composer!
C: So if I go to a concert of your music, I'll hear music that you didn't write?
A: Yes!
C: And this is a job?
A: Yes!
C: That they pay you for?
A: Yes!
C: So, you're a composer who gets paid not to write music!
A: Yes!

And so on!


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

I don't think it's possible for any sound, musical or not, to be without form, at least in a very abstract sense. Any sound, including musical ones, by their very nature will always have a clear beginning, a middle, and an end to it, which can be said to be a rudimentary "form" of some kind. All sounds inherently have form.


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2019)

Returning to the original post, I think that form is central to classical music, especially to the larger scale structures. Form doesn't have to be slavish compliance with a strict form. I think of the Liszt Sonata in b minor, which seems to superimpose two forms, a conventional four movement form with blurry boundaries, in which the movements are the exposition, development and recapitulation of a single movement sonata form. I am less sympathetic with the claim that you are not appreciating the music fully if you are not consciously aware of form. You can enjoy music in different ways. Form is a tool for the composer to use. I personally get some pleasure from recognizing the form of a piece, but sometimes I just prefer to let the music wash over me, so to speak.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> I don't think it's possible for any sound, musical or not, to be without form, at least in a very abstract sense. Any sound, including musical ones, by their very nature will always have a clear beginning, a middle, and an end to it, which can be said to be a rudimentary "form" of some kind. All sounds inherently have form.


Well, yeah, EVERYTHING has form, or it isn't ANYTHING. How does that addresses the subject of form in music?


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Well, yeah, EVERYTHING has form, or it isn't ANYTHING. How does that addresses the subject of form in music?


Just responding to Mandryka's repeated attempts to post example after example of music without form. Post 24 for example. But there is no such thing. All music, no matter what it is, has a form of some kind.

That's how.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> Just responding to Mandryka's repeated attempts to post example after example of music without form. Post 24 for example. But there is no such thing. All music, no matter what it is, has a form of some kind.
> 
> That's how.


Cage's experiments with pure chance lack intentional, meaningful form. That's really the crux of the matter. To have form merely by virtue of existing isn't of much use, is it? There's no art in it.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Cage's experiments with pure chance lack intentional, meaningful form. That's really the crux of the matter. To have form merely by virtue of existing isn't of much use, is it? There's no art in it.


Cage would be the first to disagree with you that there is no art in unintentional forms. For example, the very idea of ever-changing forms that are different each time the piece is performed has artistic merit in and of itself and can be very interesting. And letting things just be themselves and act without any outside influences and manipulation can be rewarding as an observer and appeal to one's artistic sense and appreciation of nature. Cage did indeed show that there can be art in the "virtue of existing".

But this is all a red herring. Mandryka is proposing that certain music is without form, or beyond any kind of functional analysis. But even pure chance experiments can be dissected in meaningful ways. As I said previously, no matter what sounds are happening, anything has a distinct beginning, middle, and end, whether it is a Feldman piece that lasts hours or something as simple as a single handclap. (And these sections can oftentimes be divided into smaller subgroups). Each of these three or more sections can therefore be compared and contrasted with one another in terms of various musical/sonic qualities and an analytical form will emerge (meaningful or otherwise). How did the sound(s) change or not change from beginning, middle, to end? Dynamics? Timbre? Articulation? Pitch? Rhythm? Repetition? Variation? Was there cohesion? Lack of cohesion? This still applies even when Cage is moving water through a conch shell or when he drank carrot juice with a contact microphone on his throat. Doesn't matter. Can be simple or complex forms. Anything can be dissected in meaningful ways.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Maybe we need to distinguish trivial form, which everything has by virtue of coming to exist as a finite object in time, and real form.

Not an easy distinction to make, as you can see by the trouble I had to take ( finite, coming to exist etc)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Maybe we need to distinguish trivial form, which everything has by virtue of coming to exist as a finite object in time, and real form.
> 
> Not an easy distinction to make, as you can see by the trouble I had to take ( finite, coming to exist etc)


Precisely what I said to Torkelburger, but he isn't having it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I would view the study of form as an additional pleasure but not necessarily an essential one. Not everyone is technically minded or gifted in music knowledge to follow its simple or complex organization when present. But I do believe that one can sense the results of form even if one cannot necessarily explain it as a way that certain themes and musical ideas are developed. The idea is not to make a problem out of the listening experience and to simply notice one’s reactions of pleasure or mystification. If everything could be understood and explained the art probably wouldn’t be worth it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> Cage would be the first to disagree with you that there is no art in unintentional forms. And letting things just be themselves and act without any outside influences and manipulation can be rewarding as an observer and appeal to one's artistic sense and appreciation of nature. Cage did indeed show that there can be art in the "virtue of existing".


The existence of form in everything doesn't mean that there's art in everything. Not even our ability to perceive aesthetic qualities in natural sounds makes them music, except metaphorically. If music is "anything we listen to," and musical "composition" can be by chance or accident, then "music" is a useless term.



> For example, the very idea of ever-changing forms that are different each time the piece is performed has artistic merit in and of itself and can be very interesting.


Why does the mere fact that a performance can't be duplicated exactly have "artistic merit"? Could the attempt to duplicate something exactly have merit as well? Why would either have merit?



> Even pure chance experiments can be dissected in meaningful ways.


Is the following offered as a _meaningful_ dissection?



> As I said previously, no matter what sounds are happening, *anything has a distinct beginning, middle, and end,* whether it is a Feldman piece that lasts hours or something as simple as a single handclap. (And these *sections can oftentimes be divided into smaller subgroups*). *Each of these three or more sections can therefore be compared and contrasted* with one another in terms of various musical/sonic qualities and *an analytical form will emerge (meaningful or otherwise*). How did the sound(s) change or not change from beginning, middle, to end? Dynamics? Timbre? Articulation? Pitch? Rhythm? Repetition? Variation? Was there cohesion? Lack of cohesion? This still applies even when Cage is moving water through a conch shell or when he drank carrot juice with a contact microphone on his throat. Doesn't matter. Can be simple or complex forms. *Anything can be dissected in meaningful ways.*


It all depends on what you consider "meaningful." What's the meaning of merely noting that everything in the universe has form, and describing that form? I'm 5'8" and have unusually long arms. Is that meaningful, or merely factual? Does it make me a work of art?

I just produced a piece of "music" which consisted of reheating the remains of my coffee in the microwave. The hum of the microwave had a beginning, a middle and an end. The pitch of the hum was constant throughout. The dynamic level was also constant, and at the end three little high-pitched beeping sounds concluded the piece. I did not control the process except to initiate it, which apparently makes me a composer who has demonstrated the aesthetic virtue of "letting things just be themselves and act without any outside influences and manipulation."

I agree that all music - like all things - has form. But not all sounds having form constitute music, and not all music having form is good music. You can read "meaning" into anything.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Critics first accused Schumann of being formless and incomprehensible because of his piano works that didn't follow sonata form. He essentially invented the piano suite.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I don't doubt the importance of form in classical music. 
I do think that music (in general) can also be art without adhering to an established form in any degree.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> The existence of form in everything doesn't mean that there's art in everything.


I have no idea where you think I said that. I said all sounds have form. And I am saying there is only one meaning of form. I am saying Cage sought to show there could be artistic value in all sounds. Whether you or I agree with Cage is a discussion for another thread. Please note however, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with FORM. As hard as you may try to shoehorn aesthetics and philosophy into it, it has nothing to do with it. Sorry.


> Not even our ability to perceive aesthetic qualities in natural sounds makes them music, except metaphorically.


Again, Cage and his followers would disagree with you. Whether I do or not is discussion for another thread. Still has nothing to do with form, despite how hard you want it to.


> If music is "anything we listen to," and musical "composition" can be by chance or accident, then "music" is a useless term.


Cage and his followers considered those things and seemed to use the term just fine.


> Why does the mere fact that a performance can't be duplicated exactly have "artistic merit"?


One of the strong points of jazz, really. Honestly, you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. If you can't see why a composer or performer might find it exciting, artistically pleasing, interesting, etc. to have a completely unexpected and surprising outcome of the realization of musical instructions, well, that's YOUR problem. There is no need to explain this. Use your brain.


> Could the attempt to duplicate something exactly have merit as well?


This question is so stupid and insulting it does not deserve an answer.


> Why would either have merit?


If you have a set of boundaries as in an aleatoric score or the chord changes in a bebop tune for example, it would take a certain amount of artistic merit to keep coming up with something different each time you play it. Further, I would find it quite impressive and with high merit if someone could duplicate something *exactly* each time they played it. Especially if it initially was improvised over a long period. You need not agree, however.


> Is the following offered as a meaningful dissection?


Yes, it was.


> It all depends on what you consider "meaningful." What's the meaning of merely noting that everything in the universe has form, and describing that form?


Describing that form, in detail, does in fact, have meaning. I just don't think it means what you want it to mean.


> I'm 5'8" and have unusually long arms. Is that meaningful, or merely factual? Does it make me a work of art?


You see, this is the problem. You want form to mean something it is not. Form describes music in the sum of its parts and describes how those parts are related. Whether it be a contrapuntal form, sectional form, variation form, or free form. That's all it does. It does NOT address what makes a piece a "work of art". It does not state what the "meaning" of the piece is or deal with "why is this piece beautiful?" Form is not discovering "on what basis is chocolate better than vanilla?" or "why are roses prettier than marigolds?" Aesthetics has nothing to do with it. It is about seeing the piece in its individual building blocks and labeling them according to their quantifiable attributes. Is the piece in sections and the first section is related to the second section? Yes? You can label it A-A. No? A-B. Does the section contain two phrases? Label it a period. Etc. It's clinical, boring, analytical, and academic. Nothing to do with pipe-dreams, magic behind the notes, artistic merit, or special meanings behind the notes (other than note relations). Sorry.


> I just produced a piece of "music" which consisted of reheating the remains of my coffee in the microwave. The hum of the microwave had a beginning, a middle and an end. The pitch of the hum was constant throughout. The dynamic level was also constant, and at the end three little high-pitched beeping sounds concluded the piece.


Agreed. In the Cage-ian sense it is a piece of music. With the opening and closing of the door you could label the form as a kind of ternary A-B-A' (opening door, hum, beep+door).


> I did not control the process except to initiate it, which apparently makes me a composer who has demonstrated the aesthetic virtue of "letting things just be themselves and act without any outside influences and manipulation."


Yes, in the Cage-ian sense.


> I agree that all music - like all things - has form.
> But not all sounds having form constitute music, and not all music having form is good music.


Again, that has nothing to do with form, nor what we are talking about, even though you keep trying to shoehorn it in.


> You can read "meaning" into anything.


Which includes "form"...for you, anyway.


----------



## dove (Sep 25, 2014)

Thank you all for your answers. I will clarify:

I didn't mean that a classical music listener ought to sit at a concert ant note to himself "I see that we are now at the recapitulation. How nice. and here is a perfect authentic cadence!" in order to appreciate the music. But I do think that one needs at least a sense of form, a notion that the music has a direction, that it evolves, develops. If you know that than you can appreciate it in real time even subconsciously, and this is the greatness of this music, this is where the intellect and the emotions, the mind and the heart - connect. Beautiful melodies a colors but they are a part of a greater story. If we are saying that Beethoven offers to his listener only melodies, feelings and colors, that the structure isn't important, we are applying pop music's values onto classical music. This is why we have guides on how to listen to classical music, like the excellent Robert Greenbergs "How To Listen To And Understand Great Music", that dedicates about 75% to the study of forms. Why do you even need a guide? because the average pop listener comes to classical music expecting to simply hear melodies that will excite him, touch him, make him cry, and, more often than not he gets disappointed and bored, he looses grip on the music because he doesn't understand it's "plot" - it's structure, so what does the music has to offer him? A pop listener think of music in a "momentarily" way, "do i like the sound that I am hearing at the moment? Does it make me feel good?" and classical music is simply not about that, it offers more than that. I am of course not talking about most 20 century's classical music which had become something completely different.


----------



## dove (Sep 25, 2014)

I didn't mean that a classical music listener ought to sit at a concert ant note to himself "I see that we are now at the recapitulation. How nice. and here is a perfect authentic cadence!" in order to appreciate the music. But I do think that one needs at least a sense of form, a notion that the music has a direction, that it evolves, develops. If you know that than you can appreciate it in real time even subconsciously, and this is the greatness of this music, this is where the intellect and the emotions, the mind and the heart - connect. Beautiful melodies a colors but they are a part of a greater story. If we are saying that Beethoven offers to his listener only melodies, feelings and colors, that the structure isn't important, we are applying pop music's values onto classical music. This is why we have guides on how to listen to classical music, like the excellent Robert Greenbergs "How To Listen To And Understand Great Music", that dedicates about 75% to the study of forms. Why do you even need a guide? because the average pop listener comes to classical music expecting to simply hear melodies that will excite him, touch him, make him cry, and, more often than not he gets disappointed and bored, he looses grip on the music because he doesn't understand it's "plot" - it's structure, so what does the music has to offer him? A pop listener think of music in a "momentarily" way, "do i like the sound that I am hearing at the moment? Does it make me feel good?" and classical music is simply not about that, it offers more than that. I am of course not talking about most 20 century's classical music which had become something completely different.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> I have no idea where you think I said that. I said all sounds have form.


There's no reason to respond to a discussion of FORM IN MUSIC by observing that ALL sounds have form, unless you want to contend, with Cage, that all sounds are music. If you aren't contending that, the observation is trivial at best, and certainly doesn't address the subject of this thread. We agree that all music has form, but to say that it has form merely because sound itself has form is to say nothing about music AS MUSIC and surely doesn't address what Mandryka is inquiring about.



> And I am saying there is only one meaning of form.


That's not true. With respect to music, form, in one meaning, is a constructive device; in another meaning, its a vehicle of expression. Of course, it's often both at once. The perception of form is both a pleasure in itself and an apprehension of something expressed or communicated.



> I am saying Cage sought to show there could be artistic value in all sounds. Whether you or I agree with Cage is a discussion for another thread. Please note however, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with FORM. As hard as you may try to shoehorn aesthetics and philosophy into it, it has nothing to do with it. Sorry.


And _I_ am saying that the fact that sounds have form doesn't necessarily tell us anything about music, and that there's no art in the mere existence of form in things. Is that too much philosophy? Apparently not, as you then went off on the ideas of Cage, who arguably palmed off philosophy AS music. And by the way, how are philosophy and aesthetics not relevant to a thread entitled "The Importance of Form in Classical Music"?



> Cage and his followers considered those things and seemed to use the term ["music"] just fine.


I said that "Cage's experiments with pure chance lack _intentional, meaningful_ form." Pure chance does not create art, regardless of whether the sounds that happen to occur are interesting to someone and regardless of the fact that they have form. Sounds are the raw materials of music, not the definition of it. Form resulting from the INTENTIONAL organization of sound is the first condition of music, as the concept of art - as opposed to inhuman nature - assumes intention at the very least. That is of course a statement of aesthetic philosophy. I won't argue it further.



> Use your brain.


I try. I really do. Don't be a meanie.



> This question is so stupid and insulting it does not deserve an answer.


Thanks.



> If you have a set of boundaries as in an aleatoric score or the chord changes in a bebop tune for example, it would take a certain amount of artistic merit to keep coming up with something different each time you play it. Further, I would find it quite impressive and with high merit if someone could duplicate something *exactly* each time they played it. Especially if it initially was improvised over a long period. You need not agree, however.


Yes, I do agree with those things.



> You see, this is the problem. You want form to mean something it is not.


I don't "want" form to mean anything. The word means what it means. It isn't up to me.



> Form describes music in the sum of its parts and describes how those parts are related. Whether it be a contrapuntal form, sectional form, variation form, or free form. That's all it does. It does NOT address what makes a piece a "work of art".


It most certainly does. It depends on how deeply you wish to consider "the importance of form in classical music," where you think form in music comes from, how it arises in the creative process, what forms it can take and why it takes them, etc.



> It does not state what the "meaning" of the piece is or deal with "why is this piece beautiful?" Form is not discovering "on what basis is chocolate better than vanilla?" or "why are roses prettier than marigolds?" Aesthetics has nothing to do with it.


Aesthetics is more than a theory of beauty.



> It is about seeing the piece in its individual building blocks and labeling them according to their quantifiable attributes. Is the piece in sections and the first section is related to the second section? Yes? You can label it A-A. No? A-B. Does the section contain two phrases? Label it a period. Etc. It's clinical, boring, analytical, and academic.


Not to a composer.



> Nothing to do with pipe-dreams, magic behind the notes, artistic merit, or special meanings behind the notes (other than note relations). Sorry.


Form as a vehicle of meaning is not a magical pipe dream.



> With the opening and closing of the [microwave] door you could label the form as a kind of ternary A-B-A' (opening door, hum, beep+door). In the Cage-ian sense it is a piece of music.


Great. I will think of Cage when next I use my microwave, and of the musical work I and Whirlpool are creating. 



> Again, that has nothing to do with form, nor what we are talking about, even though you keep trying to shoehorn it in.


When I said that the fact that sounds have form doesn't necessarily tell us anything about music, and that there's no art in the mere existence of form in things, you responded, "Cage would be the first to disagree with you that there is no art in unintentional forms. And letting things just be themselves and act without any outside influences and manipulation can be rewarding as an observer and appeal to one's artistic sense and appreciation of nature. Cage did indeed show that there can be art in the 'virtue of existing'."

That's quite a lot for someone who doesn't think aesthetics are relevant.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> There's no reason to respond to a discussion of FORM IN MUSIC by observing that ALL sounds have form, unless you want to contend, with Cage, that all sounds are music.


Incorrect. My point was if all sound has form, then all music has form. I certainly didn't say there's art in everything *because* there's form in everything, which is what you said I said.


> If you aren't contending that, the observation is trivial at best, and certainly doesn't address the subject of this thread. We agree that all music has form, but to say that it has form merely because sound itself has form is to say nothing about music AS MUSIC and surely doesn't address what Mandryka is inquiring about.


No, I addressed how *MUSIC* of ANY nature-conservative or avant-garde--(which would address Mandryka's concerns) could be analyzed as having FORM (the same way you'd analyze a piece from centuries ago) in post 33 in detail (and even gave an example in a later post for your microwave (ABA'). I don't see how there's anything the least bit offensive or controversial about this. And no, I didn't talk about what makes music beautiful and lovely and memorable and wishy-washy and all those things you keep wishing form was about. That's a wild goose chase and nonsense. And what I said wasn't trivial.


> in another meaning, its a vehicle of expression.


Baloney. You are making this up and talking out of where the sun don't shine. I want you to give a source for this statement, preferably a textbook. Wikipedia makes no mention of it. Not even close to any suggestion of such a thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_form


> Of course, it's often both at once.


More baloney you made up. Source please?


> The perception of form is both a pleasure in itself and an apprehension of something expressed or communicated.


More sources needed. And the keyword here is *perception*. Interpretation of form and form itself are two different things.


> And I am saying that the fact that sounds have form doesn't necessarily tell us anything about music, and that there's no art in the mere existence of form in things. Is that too much philosophy?


I know what you're saying. You've said it over and over and over again and again. Doesn't matter. I guess I'll say mine again too-the fact you feel there's "no art" in certain "pieces" or just sounds has NOTHING to do with form. Nada. Zilch.

And it doesn't need to tell you about music. It still APPLIES to music, however. Musically, you can analyze an avant-garde piece today the same way you can a piece from a century ago (ABA, Th and Var., etc.).

I may be opening a can of worms here but as an example it's like you're saying the notes C,C#,D can't be considered as harmony because it's not a triad and "there's no art in it". It's still considered a chord and this day and age considered harmony and composers create art with it all the time. The fact you feel there's "no art in it" doesn't change the fact that it is still harmony.


> I said that "Cage's experiments with pure chance lack intentional, meaningful form."


Sigh. Doesn't change the fact that it HAS form, which is the only concern we are talking about. Doesn't matter that you don't find it "meaningful" or don't like the fact it wasn't "intentional". Everything else you keep babbling about over and over again ad nauseum has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with form, despite your repeated attempts to make it so. It is a topic for another thread. Cage, his followers, and many on this site would disagree with your statements on the matter BTW. Some people might feel C,C#,D lacks intentional, meaningful harmony, but they'd be wrong. It's still harmony. And many composers have made it meaningful in musical contexts.


> I don't "want" form to mean anything. The word means what it means. It isn't up to me.


You want it to mean "a vehicle of expression" which granted, is vague, clouded, and superfluous, purposefully to suit your needs, but nonetheless incorrect.


> It most certainly does. It depends on how deeply you wish to consider "the importance of form in classical music," where you think form in music comes from, how it arises in the creative process, what forms it can take and why it takes them, etc.


Give a source then for your assertion, because I think you are 100% wrong and making this nonsense up. I have seen no textbook discuss form and its relation to what makes a piece a "work of art". Utter nonsense. Back that wild assertion up. Wikipedia makes no mention of it. Not even close.


> Aesthetics is more than a theory of beauty.


And still has nothing to do with form.


> Not to a composer.


So a composer writes a fugue by coincidence? A sonata form gets written by accident? Sounds like your confusing form with the actual process of composing. I'm a composer and I always have some idea of what form the piece is going to take when I'm writing. But form is not the same thing as composing.


> Form as a vehicle of meaning is not a magical pipe dream.


Still waiting for any source showing form as a "vehicle of meaning". When someone asks the form of the piece, no one says "The form is good versus evil. And good wins!" That's theme. It's extra-musical description. Not musical and not form. Even if the composer puts a "victory theme" in the recap or something, the form is still "sonata form". Form is the structure of the piece and nothing more. The interpretation of the music within the piece is totally separate. "Meaning" in music is very subjective anyway and is not an exact science. It's quite debatable if a note or notes can "mean" anything at all. Besides, form, even if a vehicle of meaning, would not be any different than melody or harmony or any other musical attribute regarding conveying "meaning".


> That's quite a lot for someone who doesn't think aesthetics are relevant.


Well, at least I didn't bring it up. This whole thing started with your comment "there's no art in it" which has nothing to do with the fact there was form in the music being discussed. That's just a statement of your own prejudice.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2019)

Cage could just be wrong too, of course.

Besides, I think the OP had something much less cerebral in mind than recondite wrangles about what is 'form'.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Torkelburger said:


> Incorrect. My point was if all sound has form, then all music has form. I certainly didn't say there's art in everything *because* there's form in everything, which is what you said I said.
> 
> No, I addressed how *MUSIC* of ANY nature-conservative or avant-garde--(which would address Mandryka's concerns) could be analyzed as having FORM (the same way you'd analyze a piece from centuries ago) in post 33 in detail (and even gave an example in a later post for your microwave (ABA'). I don't see how there's anything the least bit offensive or controversial about this. And no, I didn't talk about what makes music beautiful and lovely and memorable and wishy-washy and all those things you keep wishing form was about. That's a wild goose chase and nonsense. And what I said wasn't trivial.
> 
> ...


It's clear that you are not an artist of any kind (as I have been all my life, in both music and visual art). If you were, the idea of form as the vehicle of meaning, and the centrality of that idea in understanding art, would not be unknown to you.

Rather than continue a useless debate and find myself buried under a growing mound of insults, I'll just suggest that you read Suzanne K. Langer on art and see if she provokes any thought. With regard to music in particular, start with Leonard B. Meyer's "Emotion and Meaning in Music." You might also investigate the concept of "cross-domain mapping."


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> It's clear that you are not an artist of any kind


Visit the Todays Composers much?...
Adam Torkelson, Internationally-Awarded and Performed Composer
Resume
Partial list of contests won:
-Theatre of New Music Ensemble Call for Scores - Performance in Saratov, Russia (Saratov State Conservatory) of "Blasted Heath" for String Quartet Performance available on youtube
-Appearance on major classical label Ablaze Records -- Millennial Masters Vol. 6 - "Blasted Heath" for String Quartet selected from hundreds of submissions. Released on amazon, naxos library of America, itunes
-The World Oceans Music Ensemble Chorus Call for Scores - Performance of choir piece in Europe
-The Cypress (TX) Symphonic Band Call For Scores 2015 - performance and recording available on youtube
-The Collaborative Miniature Project - dissonART Ensemble - performance in Greece and recording on youtube
-Vox Novus / Fifteen Minutes of Fame Call For Scores - "Romance" for Clarinet performed in Spain and recorded by Javier Perez Garrido available on youtube
More available if requested

All but 1 of the above posted on this site at one point in the past

People seem to write and profess all sorts of things about their ideas about art and music. Cage did the same. Doesn't make him right or anyone else right. But I'll check them out if I come across them!


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Scrolls down.....scrolls down.....scrolls down...scrolls down

- Played French horn, bass, and sang off key for a 60's boy band.

Sorry, it's my TC Tourette's acting up again.


----------

