# Form?



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

I'm sure many on this forum have read something like this at some point:

Bach is the Master of Harmony
Mozart is the Master of Melody
Beethoven is the Master of Form

What is the best way to understand form? Obviously, Beethoven cannot compete with Bach or Mozart in harmony or melody. But what is it in Beethoven's use of form that is superior to the other two? I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Muddy said:


> I'm sure many on this forum have read something like this at some point:
> 
> Bach is the Master of Harmony
> Mozart is the Master of Melody
> ...


Uh well where did you read that?


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

Umm, not sure it's so black and white as you make out but I can tell you why people respect Beethoven's formal qualities so much. Leonard Bernstein called Beethoven the great master of form because he thought Beethoven had an unsurpassed ability to find the _right next note_. In the best pieces of Beethoven, every note sounds inevitable in the smaller scale of a phrase _and_ in the larger scale of a movement (I've always thought the openng movement of the Eroica is the greatest example of this in all music; as I've said before, I cannot think of a single large scale movement more convincingly wrought than this).

A second reason is Beethoven's treatment of form in his late period, where he showed how pieces could be structured coherently without adhering to standard forms (for instance, this remark from Bartok: 'Debussy's great service to music was to reawaken among all musicians an awareness of harmony and its possibilities. In that, he was just as important as Beethoven, who revealed to us the possibilities of progressive form, and Bach, who showed he transcendent significance of counterpoint'.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

I would call Beethoven the master of development, not form. 

I would also call Wagner the master of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven; giving them each their individual talents while with his one Ring he binds and rules them all. 

Another way to think of it is Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are the Three Stooges and Wagner is Jesus.


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

Violadude, I don't remember where I read it, but I have read conclusions such as that in my internet explorations, etc. You can't research classical music without running full speed into the "top three" composers. My own listening has agreed with historical conclusions.

Beethoven was my first "God!" 30 years ago, walkman in hand (and ears) I walked the streets of my hometown, listening to Ludwig! I do believe I conducted as I walked, probably freaking out my neighbors (and Buck, my dog)! There could be NOTHING greater than Beethoven!

Since then, I have discovered Mozart, and more recently (THANKFULLY)...*Bach*, among many others! Of the "Top 3," Beethoven's music seems the most unpolished, the most clumsy. Yet there is a power in the music, and his sublime slow music is unmatched! So I think the gist of my thread is...why? What distinguishes Beethoven's music that he is still a finalist in the greatest composer ever contest? I agree that he belongs there!! But the explanation that I read the most is that Beethoven was THE Master of Form! Hence this thread.

Jalex, thanks for the response. To clarify, I don't think the question is black and white at all, though my initial post suggests that I believe it is. I hope the preceding clears that up.

And Couchie...thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

Muddy said:


> Beethoven's music seems the most unpolished, the most clumsy. Yet there is a power in the music, and his sublime slow music is unmatched! So I think the gist of my thread is...why? What distinguishes Beethoven's music that he is still a finalist in the greatest composer ever contest? I agree that he belongs there!! But the explanation that I read the most is that Beethoven was THE Master of Form! Hence this thread.


The short answer as to Beethoven's contributions to music would be a combination of the following:

1) Constant organic motivic development
2) Contextual use of form
3) The use of remote key areas and pivot modulations
4) The use of rhythmic motifs as thematic material unto itself
5) The view of music as artistic self-expression and confessional
6) The rejection of Classical Era emotional restraint

For a more detailed (VERY detailed) journey through Beethoven's compositional craft and the historical context in which it developed I highly recommend this course from The Great Courses. NOTE - wait until it goes on sale to purchase it. The audio download is marvelous and on sale you can get all 32 lectures plus all the word score guides for about $50. Best purchase I ever made.

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=730


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

jalex said:


> Umm, not sure it's so black and white as you make out but I can tell you why people respect Beethoven's formal qualities so much. *Leonard Bernstein called Beethoven the great master of form because he thought Beethoven had an unsurpassed ability to find the right next note.* In the best pieces of Beethoven, every note sounds inevitable in the smaller scale of a phrase _and_ in the larger scale of a movement (I've always thought the openng movement of the Eroica is the greatest example of this in all music; as I've said before, I cannot think of a single large scale movement more convincingly wrought than this).


Bernstein writes about Beethoven's unparalleled ability to find the "right next note" in his "imaginary conversation" _Why Beethoven?_ (Though I don't think he uses this as an explanation for why Beethoven is the master of form - if I remember correctly, he rejects form, along with melody and harmony, as the source of Beethoven's greatness.) This is a wonderful piece that I highly recommend to everybody and it appears in Bernstein's book _The Joy of Music._ *Jalex,* you may well have already read it, since you're talking about the "right next note." *Muddy*, you should.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Muddy said:


> I'm sure many on this forum have read something like this at some point:
> 
> Bach is the Master of Harmony
> Mozart is the Master of Melody
> ...


If you mean the _concept_ 'form', as applied to Beethoven's music, It could help to first contemplate form in another sense - as an architect may treat it. There are plan views, and a series of detail drawings that make what the plan views represent possible. Music as a construct.

I suspect that it is possible to represent a symphony on paper as an edifice, complete with plan views and 'pull-out' detail drawings. It would be useless to the musicians, maybe useless period, but still... that approach would surely 'bring out' the _form_.

:tiphat:


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

Muddy said:


> I'm sure many on this forum have read something like this at some point:
> 
> Bach is the Master of Harmony
> Mozart is the Master of Melody
> ...


That is too simplistic and fails to grasp the elemental need for context and historical situation in all cases. Yes, Bach is less known for form than for harmony and counterpoint because in his era form hadn't been developed into such a vital and even self-sustaining element in music, where most typical forms in orchestral works (to put a parallel that can be worked with all three) drew from the italian concerto. Sure, Bach was a master of a dying style and even as he neared death form was acquiring different shapes (pun not intended but unavoidable), but I'm also sure if Bach had lived, say, in the 19th century, he would also have been a master of form (he was a master of everything he put his hand into). His melodies are also excellent. Mozart's forms were a little more dictated by classicism but he worked within them to perfect them (as did Haydn who probably was more revolutionary in form than he even was) and, well, his melodies couldn't be better. Also, though counterpoint was not so important, to say it in an easy way, Mozart's grasp of harmony is evident to anyone who has heard his works and he was a master with it (another case of a composer so skilled that he dominated everything he wanted). And Beethoven? He wrote fantastic melodies too, he is a big great master of harmony (to work successfully with form you also have to succeed in working with harmony). And yes, he worked with form and structure in a unparalleled way.

In other words, that little statement in the OP is empty and devoid of any meaning.


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

Olias said:


> The short answer as to Beethoven's contributions to music would be a combination of the following:
> 
> 1) Constant organic motivic development
> 2) Contextual use of form
> ...


Sounds very interesting. I will keep an eye out for a sale. Despite my passion for classical music I have never "studied" music. Maybe it is time that I did.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Muddy said:


> Sounds very interesting. I will keep an eye out for a sale. Despite my passion for classical music I have never "studied" music. Maybe it is time that I did.


You should read Bernstein's _The Joy of Music_! Because:
1. It is very accessible for people who don't have formal training in music while also being informative
2. It contains the "imaginary conversations" I mentioned above, which are as entertaining as they are thought-provoking (very)
3. You do not have to pay money for it; you can probably get it at your local library.

(I am not offering this as a substitute for others' recommendations, but it is certainly a worthy supplement, despite the corny title.)


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Muddy said:


> Bach is the Master of Harmony


Harmonically speaking, anybody who made music before Tristan und Isolde can't be compared to those that made music after Tristan und Isolde.



> Obviously, Beethoven cannot compete with Bach or Mozart in harmony or melody


Why do you say obviously? I think Beethoven is better in those two aspects.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

This sounds like something simplistic out of a bad textbook.

Beethoven, master 'Strategist,' of dramatically placing events and surprising the hell out of us, even after subsequent multiple exposures to the same work, takes the prize for 'high drama,' if you will.

Neither Bach or Beethoven managed a full-length opera, fitting all its own criteria of stage-worthy, scenes, those mechanics, which nonetheless was cast in an overall huge symphonic form - that, as far as I know, has not been topped since Mozart did it. Perhaps Alban Berg, in Lulu, did something of a similar achievement, outside of 'classical symphonic form.'

Any composer who has managed to make a lengthy, multiple movement piece seem in any way cohesive, regardless of the technical means of the form of one era or another, or in re-inventing devices of their own, is 'a master of form.'

I'd urgently advise you to not play the 'great, greater, greatest' game between those who are indisputably great composers to begin with  Comes to no use and has no real end, nor universal concurrence as to opinion, even amongst 'experts.'

Anytime you have any text which says, 'clearly,' or 'obviously' So-And-So was the greatest master of (polyphony, form, melody, harmony, etc.) you can pretty much discount that text as some skewed and misconstrued ******

Not that all things are actually equal - another myth.

P.s. the stream of asterisks was generated by the initials "B" and "S" - since there is a scholarly tome on the subject, the full word used as title, and emanating from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or that matrix ("On ********" by Harry G. Frankfurt)
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=on+********
I find it more than a little priggish of management to auto-convert The Initials into a censored stream of asterism. ~ just one guy's opinion.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Never mind - double posted.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Atta Boy! Bring people to Wagner by making a posting sounding more like a hallucinating whack job off their meds than a reasonable being.

You ever consider, with such displays, you may be a one-man show putting people OFF of Wagner?

I mean I don't much care for the music, but really I don't go out of the way to be an out-and-out detractor....


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

Argus said:


> Harmonically speaking, anybody who made music before Tristan und Isolde can't be compared to those that made music after Tristan und Isolde.
> 
> Why do you say obviously? I think Beethoven is better in those two aspects.


Obviously was a poor word to use. I was just being careless.


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

Oops, double posted myself.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Bach is the master of counterpoint
Mozart is the master of melody
Beethoven was just some composer thrown in to please the modern audience
*Ligeti* is the MASTER


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Bach is the master of counterpoint
> Mozart is the master of melody
> Beethoven was just some composer thrown in to please the modern audience
> *Ligeti* is the MASTER


What a load of tripe! (allowances for age and immaturity -- sorry to inform you -- get severely reduced after your twelfth birthday


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> What a load of tripe! (allowances for age and immaturity -- sorry to inform you -- get severely reduced after your twelfth birthday


(blows raspberry)

TBBPHBHTHPBHTHBHBBHPTHBHTHH!!!


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Atta Boy! Bring people to Wagner by making a posting sounding more like a hallucinating whack job off their meds than a reasonable being.
> 
> You ever consider, with such displays, you may be a one-man show putting people OFF of Wagner?
> 
> I mean I don't much care for the music, but really I don't go out of the way to be an out-and-out detractor....


You are but a scoundrel, looking for cheap thrills in bed with whichever composers will give you the goods, knowing not the fruits of dedication and commitment! All hail PetrB, Lady of the Night!


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Muddy said:


> I'm sure many on this forum have read something like this at some point:
> 
> Bach is the Master of Harmony
> Mozart is the Master of Melody
> ...


Form in music usually refers to the organization of the material within a piece. The organization of new material and repeated material creates the form.

In popular music, and in church hymns, the most common form is verse and chorus. This is an AB form, the verse A, and chorus B. With each new verse there are new words, but the melody stays about the same. The chorus is usually repeated identically. A typical hymn has four verses, so we have the form, ABABABAB.

In classical music, the entire issue of form becomes much more complex. For example, the symphonic first movement in the time of Beethoven wa a form called the Sonata Allegro. The main "plan" of the movement being AB development AB coda. The first AB was usually repeated, giving us ABAB development AB coda. During the "development" section material from the opening AB (the exposition) is presented in new ways, varied, changed and repeated. These changes might be as slight as changing orchestration or as complex as presenting the motives in retrograde or inversion or breaking up the idea into little pieces and shuffling them around. The coda is a "tail" or ending section with material that helps bring the movement to a satisfying conclusion.

It gets much more complex, I am just scratching the surface. For example the A section in the time of Beethoven would be in the home key of the symphony, the B section in a different but usually closely related key. When the AB comes back after the development, both the A and B are presented usually in the home key of the symphony. There are many more considerations. Also each movement of a symphony had a "traditional" form associated with it. Theme and Variations, Minuette (Scherzo), and Rondo. Each has a very specific plan, which is very different from the others.

Beethoven is considered the master of form because he was so good at organizing and presenting his musical ideas in ways that are appealing both to listeners who appreciate the "form" as well as listeners who don't care about form in music. A study of musical forms and how Beethoven applied and used them is likely to increase one's appreciation for the genius of Beethoven.

There are books available on musical form, but the subject is not as popular as it once was. But a study of musical form will pay enormous dividends.


----------



## Muddy (Feb 5, 2012)

Truckload said:


> Form in music usually refers to the organization of the material within a piece. The organization of new material and repeated material creates the form.
> 
> In popular music, and in church hymns, the most common form is verse and chorus. This is an AB form, the verse A, and chorus B. With each new verse there are new words, but the melody stays about the same. The chorus is usually repeated identically. A typical hymn has four verses, so we have the form, ABABABAB.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the great reply! I am not a musician or a music scholar, but my passion for classical music is exceeded only by my love for my wife! Think when I retire, I will devote myself to the study of music. Till then, I might have a question or two while I am here. Respectful replies like yours and a few others are much appreciated.


----------

