# Music Form Analysis



## David58117

I took a music appreciation class about 6 years ago, and one of the parts I really enjoyed was that our book outlined popular pieces and their forms (such as the sonata form in Mozarts 40). The book would highlight the exposition themes, if it repeats, how the development starts etc etc...I'm wondering, is there another book that has detailed analysis of various pieces and forms like that?

I have numerous theory books I study, but I think I need help in applying it (music forms). Listening and saying "ohh, that measure is apart of theme 1 too" or "that's the bridge," seems like it takes practice, and when you don't have a resource there to say "that's correct" it's kinda daunting.

For example, I'm looking at Mozarts Piano Sonata 1 (K. 279), and while the development seems like it's pretty easy to spot (2:23?), ...what's the exposition doing!?! Is that first 4 measures a "theme" ..or does the theme start at 8 seconds in, with the 16th notes with the left hand? I have the sheet music, and I'm looking at this youtube video of it:






It would be really great if someone starts a week music form analysis series .


----------



## Rasa

It's part of the theme.

1) The opening bars present integral motivic elements: the arpeggio forms an integral part of the theme, as can be heard later in the exposition of this theme. If you think away the appogiatura notes, it also contains the simple scale
2) The first four measures are needed for the 4+4-2+2-1+1-elimination phrase structure

also note how in bar 14 (elimination stage of the phrase), the same motif is used as in the bar 2 plagal cadence.

3) elements of these 1st 4 measure can be found in the developement, i.e. that accompanying motif


----------



## Johnny

The idea of a music appreciation class seems daft to me. If you have functioning ears, that's all you need. Maybe I'd change my mind if I knew more about it. What exactly does such a class involve? I suppose I can see why people may like to dissect pieces of music and discuss how they are constructed. But I don't think knowing more about this would affect which pieces I enjoy.


----------



## nefigah

Johnny said:


> The idea of a music appreciation class seems daft to me. If you have functioning ears, that's all you need. Maybe I'd change my mind if I knew more about it. What exactly does such a class involve? I suppose I can see why people may like to dissect pieces of music and discuss how they are constructed. But I don't think knowing more about this would affect which pieces I enjoy.


I couldn't disagree more. It was a music appreciation class that got me into classical music at all, and that helped me see what sort of depth was there. Not everyone cares for analysis, of course, but things like Andras Schiff's lectures on the Beethoven sonatas helped my appreciation immensely.

Yes, the sound stands on its own, but there's a lot of interesting stuff to learn!


----------



## Johnny

I think that may be the first internet disagreement that did not resort to name calling!

:shakeshand:


----------



## emiellucifuge

Buy a copy of the score and decide for yourself!


----------



## Toccata

Johnny said:


> The idea of a music appreciation class seems daft to me. If you have functioning ears, that's all you need. Maybe I'd change my mind if I knew more about it. What exactly does such a class involve? I suppose I can see why people may like to dissect pieces of music and discuss how they are constructed. But I don't think knowing more about this would affect which pieces I enjoy.


Another ridiculous comment. Are you a comedian?


----------



## Argus

For me, form is the least important aspect of music to study. That is if you intend on writing your own music. Sure, if you want to write in an older style then go ahead and learn about motive development, sonata and rondo forms, binary and ternary etc. I think harmony, counterpoint and orchestration are more helpful though.

It's all well and good to see how the composer uses fragment of the theme here or a retrograde inversion of the theme there or a stretto or episode occurs here, but it only tells you what that particular composer liked to do and not what you _should_ do.

This my opinion of course, and I always seem more interested in the microscopic(?) aspects of a composition compared to the macroscopic(?). If that makes sense.


----------



## Rasa

Argus said:


> For me, form is the least important aspect of music to study. That is if you intend on writing your own music. Sure, if you want to write in an older style then go ahead and learn about motive development, sonata and rondo forms, binary and ternary etc. I think harmony, counterpoint and orchestration are more helpful though.
> 
> It's all well and good to see how the composer uses fragment of the theme here or a retrograde inversion of the theme there or a stretto or episode occurs here, but it only tells you what that particular composer liked to do and not what you _should_ do.


Wrong. Form analysis will help you in many aspects of playing. How can you give a coherent preformance of a work if you randomly change phrasing, articulation and what not on each whim. Formal analysis helps the preform recognise what is actually in the piece, not what he thinks is written.

Furthermore, a preformer will never be able to expose big tension arcs if they don't know they're in the piece. A sound knowledge of the form and themes of a piece will help the preformer achieve a superior subtlety, that the audience will instinctively experience.

It's also a great tool for by-heart playing.


----------



## Argus

Rasa said:


> Wrong. Form analysis will help you in many aspects of playing. How can you give a coherent preformance of a work if you randomly change phrasing, articulation and what not on each whim. Formal analysis helps the preform recognise what is actually in the piece, not what he thinks is written.
> 
> Furthermore, a preformer will never be able to expose big tension arcs if they don't know they're in the piece. A sound knowledge of the form and themes of a piece will help the preformer achieve a superior subtlety, that the audience will instinctively experience.
> 
> It's also a great tool for by-heart playing.


I'll assume you meant performer when you wrote preformer, unless that's something I'm unaware of.

I was speaking from a composer viewpoint in analysing the works of the masters to help their own compositional process. By sticking to strict forms the composer can enhance focus of musical ideas in a piece but also limits his availability of change or surprise. It seems to me that the kind of music that gets bashed in here (pop, hip-hop etc) has the more consistent forms (verse, chorus, verse etc) whereas more respected music (contemporary classical, jazz etc) has turned away from any kind of set forms that are common amongst all artists.

Even from a performer viewpoint, I can't see how rigorously analysing the form is any huge help over listening to a variety of previous performances whilst reading the sheet. If you enjoy it and benefit somehow from it, then go ahead but I don't think it's integral. As long as you understand the nature of the forms and that they exist in certain works, I don't think a detailed analysis is that necessary.


----------



## Johnny

Opal said:


> Another ridiculous comment. Are you a comedian?




Care to explain to me what's ridiculous?


----------



## David58117

Oh no, I just realized the link I posted goes to the second movement, rather than the first.

It should of been:






I'm really sorry! But it looks like you did the first movement anyway Rasa, right?


----------



## Rasa

Yeah, first movement. didn't even watch the video, but assumed it was the 1st from the description you gave ;-)


----------



## David58117

Rasa said:


> It's part of the theme.
> 
> 1) The opening bars present integral motivic elements: the arpeggio forms an integral part of the theme, as can be heard later in the exposition of this theme. If you think away the appogiatura notes, it also contains the simple scale
> 2) The first four measures are needed for the 4+4-2+2-1+1-elimination phrase structure
> 
> also note how in bar 14 (elimination stage of the phrase), the same motif is used as in the bar 2 plagal cadence.
> 
> 3) elements of these 1st 4 measure can be found in the developement, i.e. that accompanying motif


1. I was under the impression that a theme was a short melody that could be separated and stand on its own, which is how I was looking at the score and getting confused. I'm noticing there's a quarter rest in measure 16 that ends on a Gmaj (going from CMaj). Would that be an imperfect cadence (I-V)? And the end of theme 1...so measure 17 onward would be theme 2...?

2. I've never heard of the elimination phrase structure, is that anything specific? I could follow that the measures in 4+4+2+2+1+1 pattern seem to fit together, is there a relevance to that though? I'm attempting to analyze measure 14 in an attempt to understand what you mean. I'm getting: C7, F, G, C G - is that right? Then measure 15 starts the 16th notes in the treble and 8th notes in the bass.

I've just begun learning cadences and nonchord tones, so...the plagal cadence is IV - I , but there's an 8th note of D + B (Gmaj? Why not bdim, the f is preceding it?). Would that Gmaj 8th note prevent it from being a plagal cadence?

3. I really haven't looked at all in the development yet. I notice the start is very similar to the first four bars, just in minor.

Thanks for all your help!!!!


----------



## nefigah

Johnny said:


> Care to explain to me what's ridiculous?


I think he got offended that there was no name-calling


----------



## Johnny

Maybe. 

Would you (or anyone) mind telling me what exactly goes on in a "music appreciation" class, please?


----------



## David58117

Johnny said:


> Maybe.
> 
> Would you (or anyone) mind telling me what exactly goes on in a "music appreciation" class, please?


You get a knowledgeable, experienced professor who immerses you in classical music. You learn about the history of the music, hear samples starting from the earliest composers to the newest, you hear/learn about what differentiates one period from the next. You learn what that "gavotte" or "rondo" or "presto" mark besides a certain piece means, you'll hear examples of and learn about what that homophony/polyphony I was telling you about in that other post means, as well as learn about who the major players are, and what they contributed. I suspect you're going to say all this is worthless, but you have to consider that classical music is unlike any other genre in that it has an incredibly long history that ran through very different times.


----------



## Johnny

The name "music appreciation" is kind of misleading. 

"Music history and analysis" would maybe be a better name.


----------



## SPR

Johnny said:


> The name "music appreciation" is kind of misleading.
> 
> "Music history and analysis" would maybe be a better name.


no it is not misleading - dont reflect your misunderstanding back onto it. ;-) It is neither history centric nor concentrated on the 'analysis' of the music in a strict sense (music theory). Rather - it involves much related to music inclusive of those things.... such as performance techniques used in differing periods and music philosophy in different cultures. I think 'Music Appreciation' is a perfect assignment. Try it... you might 'appreciate' it.


----------



## Johnny




----------



## janne

Nice thread. I've been trying to apply some of this when listening but its not easy.

My example would be Haydn symphony 84 first movement, and if someone could give me a hand that would be great!

The slow introduction is not a problem.

The first theme is also not a problem. A catchy tune that reappears many times.

But what about the second theme ? Where is it ? Is it there at all ??

Please shed some light on this.


----------



## starry

2.10?

Then before the end of the exposition there may be a brief return to the first group of themes of the allegro.


----------



## janne

starry said:


> 2.10?
> 
> Then before the end of the exposition there may be a brief return to the first group of themes of the allegro.


Ok, I was going to write you a pm but i need 5 forum post first, so here I go public:

Actually I'm not really sure where the exposition ends and recap starts. The repetitive nature of this symphony is making things hard I think, so please refer to time in that youtube clip.
Its also interesting that I didnt look upon this 2.10 part as a theme, and I believe that you are not 100% sure either.


----------



## janne

Okey, I messed up the concepts there in my latest post.

Let me refrase my questions.
Where does the development section begin and where does the recapitulation begin.
And are you really sure that 2.10 is the second theme. If so, where does it end ?


----------



## starry

janne said:


> Okey, I messed up the concepts there in my latest post.
> 
> Let me refrase my questions.
> Where does the development section begin and where does the recapitulation begin.
> And are you really sure that 2.10 is the second theme. If so, where does it end ?


I think the second theme ends at 2.46, then after that there is a brief reminiscence of the opening theme of the allegro. The development irrefutably begins at 5.31 (after the repeat of the exposition). The recapitulation is complicated by Haydn as he brings the first theme back twice, but I feel the first time at 6.17 is a 'false recapitulation', he may be fooling us the development is over but it isn't. The real recapitulation is at 7.26.


----------



## janne

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Very interesting indeed!
Thanks!! And a few more posts and I can contact you in private and stop messing this thread up.

What do you think about my amateur-analysis:





Introduction

First theme, starts at 1.38 and ends at 1.52, and is instantly repeated.

At 2.10-2.46 there is arguably new material thrown in but is it a theme ? If it is a theme, its a very long one and consists of very different stuff (for example the machine gun string part). Could it be a bridge ?

At 2.46-2.55 the motion stops a bit and I can hear the beginning of theme 1 reapeated and it's followed by a few notes that keep poppin up later. Could these two parts together be theme 2 ?

After all this Haydn repeats the exposition but some material has changed key.

I agree with you that the development section begins at 5.31 and Haydn use a 'false recapitulation'.

I also agree that the real development starts at 7.26
But then "your" second theme is almost cut out by Haydn! The only part left is the machine gun string part played twice rapidly.

However at 8.09 we can hear something familiar... the later part repeated several times at the end of the movement. I mean those falling notes.
This could of course indicate that "my theme" is only some sort of coda material.

Does this make any sense ?


----------



## starry

I don't claim to be anything more than an amateur myself. It's not like I'm looking at the score like some others might here, that would be the best way to examine the minutiae of how phrases are interrelated or transformed through a piece.

The recapitulation is a shortened version of the exposition, but that isn't unusual at all. To just repeat all the exposition again (or just with minor differences) wouldn't be very creative and the audience will have already heard it twice before the development anyway.

Normally in sonata form as it was developed the second theme (or group of ideas, it doesn't have to be just a simple theme but could be a group of ideas playing against each other) is more of a lyrical contrast to the first, here this isn't the case and that makes it harder perhaps to break the music apart.


----------



## janne

starry said:


> I don't claim to be anything more than an amateur myself. It's not like I'm looking at the score like some others might here, that would be the best way to examine the minutiae of how phrases are interrelated or transformed through a piece.
> 
> The recapitulation is a shortened version of the exposition, but that isn't unusual at all. To just repeat all the exposition again (or just with minor differences) wouldn't be very creative and the audience will have already heard it twice before the development anyway.
> 
> Normally in sonata form as it was developed the second theme (or group of ideas, it doesn't have to be just a simple theme but could be a group of ideas playing against each other) is more of a lyrical contrast to the first, here this isn't the case and that makes it harder perhaps to break the music apart.


I'm very thankfull indeed. I think your analysis is more correct than mine and this has opened up new ways of enjoying this piece of Haydn work. Thanks again!
When I listen to it (with your thoughts in mind) I can hear Haydn breaking this theme apart and putting bits and pieces of it back together and that indicates that this actually IS theme 2.
I also believe that the section I was referring to has the function of cadence material. Haydn really tricked me there


----------



## janne

Perhaps someone else can contribute also ?


----------



## ecollen

David, this is such an interesting discussion that you started, and I've closely followed the insightful comments (by all except for one lost voice that is). 

Although I did attend a series of music appreciation talks at a local university some years ago, I am very much at a beginner level and far behind the rest of the people in this thread.

One thing I wonder whether I could obtain from you, please, is the name of that book you mentioned that outlines popular pieces and their forms. That might be more up my alley. If anybody knows of any similar books not discussing the elements of form so much, but rather giving an analysis in simple terms of the structure of various pieces of music, I would appreciate it very much.

It would also be nice if anybody knows of any interactive resources that would show me the form of a piece even more clearly.

I have just heard, for example, the Paganini sonata for viola and piano (I'm not sure if the piano part is perhaps an arrangement of the original orchestral part), and part of it at least is a theme and variations. What I would like to see is an analysis of the variations, when they start, etc.

Any suggestions related to any of this would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Errol


----------



## Moira

This kind of analysis chat is what I was hoping to find going on a LOT when I joined this forum. Then I discovered it is a rare thing. I wish it were otherwise because I could often do with the basic knowledge when I get to go to concerts, which is fortunately quite often.


----------



## ecollen

Hi Moira
Thanks for your reply. Pity about that. But let's keep hoping, perhaps something will come up.
Errol


----------



## Romantic Geek

I can definitely help where I can! This is the stuff I live for


----------



## jalex

Moira said:


> This kind of analysis chat is what I was hoping to find going on a LOT when I joined this forum. Then I discovered it is a rare thing. I wish it were otherwise because I could often do with the basic knowledge when I get to go to concerts, which is fortunately quite often.


If you want to know things then ask! Sure there are people here who know this sort of stuff.


----------



## ecollen

Thanks to Romantic G and to jalex for the encouraging replies. 

What I am looking for is an analysis/description of what is going on in the various variations in a Theme and Variations composition, because this will make listening to the particular piece so much more enjoyable. I know it's the kind of thing you should do for yourself, but I'm sorry to say I don't have the knowledge to do it myself, and I know that the only way I will find this out is if someone else has done it. But despite your helpful replies, I would, of course, never expect someone else to sit down and do this detailed description just for me.

I recently heard Paginini's Sonata for Viola and Piano, which contains a Theme and Variation section, and this is what set me thinking again about how interesting it would be have access to this kind of description. However, I've been thinking that this is perhaps not such a popular piece and that if I chose instead something more popular or "central", I may well find that the kind of description I'm looking for has already been done.

I would therefore be glad if someone could perhaps suggest a "popular" Theme and Variations composition - "popular" in the sense that the piece is likely to have been analysed already and that the analysis/description is available. Any suggestions? Mozart's "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman" comes to mind as a possibility.

Any suggestions?

Many thanks,

Errol


----------



## violadude

ecollen said:


> Thanks to Romantic G and to jalex for the encouraging replies.
> 
> What I am looking for is an analysis/description of what is going on in the various variations in a Theme and Variations composition, because this will make listening to the particular piece so much more enjoyable. I know it's the kind of thing you should do for yourself, but I'm sorry to say I don't have the knowledge to do it myself, and I know that the only way I will find this out is if someone else has done it. But despite your helpful replies, I would, of course, never expect someone else to sit down and do this detailed description just for me.
> 
> I recently heard* Paginini's Sonata for Viola and Piano*, which contains a Theme and Variation section, and this is what set me thinking again about how interesting it would be have access to this kind of description. However, I've been thinking that this is perhaps not such a popular piece and that if I chose instead something more popular or "central", I may well find that the kind of description I'm looking for has already been done.
> 
> I would therefore be glad if someone could perhaps suggest a "popular" Theme and Variations composition - "popular" in the sense that the piece is likely to have been analysed already and that the analysis/description is available. Any suggestions? Mozart's "Ah vous dirai-je, Maman" comes to mind as a possibility.
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Errol


Is that piece on youtube? I'd be happy to dissect it for you if I have access to it.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Its possible that the Haydn 84 is monothematic, something he did quite often, though I dont know this exact example very well.

As for the theme and variations. Start simple: the Mozart you mentioned is a good one. I could write it up myself, but its already been done. So, check out this 'article' and follow the score here:

http://depauwform.blogspot.com/2008/04/twinkle-twinkle.html


----------



## violadude

emiellucifuge said:


> Its possible that the Haydn 84 is monothematic, something he did quite often, though I dont know this exact example very well.
> 
> As for the theme and variations. Start simple: the Mozart you mentioned is a good one. I could write it up myself, but its already been done. So, check out this 'article' and follow the score here:
> 
> http://depauwform.blogspot.com/2008/04/twinkle-twinkle.html


I don't know how simple or complicated ecollen wants his/her analysis I found that article to be a bit on the shallow side (no offense if you are the author).


----------



## Romantic Geek

Theme and Variations don't necessarily have a fixed form. Mozart and his contemporaries had somewhat of a general idea with their form in their Theme in Variations. Usually it followed this general type of format:

Theme
Variations (with increasing rhythmic values and chromaticism)
Variation in the parallel minor key
A slow variation (heavily embellished)
A fast finale (typically in 3/4)

But by no means is that standard. For analyzing theme and variations, it's best to understand how the theme is being manipulated and the basic shape of the composition. Usually the composition will contain a few climaxes with low points helping keep a varied contour. This is almost applicable to any of the famous theme and variations.

And of course, theme and variations come in different styles. The ones you're likely referring to with the Paganini is a "sectional" variation, meaning that there is a theme that comprises of a theme that has a distinct beginning and end. There are "continuous" variations as well, commonly known as grounds, passacaglias, or chaconnes. These ones have a bass line that repeats over and over again without a clear divide of melody. Usually, the length of the "theme" is much much shorter than a sectional variation.

Does this help any?


----------



## ecollen

Thank you for all the replies.

Violadude, yes, it is on Youtube. Actually there are a few. The one I've been watching is 




But, once again, please don't feel you have to work out all the details for me.

Please bear in mind that I have no musical background at all. The kind of thing that I would find most helpful is a description of when the theme or different variations start and end (minutes and seconds) and in simple terms and a few words how the variation is achieved - the key word here being "simple". The article recommended by emiellucifuge is not on "the shallow side" for my purposes at all - in fact, the opposite, if anything.

Thanks emiellucifuge, that's what I've got in mind, though it's already quite advanced for me. I'll have to do a bit of background work to know what he's talking about (I did say simple!), but thanks, I like that. The first thing that's holding me up is that I see he says he's not going to talk about the first variation because "the workbook already covers it". Pity, about that, but I'll certainly be able to find a starting point there. I also need something physical to hang on to in my listening (such as the minutes and seconds I mentioned above) and the score you recommended is ideal for that, because it gives me a good clue to what is being played.

RomanticGeek, yes, "how the theme is being manipulated" is exactly what I'd like to know. That's the kind of thing I'm after. And, yes, "sectional variation" would be easier for me to understand, not "continuous variation". What you've said helps me a lot, thank you.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

I don't know whether this is beside the point, but - assuming that you're either British or American - the subject of this set of variations is _so _familiar that it ought to be possible to work out for oneself what the composer is doing.

There is a short introductory section which might make you think it is going to be more complicated than it is, but it soons settles down to a standard set of variations. In that opening, the phrases which make up the theme are each in turn developed for a moment or two.

The variations proper start at 1:16.


----------



## emiellucifuge

violadude said:


> I don't know how simple or complicated ecollen wants his/her analysis I found that article to be a bit on the shallow side (no offense if you are the author).


Oh it certainly is, but it does cover all the major points the user will be looking for and also is consistent with the general 'template' posted by Romantic Geek.


----------



## Romantic Geek

ecollen said:


> RomanticGeek, yes, "how the theme is being manipulated" is exactly what I'd like to know. That's the kind of thing I'm after. And, yes, "sectional variation" would be easier for me to understand, not "continuous variation". What you've said helps me a lot, thank you.


Well, that's really up to the composer! There's no standard way to do it, but given a piece, I can try to do my best.


----------

