# Sequence Mania!



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

What do you think of sequences? Does excessive sequencing annoy or irritate you? Do you think it's a good thing that sequential repetitions fell quickly out of fashion in the 20th century, or do you think it would have helped people better understand the new idioms that developed at that time?

Post the most egregious examples of over-sequencing you can find, or vent about them in general. Conversely, tell us all about how you think sequences are too often singled out for criticism!

For those who do not know the term, a sequence is a fragment that is immediately repeated one or more times, but starting on a different pitch, usually a step higher, as here, where we have three sequences in a row:
View attachment Sequences.mp3


No poll.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Very funny example. Isn't that just typical development-section technique? What development section of any piece wouldn't have some sort of sequence in it? On that note, I think the Finale of Tchaikovsky's 2nd Symphony is perfect example of doing extreme sequencing in the development section.

Also, do you speak of harmonic or melodic sequences?

Harmonic sequences were deemed archaic because of its association with 17th-18th century music. Sequences are basically used to actually allude to the past rather than to the present, and I don't think that can be undone.

I don't think Bach ever over-sequenced though! Maybe Mozart a few times, but it becomes cool instead of annoying.

Here's a pretty funny one though, an example of melodic sequencing. Start at 10:40:




It creates so much tension, you just never know when it's going to end!  :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Very funny example. Isn't that just typical development-section technique? What development section of any piece wouldn't have some sort of sequence in it? On that note, I think the Finale of Tchaikovsky's 2nd Symphony is perfect example of doing extreme sequencing in the development section.


Yes, but three near-literal sequences in a row is definitely excessive!



Huilunsoittaja said:


> Also, do you speak of harmonic or melodic sequences?


Melodic, for the reasons you stated.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Starting at 26:17 - this is what I think of when someone mentions sequences






Schumann is one of the finest exponents/worst culprits!


----------



## waldvogel (Jul 10, 2011)

The longest, most pointless sequence that I can name off the top of my head occurs near the end of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture. I'm sure we all know it now - I just counted 24 bars of sequencing the same falling four-note phrase, with a rhythmic shift to 3/4 time and a rallentado just before Tchaikovsky brings in the Tsar's anthem. 

On the other hand, Schubert is the master of the appropriate use of the sequence. It helps when you start with a wonderful, elastic melody, like the kind that Schubert seemed to dream up on a daily basis.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Here's Uncle Phil tripping out on a sequence.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

A piece which comes to mind is this from Grieg






The very beautiful piano melody enters at about 15:06, but Grieg doesn't seem to know what to do with it so the melody ends with the same little phrase being repeated at eights different octaves. (Does that count as sequencing when you go up by intervals of an octave)? A simple technique but it works surprisingly well in my opinion.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> The very beautiful piano melody enters at about 15:06, but Grieg doesn't seem to know what to do with it so the melody ends with the same little phrase being repeated at eights different octaves. (Does that count as sequencing when you go up by intervals of an octave)? A simple technique but it works surprisingly well in my opinion.


I think that's generally considered repetition instead...but others can jump in here if they know better.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

dgee said:


> Schumann is one of the finest exponents/worst culprits!


That passage always seemed like a dramatic up-build of tension: a kind of increasingly desperate attempt to break free of suspensions. The harmonic motion seems to accelerate and the symphony terminates in that quirky Schumannesque manner. But then, I'm always a bit protective of ol' Robert. You make a valid point.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

waldvogel said:


> The longest, most pointless sequence that I can name off the top of my head occurs near the end of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture.


The band needs the time to get the cannons ready.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

LOL the link you provided, and that type of sequencing which that composer is famous / infamous for, is what has me running away from, turning off the player, etc. and not ever coming back. Tchaikovsky, especially, manages to sound both 
lost (WhadduIduNextWhadduIduNextWhadduIduNext) 
and to have an obsessive and manic quality (Can'tStopThinkingThisCan'tStopThinkingThisCan'tStopThinkingThis)

Tchaikovsky or others (Bruckner, anyone?), or wherever sequencing rings to my ears as overly prominent, begins to predominate a movement or piece, and especially when it is so damned literal and without a hair of variation, is a complete turn-off to me [and that is why, Ladies, Gentlemen, and Tenors, Tchaikovsky and Bruckner are not on my list]

I can't see any plus for its use at all, but that is because it is for me a complete turn-off.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I can't see any plus for its use at all, but that is because it is for me a complete turn-off.


I knew you'd show up here, PetrB!

Anyway, at the time, it was used as a way of connecting and justifying distant harmonic relationships in an easily understood manner. Once these relationships became commonplace, though, there was less of a point, so works by Strauss, Mahler, and Ravel, for example, make use of sequences, especially literal sequences, extremely sparingly. In that way, it sounds "of its time".


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

PetrB said:


> LOL the link you provided, and that type of sequencing which that composer is famous / infamous for, is what has me running away from, turning off the player, etc. and not ever coming back. Tchaikovsky, especially, manages to sound both
> lost (WhadduIduNextWhadduIduNextWhadduIduNext)
> and to have an obsessive and manic quality (Can'tStopThinkingThisCan'tStopThinkingThisCan'tStopThinkingThis)
> 
> ...


I _know_ you're not dissing Schumann, PetrB...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

PetrB said:


> LOL the link you provided, and that type of sequencing which that composer is famous / infamous for, is what has me running away from, turning off the player, etc. and not ever coming back. Tchaikovsky, especially, manages to sound both
> lost (WhadduIduNextWhadduIduNextWhadduIduNext)
> and to have an obsessive and manic quality (Can'tStopThinkingThisCan'tStopThinkingThisCan'tStopThinkingThis)
> 
> ...


There is a hilarious quote where Glazunov criticized Tchaikovsky for this. It went something along the lines of "Pyotr Ilyich, you must be God, because you can create everything out of nothing!" Glazunov as far as I know uses very little sequencing (he prefers to keep a theme in its right key and not make it float away without larger spans of different material in between), but instead uses small-motivic figuration, more on the side of Mozart's figurations.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

The first Bruckner I bought, Symphony 8, bothered me because of what I called _repetition_ (I couldn't recall the exact movement without playing it). Perhaps it qualifies as excessively sequenced? It is still my least favourite of the 3 I know so far, the other two, 4 and 5, seeming to be less repetitive.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

Here is one of the most exciting and moving sequences I can remember:






From Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, Isolde's Liebestod (taken at a concert in Ravello - outstanding stage too)
The same sequence at the love duet act 2.

I agree with PetrB, I find the sequence technique quite tedious if "literal and without a hair of variation", as in Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture already mentioned.

This is not the case of Wagner.

EDIT: ah, yes, of course in the prelude the use of sequences is very effective as well...


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The band needs the time to get the cannons ready.


Since cannon are fired before the sequence as well as after it, that may not be far from the truth


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

How does an 'ostinato' differ from a 'sequence'?


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

techniquest said:


> How does an 'ostinato' differ from a 'sequence'?


Afaik the ostinato doesn't imply modulation and/or change of pitch.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> The first Bruckner I bought, Symphony 8, bothered me because of what I called _repetition_ (I couldn't recall the exact movement without playing it). Perhaps it qualifies as excessively sequenced? It is still my least favourite of the 3 I know so far, the other two, 4 and 5, seeming to be less repetitive.


Bruckner tends to use semi-literal sequences and repetitions of short (1-2 bar) fragments pretty much constantly. The reason it doesn't bother me like the above example is because these things are used more in the manner of Baroque music than late Romantic music. So either the accompaniment changes in response to the fragment or there is a pedal point under a sequence indicating the harmonic direction of the whole.

In fact, as harmonic sequences were mentioned above, there is a prominent example of one in the first movement of Bruckner's Fourth, at the climax of the development.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gcBg-tXn0fs#t=649

It goes through (almost) the same progression three times, first ending on C major, then on D major, then G major. So it's basically a standard IV-V-I cadence on G dressed up to look fancier (and I think this is one of the things that PetrB and others hate about Bruckner...). It's effective in context for two reasons:

First, there have been very few harmonic progressions the entire movement so far that have been so predictable and regular. The section immediately before teased that the development was going to end before ending up in the tonic _minor_ instead of the expected major (and that with some violence), and after moving back to the dominant, it immediately jumped away.

Second, the ear recognizes that we are moving back towards the home key at this point, because we moved from B-flat to G, down the notes of the E-flat major chord. The following section hints at G minor and E-flat minor once again though, before we finally arrive.

Now, if neither of these things is picked up on, subconsciously or consciously, then the whole would be extremely ineffective, I'm sure, and all one would notice is the outward repetitions of the simple motivic material.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

techniquest said:


> How does an 'ostinato' differ from a 'sequence'?


I'm a big fan of ostinatos! Playing them isn't the greatest thing, but when it accompanies a really great melody, it's a great method of orchestration. Ostinatos aren't typically used in a melody, whereas a sequence encompasses all parts of the music.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I love sequences - they are usually my favourite parts. Music simply would not be the same without them for me. I am not particularly a fan of them in music where they act as the driving force, say in much Romantic music, or in Bach (Bach is great, but the sequence doesn't stand out in him for me), but they really shine in some works by Handel, most early Haydn pieces, and one or two by Mozart and Beethoven.

The movement starting 2.50 in this





The fugue from 13.55 here





And this masterpiece by Mozart


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Just listened to *Shostakovich's *_Fifth_. Now, I _think_, there are sequences riddled throughout that first movement (and later in symphony). But, I don't know the precise definition of a sequence, so I may be wrong. But I mean, opening theme, low strings repeating the high strings -- that's a sequence, no?!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Avey said:


> Just listened to *Shostakovich's *_Fifth_. Now, I _think_, there are sequences riddled throughout that first movement (and later in symphony). But, I don't know the precise definition of a sequence, so I may be wrong. But I mean, opening theme, low strings repeating the high strings -- that's a sequence, no?!


No, that's more like an echo. The technical term for it is "imitation".

A sequence has to change the starting point, while those are the same thing an octave up.


----------



## Rhythm (Nov 2, 2013)

*A return to Grieg's A minor Concerto Op 16?*



Winterreisender said:


>


Could we return to Grieg's A minor that Winterreisender posted? I'd like to check if what I've assumed a sequence isn't repetition, or something else, entirely.

Starting 17.22 or more, the solo clarinet leads to (1) the horn, which solos a phrase followed by a responsive phrase from the piano; (2) the horn plays the same intervals in its original phrase yet prepares a modulation a minor third higher for the piano entry; then, (3) horn and piano both repeat again their respective phrases another minor third higher. Are those considered sequences?


----------

