# What ties the movements of a sonata or symphony together?



## pianolearnerstride (Dec 17, 2014)

I can understand the ties, when there's a repeated motif of some kind...

But generally, it seems to me that movements are separate pieces of music... I don't see the logic of grouping these pieces together...

Is there something to listen for, to make sense of this?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

In a classical sonata or symphony, you will have the movements in very closely related keys, with the first movement, the minuet, and the finale in the home key and the slow movement in a key that's only a short distance away (usually the one based on the fourth note of the scale, or subdominant). Also, the arrangement of movements provides contrasts of character within this unity.

Is there always some deep motivic connection between movements? No (that was mostly a Romantic era fascination), but it happens more often than you'd think, even where it's not obvious, just as a subconscious result of composers wanting to put together things that go together well.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

My impression, reading various reviews from the classical period, is that there was some concern about "unity" in a symphony, quartet, or sonata. There were various views about whether this work or that achieved the required amount of "unity."

However, it seems that only subtle approaches were allowed. Adopting a cyclical approach, with the re-use of themes in different movements, although an obvious method, was very rare. Offhand I can't think of examples from Haydn or Mozart (maybe somebody else can), but Beethoven did this a few times, notably in the finale of his 5th symphony* and of course in his 9th.

Otherwise, unity was achieved (or not) by subtle relationships among themes and motifs, by key relationships, and by of rhythmic devices -- for instance, the "letter V" motif that permeates all four movements of Beethoven's 5th. How well this all works, at least to our modern ears, is open to question. There used to be an all-night classical DJ who would play synthetic Haydn symphonies by mixing up movements from several symphonies. He did this for years and nobody noticed.

*Oh, there's a Haydn example! He brought back the scherzo theme in the finale of one of his symphonies, can't remember which one. But then Haydn, like Bach, did most everything at one time or another.


----------



## pianolearnerstride (Dec 17, 2014)

Thanks for the replies. Very helpful.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The Classical symphony developed out of the multi-movement suite, also called "overture" or "sinfonia," of the Baroque. Suites were collections of pieces based mainly on contrasting dance rhythms, and the individual pieces were arranged for pleasing contrast and usually had little in common besides a key signature. The symphony inherited this idea of contrast, and the contrast was extended to having different keys for the different movements. So the answer to your question, "What ties the movements together?" is often, in the Classical period, "nothing" - unless you consider well-calculated contrast a form of unity! As time went on composers felt the symphony (and sonata) less as a collection of pieces and more as a whole work, and looked for ways to tie the movements together through thematic relationships, instrumental color, and less tangible concepts such as mood and dramatic progression.

The evolution of the symphony as a unified work begins in the late Classical era (e.g. Mozart's #40 in g-minor), and proceeds through Beethoven (whose #3, #5, #6 and #9 are very close to being programmatic dramas) into the Romantic era, when the "symphonic poem" of Liszt marked a new development and the symphony itself could vary from the neo-Classicism of Brahms to the explicit program music of Berlioz. Beethoven utilized a recurring rhythmic motif in his #5, and literally quoted previous movements in the finale to his #9, a device which in Romantic symphonies was enlarged to create what is called "cyclic" form, where a theme is brought back in subsequent movements (Berlioz's _Symphonie fantastique_, Tchaikovsky's #5). Beethoven also joined the last two movements of his #5 together, and subsequent composers often did likewise in pursuit of formal and dramatic continuity (Mendelssohn's #3, Schumann's #4, Sibelius's #3). The first notable instance of a symphony in which all the movements were joined, and not merely joined but integrated into a continuously evolving and thematically integrated texture, was (I believe) Sibelius's #7.

By the late 19th century the concept of a "symphony" had loosened enough to embrace virtually any large-ish orchestral work, usually but not always of "serious" intent and ambitious formal construction (as distinguished from a suite), usually but not always in several movements (as distinguished from a symphonic poem), and occasionally including vocal parts (in the tradition of Beethoven's #9). But whatever the form of the work, there was usually an attempt at unity through the kinds of devices mentioned.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

^^^More specifically it was the three movemment Italian _Sinfonia_, not an entire orchestral suite.

The format of the sinfonia was a fast section, a slower/calmer section followed by a short, quick section in triple time (usually 3/8). Examples of this influence can be heard in the early works of Mozart and Haydn. The difference however, is that in the older sinfonia, each section was linked and often played without any silence between them like the separation of movements in a Classical symphony.

The notion of putting a minuet between the slow and final movements was inspired by the insertion of a minuet or gavotte etc. (as the composer wishes) between the sarabande and gigue movements. That's the only influence from a baroque suite I can think of.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> ^^^More specifically it was the three movemment Italian _Sinfonia_, not an entire orchestral suite.
> 
> The format of the sinfonia was a fast section, a slower/calmer section followed by a short, quick section in triple time (usually 3/8). Examples of this influence can be heard in the early works of Mozart and Haydn. The difference however, is that in the older sinfonia, each section was linked and often played without any silence between them like the separation of movements in a Classical symphony.
> 
> The notion of putting a minuet between the slow and final movements was inspired by the insertion of a minuet or gavotte etc. (as the composer wishes) between the sarabande and gigue movements. That's the only influence from a baroque suite I can think of.


You're correct. Thanks. It's been a few decades since my last music history lesson!


----------



## pianolearnerstride (Dec 17, 2014)

As a listener, do you see any advantage to this type of grouping? 

Any unity I hear feels like it's simply a result of hearing the movements together... nothing more...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> The first notable instance of a symphony in which all the movements were joined, and not merely joined but integrated into a continuously evolving and thematically integrated texture, was (I believe) Sibelius's #7.


If it counts, Schoenberg's Chamber Symphony came nearly two decades earlier.

Of course, it was inspired by other integrated sonata structures such as Liszt's Sonata in B minor.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> ^^^More specifically it was the three movemment Italian _Sinfonia_, not an entire orchestral suite.


I suspect that the suite had its influence as well. For instance, Haydn's initial string quartets (Opp. 1 and 2) are mostly 5-movement works and are often spoken of as deriving from the then-fading tradition of the baroque suite. But by Op. 9, the form had been condensed to the four movements we know so well, which are shared by classical symphonies and on through the 19th century.

Interesting that concertos dropped, mostly, the dance movement. Why? Anybody know?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Interesting that concertos dropped, mostly, the dance movement. Why? Anybody know?


Probably because the concerto was already an established form in the Baroque era, and so the Classical adoption of it merely used the form as given, while the Symphony was more or less developed in the Classical era, and so it was able to develop out of the three-movement format.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

According to Heinrich Schenker, he argued that there was an Urlinie or basic tonal melody, and a basic bass figuration. He held that when these two were present, there was basic structure, and that the sonata represented this basic structure in a whole work with a process known as interruption (Schenker 1979, 1:134). (this is the entry for sonata in Wikipedia).

So what ties the sonata movements together are the two elements of the melody and bass... paring down to fundamentals.

A fine example is Berg's Piano Sonata No. 1


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Probably because the concerto was already an established form in the Baroque era...


Ah, yes. I kind of missed the obvious there. Was Brahms the first to go to a 4-movement concerto form?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

pianolearnerstride said:


> As a listener, do you see any advantage to this type of grouping?
> 
> Any unity I hear feels like it's simply a result of hearing the movements together... nothing more...


In the classical era, the form (typically) had the advantage of putting the most complicated, heaviest music first, with the succeeding movements getting progressively lighter in character.

Usually,

1 - Sonata form movement (developmental, moves far afield in terms of harmony)
2 - Slow movement (usually only moves a little bit in terms of harmony, like a Baroque binary form)
3 - Dance movement (shorter phrases, more repetition)
4 - Rondo (quite repetitive, simple themes)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

pianolearnerstride said:


> As a listener, do you see any advantage to this type of grouping?
> 
> Any unity I hear feels like it's simply a result of hearing the movements together... nothing more...


There's truth in that. We're used to hearing them grouped as the composers wrote them. It seems good. And so...we're happy campers all! Also remember that people enjoy variety and contrast as well as "unity".


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Ah, yes. I kind of missed the obvious there. Was Brahms the first to go to a 4-movement concerto form?


I can't think of any earlier examples, but I wouldn't be surprised if some exist.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> I can't think of any earlier examples, but I wouldn't be surprised if some exist.


Bach's 1st Brandenburg Concerto? The "dance" movement is at the end.

Some concertos in the Baroque (I know a lot by Telemann followed this format) had an opening slow movement which preceded the three standard fast-slow-fast movements and thus were four movement concertos.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*What ties the movements of a sonata or symphony together? *

C[h]ords?


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

A good example (in my opinion) of good grouping is Beethoven's C# minor (Moonlight) sonata. All three movements are contrasting, but have unity of key (outer movements in C# minor, scherzo in D♭ major).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

pianolearnerstride said:


> As a listener, do you see any advantage to this type of grouping?
> 
> Any unity I hear feels like it's simply a result of hearing the movements together... nothing more...


The degree of unity we hear varies hugely from one work to another. One of the basic principles generally felt to characterize satisfying musical works (and works of art in general) is "unity in variety," where there's enough contrast to prevent monotony and enough unity to make the whole work satisfying and meaningful. A multi-movement work can present itself essentially as several separate works, and simply composing them in a similar style and the same or closely related keys can, as in most symphonies of the Classical era, make contrast a sufficient objective and make the movements pleasant to hear together. Choosing to think of them as a single work with an overarching meaning and a cumulative effect poses more complex artistic problems which were worked out in different ways as time passed. I think if you listen enough to certain symphonies, beginning perhaps with familiar "themed" works like Beethoven's #6 ("Pastoral"), Berlioz's _Fantastique_, Mendelssohn's #3 ("Scottish"), Tchaikovsky's #5, and Franck's _Symphony in d-minor_, you'll begin to notice first some of the obvious, and then the less obvious, ways in which composers give coherence to multi-movement works.

One composer who pursued very explicitly the goal of unifying the movements of the symphony was Sibelius. He did it through a combination of devices: thematic material which evolves from simple motifs or fragments, subtle relationships between movements, fusion of separate movements, and unifying atmosphere. Each of his symphonies creates a distinct sound world and experiments, quite successfully, with a different structural concept.

In the 20th century we have an immense variety of approaches to the symphony which, again, vary in the degree and manner in which they seek or achieve unity of meaning and effect. All I can say is: keep listening, and you will hear more and more of what composers have done to bring unity to variety.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Another way to look at it: Starting in Beethoven's middle period, some multi-movement works are said to have a "distinctive physiognomy," as if we meet them as human individuals. Regardless if we can match their arms to their legs, they are "individuals" in a deeper sense. They are suffused with a single personality, even if not a single mood.

That idea seems to have been present in the classical period works from a much earlier date, and of course more obviously in later music.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Interesting topic.
One is usually scorned when referring specifically to individual movements, in discussions.
The typical example:
- I love the 2nd movement of LvB 5th piano concerto! It's one of my favourite pieces of music.
- Hey, you shouldn't take it separately from the whole work though. Shame on you.

So another way to look at this is wondering: is there anything actually 'wrong' in listening to individual movements as if they were stand-alone works? Why?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

albertfallickwang said:


> According to Heinrich Schenker, he argued that there was an Urlinie or basic tonal melody, and a basic bass figuration. He held that when these two were present, there was basic structure, and that the sonata represented this basic structure in a whole work with a process known as interruption (Schenker 1979, 1:134). (this is the entry for sonata in Wikipedia).
> 
> So what ties the sonata movements together are the two elements of the melody and bass... paring down to fundamentals.


Schenker's notion of unity applies to individual movements, not to multimovement structures. Interruption is an alleged phenomenon of individual sonata form movements, not cycles, in which the Urlinie is interrupted by the development section (usually?) and completed in the recapitulation.

The problem (well, one of many) with Schenker's theory is that it is untestable even as a mental experiment. An Ursatz or Urlinie can be read into any piece that begins and ends in the same key - the nature of tonal materials make this inevitable, which means its alleged presence is trivial. The theory is just an assertion of a philosophy of organic unity akin to a religious doctrine or mystery. However, the reductive analytical procedures by which it operates turn out to have practical value in understanding deep musical structures.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It's difficult. Listening to some of William Schuman's symphonies, finales can sound unconvincingly pasted on and not related at all to what preceded them.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Stavrogin said:


> Interesting topic.
> One is usually scorned when referring specifically to individual movements, in discussions.
> The typical example:
> - I love the 2nd movement of LvB 5th piano concerto! It's one of my favourite pieces of music.
> ...


No one...?

I need to know the truth.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Stavrogin said:


> No one...?
> 
> I need to know the truth.


No becuase the music is there to be enjoyed for what it is. A movement is essentially a self contained piece of music with its own defining form. It has a beginning and a final double bar line at the end. It can be listened to as a work in its own right just a short story as part of a collection of stories can be read separately from the others.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

^ Wow, thanks. That's a relief!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> No becuase the music is there to be enjoyed for what it is. A movement is essentially a self contained piece of music with its own defining form. It has a beginning and a final double bar line at the end. It can be listened to as a work in its own right just a short story as part of a collection of stories can be read separately from the others.


Well, some movements are self-contained, others less so or not at all. It is not unusual for first (and other) movements in music from Beethoven on to resolve their tonal tensions in a traditional way while leaving unresolved other kinds of tensions, like those due to steadily intensified thematic contrasts or dramatic oppositions.The first movement of Beethoven's Appassionata is a prime example. One knows there has to be more to come after the end of the first movement - it feels palpably incomplete, as do the second movements of Mahler's Fifth Symphony and Rachmaninoff's Second, the first movements of Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra and Shostakovich's Tenth, and countless others. These movements aren't like short stories so much as chapters in a novel, which often have clear beginnings and endings without being entirely self-contained.

As for Stavrogin's question: Of course there is nothing wrong with listening to movements on their own, just as there is nothing wrong with rereading isolated chapters of a favorite novel. But one can do so while being sensitive to the tensions and issues they leave unresolved.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Interesting.
It would be nice to analyse what types of works and by whom have movements like "short stories" and which like "chapters" instead.
But this is indeed a nice framework to have in mind when approaching a work. Thanks.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Stavrogin said:


> Interesting topic.
> One is usually scorned when referring specifically to individual movements, in discussions.
> The typical example:
> - I love the 2nd movement of LvB 5th piano concerto! It's one of my favourite pieces of music.
> ...


Not "wrong" in a moral sense, but maybe "wrong" in the sense that that's not how the composer wanted his work to be heard and "wrong" in the sense that you won't get the full experience of the piece.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Yes, I meant "wrong" in the sense of "philologically incorrect" I guess.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Stavrogin said:


> Yes, I meant "wrong" in the sense of "philologically incorrect" I guess.


Well, I'll just say that, for myself, it really bothers me to listen to a single movement of a larger piece except on occasion and I can't even imagine my listening life being comprised of taking bits and pieces from here or there and never listening to a full piece. It would be like I was always listening to one of those ****** compilation albums.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

violadude said:


> Well, I'll just say that, for myself, it really bothers me to listen to a single movement of a larger piece except on occasion and I can't even imagine my listening life being comprised of taking bits and pieces from here or there and never listening to a full piece. It would be like I was always listening to one of those ****** compilation albums.


Yeah, this is the point. Is it really like listening to a compilation? Above all, is it _always_ like that?
Take the 1st movement from Prokofiev 2nd piano concerto. Wouldn't that give you the feeling to have listened to a self-contained piece (12 minutes long, by the way)?
Otherwise, is it only a "psychological" thing? As in: since I know that the composer has done something more within the same work, listening to only a part of it feels incomplete.

Let's not forget that music does not tell stories, so the "chapter/novel" metaphor is nice but may be dangerous.


----------



## Guest (Dec 18, 2014)

Sometimes, when listening to some of the longer symphonies (e.g. Mahler #3, Gliere #3), I slip in short piano pieces between movements as a kind of intermission between movements. Ditto acts in operas. 

Gotta have a chance to take a restroom break, fill up the champagne glass, people watch, flirt with the pretty girls, etc. 

I find it makes the listening experience less tedious and helps to bring fresh ears to each movement. 

But this really depends on the work as well as my mood and level of concentration. YMMV.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Stavrogin said:


> Yeah, this is the point. Is it really like listening to a compilation? Above all, is it _always_ like that?
> Take the 1st movement from Prokofiev 2nd piano concerto. Wouldn't that give you the feeling to have listened to a self-contained piece (12 minutes long, by the way)?
> Otherwise, is it only a "psychological" thing? As in: since I know that the composer has done something more within the same work, listening to only a part of it feels incomplete.
> 
> Let's not forget that music does not tell stories, so the "chapter/novel" metaphor is nice but may be dangerous.


I sense that you may be in danger of losing some sleep here, Stavrogin. Don't worry! There are no legal or psychological repercussions associated with listening to just one movement of something. Personally, I'm with violadude and EdwardBast; I know the composer thought of that movement as just a part of the piece and I want to know the whole story, and there are a lot of movements that don't really feel quite complete, although in many cases that's probably because we already know what's to follow or what came before.

Since most people who pay to attend concerts want to hear whole works, it's rare to hear a single movement of something programmed, but my impression is that things might have been a little more casual in the distant past. In the 19th century concerts often consisted of motley collections of this and that - concertos, arias, choral works, whatever - and it wouldn't surprise me if works were sometimes broken into parts. At the premiere of Beethoven's 7th symphony the audience demanded an encore of the second movement before the work could proceed. We don't know how LvB felt about having his perfectly designed work screwed up that way, but he went with the flow. In any case, if you want to listen to just the finale while working out, the composer is no longer capable of objecting.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

In certain works there are individual movements that I just enjoy on another level compared to the rest of the work. In these cases I'll often go back to just listen to that specific movement - two examples of this are the middle movements of Ravel - PC in G and Bartok - PC no. 2. I've heard the works in their entirety many times and think they work great that way, and I think all the movements are good - in this instance I'm not neglecting the outer movements because they are bad or ineffective, it is simply because I've heard them so many times I've worn them out where for whatever reason I seem to never tire of those two middle movements. In these cases I just don't feel like I have to sit through those extra movements every time because its the "proper" thing to do. 

Listening is a subjective thing meaning even great composers tastes can differ from our own. If a composer writes certain things I enjoy and certain things that don't work for me, I don't find it problematic to listen to just the parts I enjoy. However I do think it is good to listen to all the parts of these works again on occasion because tastes can change.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> I sense that you may be in danger of losing some sleep here, Stavrogin. Don't worry! There are no legal or psychological repercussions associated with listening to just one movement of something. Personally, I'm with violadude and EdwardBast; I know the composer thought of that movement as just a part of the piece and I want to know the whole story, and there are a lot of movements that don't really feel quite complete, although in many cases that's probably because we already know what's to follow or what came before.
> 
> Since most people who pay to attend concerts want to hear whole works, it's rare to hear a single movement of something programmed, but my impression is that things might have been a little more casual in the distant past. In the 19th century concerts often consisted of motley collections of this and that - concertos, arias, choral works, whatever - and it wouldn't surprise me if works were sometimes broken into parts. At the premiere of Beethoven's 7th symphony the audience demanded an encore of the second movement before the work could proceed. We don't know how LvB felt about having his perfectly designed work screwed up that way, but he went with the flow. In any case, if you want to listen to just the finale while working out, the composer is no longer capable of objecting.


 Thank God, I was just about to go to the shrink.
No, jokes apart, I just find this issue very interesting.
I think we can define four types of approach.

1) Regardless of the actual content of the movements, they are only a part of a bigger picture because the composer wanted so, therefore I never consider them as stand-alone pieces.

2) Some movements are tied by thematic/harmonic/whatever reasons, some others are not: they do not share anything relevant with their fellow ones; in the latter case I can consider them as possibly stand-alone pieces.

3) Even in the case in which movements are tied one-another, some of them, when listened to individually, can still be perceived as "self-contained", complete, not requiring further development. In this case I consider them as possibly stand-alone pieces.

4) I could care less about ties or self-containment. Movements are separate works with a beginning and an end, and I always consider them as such.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Stavrogin said:


> Thank God, I was just about to go to the shrink.
> No, jokes apart, I just find this issue very interesting.
> I think we can define four types of approach.
> 
> ...


The _Posterior Analytics__ of Movementology._

On what days do you lecture at the Lyceum?


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The _Posterior Analytics__ of Movementology._
> 
> On what days do you lecture at the Lyceum?


Usually on Wooddays.
You'd be a very welcome guest, ça va sans dire.


----------

