Sonata Form Problems by Jens Peter Larsen (1963), translated by Jerald C. Graue (1978)

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America

Volume 3

Number 2

Fall 2013

Article 16

November 2013

Sonata Form Problems by Jens Peter Larsen (1963), translated by Sonata Form Problems by Jens Peter Larsen (1963), translated by

Jerald C. Graue (1978) Jerald C. Graue (1978)

Jerald C. Graue

Follow this and additional works at: https://remix.berklee.edu/haydn-journal

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Graue, Jerald C. (2013) "Sonata Form Problems by Jens Peter Larsen (1963), translated by Jerald C.

Graue (1978),"

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America

: Vol. 3 : No. 2 , Article 16.

Available at: https://remix.berklee.edu/haydn-journal/vol3/iss2/16

the author and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

Sonata Form Problems

by Jens Peter Larsen (1963), as translated by Jerald C. Graue (1978).

Editor's Note

Jerald C. Graue's English translation of Jens Peter Larson's 1963 essay "Sonatenform-

Probleme" was published as "Sonata Form Problems" in Larsen's (trans. Ulrich

Krämer) Haydn, Handel, and the Viennese Classical Style (Ann Arbor: UMI Research

Press, 1988; 269-80), but without acknowledgment of Prof. Graue as translator. We

are honoring the 50th anniversary of the publication of Prof. Larsen's essay, and the

25th anniversary of the publication of its translation, by publishing the following

transcription of Prof. Graue's own typed document of the translation, which includes

hand-written corrections and addenda. Editorial changes in this transcription are

limited to: the division of the article into sections in order to accommodate online

readability, the removal of items crossed out by Prof. Graue, some changes in text

formatting to follow current usage (e.g. original underlining of titles and foreign

terms changed to italics), and completion of journal titles in endnote references when

shorthand had been used. A pdf of Prof. Graue's original and a letter from Prof. Graue

to Prof. Larsen regarding the content of the translation and other matters, dated 6

April 1976, can be viewed in the online article. We thank Prof. Marie Rolf for

providing these documents to us from Prof. Graue's personal papers.

Jens Peter Larsen. "Sonatenform-Probleme," Festschrift Friedrich Blume, ed. Anna

Amalie Abert and Wilhelm Pfannkuch. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1963, pp. 221-230.

The concept of sonata form belongs among those firmly entrenched concepts that are as

much at home in the textbooks of music history as in those of music theory and music

pedagogy. Nevertheless, or perhaps in part even because of the nearly universal use of

this designation, the contents of the form remain unclear. In other words, the more that

clarity seems to prevail, the less does the description of the form often coincide with the

actual historical picture of sonata form. This is probably due in large measure to the fact

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

that the theoretical-pedagogical literature has favored the idea of a rigid, typical

textbook form, while all the historical representation of the form must strive toward a

less schematic description that can serve for a larger number of historically observed,

diverse forms. Just as the fugue form in Bach's music only rarely corresponds to the

scheme of the textbook fugue of the 19th century, historical research into the music of

the Viennese classical period invites trouble when it takes textbook sonata form as a

starting point.

Along with the conflict between didactically and historically oriented form description, a

second factor must be named that severely restricts the validity of the general concept of

sonata form: the formal concept in question first arose in the second quarter of the 19th

century, after Beethoven had altered the basis of form perception so fundamentally that

every discussion of pre-Beethovenian music based on these assumptions will almost

unavoidably tend to force upon the music a basic nature quite foreign to it. This is

apparent above all in the assertion of a fundamental contrast between principal theme

and second theme as the central issue in the form. How much energy has been spent in

the course of time in trying to find the second theme in a sonata movement, in order to

obey the law of thematic dualism, and how much force has been employed in order to

change an entirely different formal process into a model for dualistic formal principles!

Since the beginning of this century many attempts have been made toward a revision of

the concept of sonata form, but they do not seem to have produced a general re-

orientation. In some music history textbooks one certainly finds prudent reservations

concerning the traditional description, but one hardly encounters a new formulation of

the concept that might do justice to the sonatas and symphonies of Haydn and Mozart,

just as much as to those of Beethoven. Some indication may be given here of the

problems that are bound up with such re-orientation. First, however, a small

terminological digression.

Cf. F. Blume, "Fortspinnung und Entwicklung," Jahrbuch der Musikbibliothek Peters 36 (1929), 51-70;

64ff. relevant here.

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

As a terminological concept, the designation "sonata form" seems to have been coined

by A. B. Marx. In the second volume of his Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition

he discusses the "ambiguity of the term," the possibility of denoting through this

expression either the form of the whole sonata or that of a single movement. Rather

hesitantly, he chooses the second possibility. With the great dissemination of Marx's

book this term became established, if only over the course of several decades. In any

case, up to the 1860s one finds such designations as "the first form," "the form of the

first allegro," the "form of evolution," or "form of free development of musical ideas,"

"the main form," or "the allegro-form."

As a generally accepted designation for the

single movement, not for the cycle, the expression "sonata form" prevailed until after

the First World War. In the 1920s and 1930s new tendencies emerged. Stimulated by

the phenomenological way of thinking (Kurth, Mersmann), some authors refrained from

using the term "form" for something already formed, differentiating when necessary

"form" from "formation" [Formung]; and instead they used expressions like "formation

type," or "sonata movement" (Westphal), or "sonata movement type" (von Tobel) for a

movement in sonata form. The old problem of "ambiguity" in the term "sonata form"

also made itself felt again. In a logically unimpeachable manner "sonata form" was

made to serve as a designation for the whole cycle, and the complicated expression

"sonata-main-movement-form" [Sonatenhauptsatzform] was introduced as a

movement designation (Grabner and others).

Even if this terminology might be considered formally correct, the gain still seems

questionable to me. The use of "sonata form" as a label for single movements must also

certainly be regarded as formally correct--in the sense, however, that it is the form

especially characteristic of the sonata, not that it is the form of the sonata itself. In fact,

an exact parallel exists in the term "concerto form," not "concerto-main-movement-

form" [Konzerthauptsatzform]. It is still to be questioned what one should make of the

I-IV, 1837-1847. II, 497-501: "Die Sonatenform."

[Die erste Form, die Form des ersten Allegro, Form der Evolution, Form der freieren musikalischen

Gedankenentwicklung, die Hauptform, die Allegroform.] Cf. J. C. Lobe, Lehrbuch der musikalischen

Komposition I, Leipzig 1850, 305ff.; and B. Windmann, Formenlehre der Instrumentalmusik nach den

System Schnyder's von Wartensee, 1862, 62.

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

label "sonata form" when used for the sonata cycle, since there is really no sonata form

of this sort. For the symphony of the concerto one can speak of such a form. But what

should be called sonata form in the same sense, regarding, for example, the piano

sonatas of Beethoven? In practice, I believe, one would hardly use the term "sonata

form" as a designation for the cycle, and in return have to drag along the rather

unmusical-sounding "sonata-main-movement-form." For this reason I use the

designation sonata form in its customary sense and reserve the expression "sonata

cycle" for the description of the entire composition.

II.

The traditional presentation of sonata form in the teaching of form and composition

involves a series of more or less openly expressed axioms, some of the most prominent

of which will be identified here.

1. Sonata form consists fundamentally of three principal parts: exposition,

development, and recapitulation; these are further enclosed in two repetition-

periods (exposition; development + recapitulation). The substance of the

development is on the one hand free modulation, on the other hand thematic-

motivic "development," a free working-out generally of exposition material.

2. The actual two-part tonal division of the exposition is reflected in a two-part

formal division of approximately this type: I. principal theme and bridge

passage; II. second theme and (freer) closing group.

3. The two-part division is manifested especially clearly in the previously-

discussed principle of thematic dualism: the complimentary character of the

two basic themes (principal theme and second theme).

4. The foundations of the movement are precisely these two themes. Whatever

lies outside the thematic parts is generally of secondary importance, as is

clearly evident in labels like "bridge passage" or (in German terminology)

"Überleitung."

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

5. The structure of the thematic parts especially, but also of much of the

secondary bridge passages and so forth, is largely reducible to 2-, 4-, and 8-

measure groupings.

Through the specialized studies of various scholars, particularly in the years from about

1915 to 1935, a number of questions came up that had to raise doubts about the validity

now of one, now of another of these axioms. In the first place, Wilhelm Fischer's often-

cited study "Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Wiener klassischen Stils"

should be

named here. By his delineation of the two contrasting approaches, "song type" and

"spinning-out-type" [Liedtypus and Fortspinnungstypus], he above all caused a break

from the well-known theory (stemming from Riemann especially) of prevailing eight-

measure groupings. In the 1920s the form of the symphony movement (until then

viewed in the light of sonata form) was recognized as being largely influenced by the

form of the baroque concerto movement.

That had to lead to an altered view not only

of the general structure of the symphony (or sonata), but also of the relationship

between thematic formation and free development, in light of the ritornello-episode

contrast.

A fundamental criticism of the traditional view of form came from the side of the

advocates of a phenomenological approach to music. Prominent here, in the first rank,

is Hans Mersmann's "Versuch einer Phänomenologie der Musik."

Against the hitherto

"uncontested basis of all form investigations . . . , the derivation of all features from the

motive," Mersmann established the duality of motive and line as "elemental

principles . . . in reality more like ideas than manifestations," whose incarnation is

denoted by the terms "period" and "theme." "By its nature, period is the structural

manifestation of line, theme that of motive; however, the forces merge in their

appearance into a living unity." Finally, "the basic opposition between period and

In Studien der Musikwissenschaft III (1915).

F. Tutenberg, Die Sinfonik Johann Christan Bachs, Wolfenbüttel-Berlin, 1928.

In Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft V (1922/23), 226-269.

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

theme . . . [leads] to the equally contrasting structure of their forms of progression [as is

implied] in the terms 'completion' [Ablauf] and 'development' [Entwicklung]. — The

problem of all 'compilation forms' is a problem of sequence, i.e. of grouping of elements

of a periodic nature. The problem of development-forms is a problem of forces and not

of sequence." As a sample of an analysis according to these assumptions Mersmann

goes through Haydn's E-flat major sonata, No. 49 (p. 256 et seq.). Rather

disappointingly, he concentrates wholly on the demonstration that the entire form

process is to be considered a consequence of forces pitted against each other in the main

theme. In Riemann's case one might justifiably object that motivic construction is one-

sidedly advanced to the foreground while the large dimensions of the form, the multi-

faceted relationships of its parts to each other, are disregarded on the whole. Here,

however, the analysis of motivic interrelationship is placed in the center; as a "rule of

form" this can in some cases be truly central, but in most instances it must be

considered irrelevant.

The remarkable study of Kurt Westphal, Der Begriff der musikalischen Form in der

Wiener Klassik, Versuch einer Grundlegung der Theorie der musikalischen Formung,

concentrates on the problem of classical form. It launched a well-considered critique,

Unfortunately, the enticing but very dangerous tendency toward the demonstration of extensive "unity of

substance" [Substanzgemeinschaft] has gained a certain currency. It has reached a striking exaggeration

in W. Engelsmann's study, Beethovens Kompositions-pläne, dargestellt an den Sonaten für Violine und

Klavier (Augsburg, 1931). According to Engelsmann "each of Beethoven's sonatas, in all its sections,

movements, and themes, [is] developed from a single main theme or main motive." More recently H.

Engel has attempted to show a tendency toward thematic unity of this type in the pre- and early classic

period, in two publications — "Haydn, Mozart und die Klassik" (in Mozart-Jahrbuch 10 [1959], 46-79)

and "Die Quellen des klassischen Stiles" (in International Musicology Society, Report of the Eighth

Congress, New York 1961, 285-304). "It has not previously been observed that interrelationship of the

first and last movements in the symphony (and the sonata) is extremely frequent and actually belongs to

the practice of the pre- and early classical period" (Mozart-Jahrbuch, 71). "It has been overlooked until

now that Mozart and Haydn also use this connection between movements very often" (IMS Report, 301).

Jan LaRue argues against these assertions by Engel in his article, "Significant and Coincidental

Resemblance Between Classical Themes" (in Journal of the American Musicological Society XIV [1961],

224-234). He urges rightly that the conscious use of thematic connections of this type is a practice of the

19th, not the 18th century. In order to demonstrate a relationship, the examples in evidence would

unquestionably have to exhibit greater significance. R. Rosenberg, who in his book Die Klaviersonaten

Ludwig van Beethovens (1-2, Olten-Lausanne, 1957) displays similar tendencies, admits rather openly

that the proof of community of substance of this sort tends very strongly toward the realm of the

subjective.

Phil. Diss. Berlin, 1933; Leipzig, 1935.

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

especially of the "form analysis of Riemann and his school" (pp. 31ff.), and argues

against the idea of the unifying power of "community of substance." "Form then—to

stress it once again—is not something that is apprehended through relating perception,

rather it becomes immediately perceptible in the process of hearing, as a curve of

progression overgrowing the single parts. It is not community of substance, but rather

this curve of progression, that transforms the mere co-existence of sections into a unity.

If this were not so, every musical entity whose individual periods exhibit no community

of substance would necessarily fall apart" (p. 36). The description of "Form as a

Totality" (deriving from Gestalt theory) and "Form as Curve of Progression" crowns

Westphal's analysis. Another quotation toward the closer definition of the term curve of

progression: "The single sections are therefore not form-generating. The real matter is

not one about parts and their sequence as such, but about their functional inter-

relationships. The essence of this interrelationship is the curve of progression" (p. 77).

Observations of a markedly similar character are found in the study by Rudolf von Tobel

that appeared in the same year (1935), his Die Formenwelt der klassischen

Instrumentalmusik, which is probably the most comprehensive treatment of the

problems of classical form from an historical point of view. But to a certain extent the

study leaves behind the impression of a rather conspicuous separation of the inquiry

into two parts: the main part, classical music strictly defined (chapters 1-7), and the

final part (chapter 8), a detailed discussion of "dynamics of form" [Formdynamik],

which itself comprises a third of the book and is concerned almost exclusively with

Beethovenian and post-Beethovenian music. In the main section Tobel starts out from

inherited form designations, with an entirely traditional outline of sonata form (pp. 19-

21); however, he gives a rich picture of classical forms together with a wealth of valuable,

essential observations, all of which are far removed from any schematic outline, bearing

witness again and again to the author's historical foundation. But with the beginning of

the eighth chapter the picture changes. Based on Kurth, the inadequacy of traditional

form description is very strongly stressed, and the "dynamic" view of form advances to

the foreground along with the mania for bar-form, so characteristic of the period just

around 1930. Although observations of this sort obviously are aimed at the music of the

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

19th century above all, they also appear now to place classical music in a different light.

In connection with an analysis of Bach's music it reads (p. 240): "In quest of a symbolic

means of representation for these diversified developments with changing transitions,

one naturally has to reject completely the system with letter-symbols used customarily

and appropriately for static-architectonic form principles. The dynamic undulations

require a pliant, individual manner of tracing, which only is to be found in a curve

(contour)." Proceeding from the first couplet of the middle movement from Mozart's D

minor piano concerto, the importance of a double-analysis is referred to, "vis., the

pursuance of the dynamic progression in addition to a thematic-architectonic analysis,"

and, following the insertion of an example, it continues: "This repeated involution of

the bar-form progression suggests the character of the natural interplay of ripples. The

contention is thereby affirmed, that even the classical music obeys dynamic laws and

these represent the general form principle of music [das urmusikalische Formprinzip]"

(p. 247, cf. also p. 269).

III.

The three last-named scholars uniformly stress the importance of tracking the curve of

the "dynamic undulations" [dynamische Wellen], the "curve of progression"

[Verlaufskurve], while they cast off as having little or no significance any analysis

aiming at a statement of "the parts and their sequence" [die Teile und ihre Abfolge].

Undoubtedly, the emphasis on the importance of functional interrelationships

(especially clear in Westphal) has been a necessary corrective to the customary approach

to form. Still the question is, how might one best achieve an analysis of this character?

Perhaps one comes nearest to the realization of this challenge when one strives for a

description of functional interrelationships rather than a formal diagram of contour. In

any case, Mersmann's curves hardly seem convincing to me. On the other hand, I hold

as essential the conviction that a description—or a graphic outline—of this sort does not,

really, render superfluous an analysis of form in the sense of a partition, a survey of

formal structure; rather, such an analysis must precede it. Apparently, criticism of

traditional analysis has led to a somewhat dangerous neglect of the fundamental

elucidation of formal structure. Since such analysis has fallen into disrepute, it has not

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

been regarded as necessary to follow up the impulses of historical research toward a

genuine new orientation. The following remarks may suggest the potentialities of a

revision. I restrict myself here to the problem of the first part of sonata form, the

exposition. If I rely predominantly on examples by Haydn rather than by Mozart, it is

naturally due to the fact that the textbook sonata with its over-emphasis on dualistic

form is oriented precisely to a form that is typical for Mozart, so the necessity for a

revision is much more readily apparent in a study of Haydn's forms.

The assumption of a fundamental two-part division of the exposition, corresponding to

the two-part tonal division, was referred to earlier (section II, axiom 2). Even if there

are innumerable movements with a tonally-indicated two-part division, the notion of

monopolization by this form still remains absolutely untenable. Actually, it is not

entirely correct to speak of this as a two-part tonal division, since the arrangement

shows more directly rather a three-part division: tonic region—T-D transition—

dominant region. But in most cases the dominant region is more extensive than the

other two together. Furthermore, we can deduce from the development of the form

from the suite to the sonata, that an implicit parallelism between tonal and formal

divisions cannot be postulated. The tonal development within the second repetition-

period will generally move along similar lines regardless, whether this period represents

a continuous whole or it is composed of two parts (development, recapitulation).

Typical examples of three-part, rather than two-part, division of the exposition are

found in many of Haydn's compositions. I cite in the first place the Keyboard Sonata No.

20 in C minor, first movement: main theme mm. 1-8, elaboration section mm. 9-26

with a forceful buildup of dominant tension, closing section with epilogue mm. 26-37.

As a second example the first movement of the Symphony No. 82 may be quoted: main

theme mm. 1-20, elaboration section mm. 21-69, closing section mm. 70-102. Very

similar is the Symphony No. 97, first movement: main theme mm. 1-26 (the slow

introduction is not included), elaboration section mm. 27-62, closing section mm. 63-94.

In these (and many other) movements the curve of progression is totally different from

the textbook type. The main theme (or the main theme group) is tonally closed, though

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

perhaps with a dominant half-cadence. The elaboration section may proceed from the

main theme—Marx's "period with a disintegrating second part" [Periode mit

aufgelöstem Nachsatz]—or it may not: it is made up more or less in the way of a

developmental structure, combining free spinning-out and a succession of changing

motives. Tonally it conforms to the section of the exposition customarily designated as

"bridge passage" [Überleitung] or "transition" [Vermittlung]. However, while this

section usually comes to an end relatively soon in order to make way for the second

theme in the dominant as the second principal formal factor (second after the main

theme), the developmental construction—the "elaboration"—itself is actually the second

principal factor, not merely a secondary "transition." The formal function of the closing

group also differs from that of the textbook type. The same type usually includes a

second (dispensable) melodic concentration (in addition to the second theme) whose

function in the whole movement is not entirely clear. In our three-part exposition type,

on the other hand, it appears quite logically as the indication of a long-awaited

relaxation, a repose on the dominant after the preceding development of tonal tension.

Whether or not—here as in the textbook type—an epilogue is appended at the very end

has no effect on the general plan of the exposition; however, such an epilogue often

serves as a point of departure for important parts of the working-out of the following

development section.

This Haydnesque "closing theme" is quite clearly distinguished

from a normal "second theme," since it has a completely unmistakable character of

relaxation; as opposed to the "second theme" of a dualistic form, it does not aim at

assisting in the creation of formal tension as well.

A second exposition form, typical for Haydn and divergent from the "dualistic" type, has

already gained a certain attention, although it has not affected the traditional

presentation of these problems in a significant way. Blessinger describes it as follows:

"After the bridge passage in his symphonies, in place of the second theme, Haydn often

uses the main theme again transposed to the dominant, which then proceeds to new

passage-work. Then he often brings in another new, independent idea which, however,

Cf. for example, the excellent example from Mozart's Sonata in D (K.V. 311), to which Westphal refers,

emphasizing the altered functional character of the motive. Op. cit., 61ff.

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

does not always have the same sense. In the London Symphony in D major [No. 104] it

has a pronounced coda-like function. However, in the first movement of the Military

Symphony [No. 100] this new idea is manifestly a subsidiary theme. In this case,

obviously, the introduction of a closing idea is renounced. This Haydnesque procedure

points to early stages of sonata form in an evolutionary, if not in a chronological

sense."

— The same phenomenon is fully discussed by von Tobel also: "In J. Haydn's

masterworks still another tendency of unification culminates — a counterpart to

'thematische Arbeit' — as a reaction against the splitting up [Aufspaltung]: the melodic

derivation of the second theme from the main theme, and the close interconnection of

the exposition-complexes through relatedness of themes. The ways in which Haydn

derives his second themes are of an unequalled, fascinating diversity, and they might

require a special study." After the bridge passage, generally with "manifold contrasts,"

"the second section maintains a function similar to that of the beginning of the

movement: that of a rather restrained starting-point, of a joint new beginning. The

return to the opening section of the movement conforms most naturally to the similarity

in purpose, a return which in different works traverses all possibilities from a more

general relatedness to an almost straight resumption."

The unification tendency is — as von Tobel stresses but does not pursue further —

counter-balanced by a tendency toward variation, which bestows a distinctive stamp on

movements of this sort. This has already been pointed out by Blume in connection with

the Quartet, Op. 33 no. 3.

Similar tendencies are found in the keyboard sonatas, e.g.,

in No. 24 or No. 38. Among many symphony movements that can serve as examples of

the same formal tendencies, I might call attention to the first movement of No. 85 ("La

Reine"). The principal theme is presented in this movement no fewer than seven or

eight times (mm. 1-11, 20-30, 67-84, 123-133, 141ff., 201-211, 227-244). Contrary to

Kretzschmar's contention that the theme is "always [repeated] quite literally with the

exception of the tonality," each new statement — with one single exception (the

Grundzüge der musikalischen Formenlehre. Stuttgart, 1926, 186ff.

Op. cit., chapter 6 "Themenverwandtschaft, motivische Beziehungen," 116ff.

Op. cit., 66ff.

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

unchanged repetition of mm. 67-84 as 227-244) — means a new variation. The art of

variation represents one of the subtlest features of the entire compositional structure.

With the reference to the main theme that appears seven or eight times in ever-new

variations, we have inevitably approached another formal problem of the sonata. It was

mentioned from the outset how much the validity of the familiar description of sonata

form is restricted, first by the character of this structure as a textbook form, and second

by its far too one-sided orientation toward post-Beethovenian developments. Yet a third

weakness of the traditional description of this form must be stressed here, too. While

we find the difference of theme- and period-construction between sonata and symphony

very strongly articulated in Koch's Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition,

the more

recent form description generally tends to equate the two categories. It is overlooked

how much the familiar sonata form type derives from the sectional principle

[Reihungsprinzip] of the keyboard sonata, while the symphonic movement is to a great

extent determined by the ritornello principle of the concerto. Indeed, Symphony No. 85

may demonstrate this strikingly. In many instances, the contrast of ritornello and

episode, rather than the polarity of main theme and second theme, comes to the fore.

Two more features of symphonic structure can also be explained as concerto-derived:

the predominance of free development and period structure in the formal design of the

exposition, of which the three-part form described earlier represents an especially

typical special case (Symphonies Nos. 44, 91; Mozart, "Prague" Symphony K. 504), and

the complex, ritornello-like structure of the main theme (Symphonies Nos. 82, 97).

IV.

We must forgo a further description of special sonata form problems. Instead I might

try to give a brief survey of the essential features of sonata form which takes into

account the outlined variations of the form better than the traditional form description

characterized earlier (section II). We may again restrict our statements mainly to the

problems of the exposition.

III (1793), 305ff.

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

1. The tonal development of the exposition can predispose a basic 2- or 3-

part division, according to a stronger or weaker emphasis on the tonal

transition or the tonal development; either T → (D) D—|| or T/T → (D)

D—||. The symbol (D) means dominant preparation, either as TV, D, or

DV.

2. The agents of form construction and of form perception are not primarily

the themes, but rather the underlying tonal progression and the changing

formal function of the successive periods. The import of the themes can

indeed be truly significant, but the formal function is basically the carrier

of the themes, not the other way around. This arises particularly from the

special case in which a variant of the main theme takes the place and

function of a new second theme.

3. The function of a period within the complete course of the exposition can

be described by general designators (changing with varying cases) like:

opening section, main theme or main theme group; elaboration section or

transition group (bridge passage); subsidiary theme, contrasting theme,

main theme variant; subordinate theme, second subsidiary theme, motive

group; closing theme or closing group; epilogue, cadence group, or coda

group.

4. A period is generally composed of a larger or smaller number of minor

diversions, from the simpler motivic-thematic phrase construction (motive

repetition, simple phrase, regular sequence formation, eight-measure

period) to the 2- or 3-part period construction, phrase series, or freer

development (spinning-out in Fischer's sense), and to the elaborate phrase

complex (like ritornello structure), or to figural structure or passage-work.

A motivic-thematic concentration (theme formation) is often characteristic

of the beginning of a main period or group (principal, subsidiary, and

closing themes), but it is also possible for other parts of the period

structure. On the other hand the beginning of a period without normal

("symmetrical") theme construction (rather put together in ritornello

Larsen, Jens Peter, trans. Jerald C. Graue. "Sonata Form Problems."

HAYDN: Online Journal of the Haydn Society of North America 3.2 (Fall 2013), http://haydnjournal.org.

author, RIT Press, and/or the Haydn Society of North America is prohibited.

fashion) must be considered an absolutely typical feature of certain forms,

especially at the very beginning of a movement. The interrelating of the

first two larger periods — tonic group and modulation period — by

corresponding beginnings without analogous continuation ("Period with a

disintegrating second part") is likewise typical.

5. Within the common framework of a 2- or 3-part tonal division, formal

tendencies of highly diverse, even partially contradictory characters can be

recognized; as, for example: thematic abundance vs. motivic-thematic

compactness; sectional structure vs. developmental form; prevailing

homophony vs. texturally free, semi-polyphonic part-writing (quartet

style); eight-measure groupings vs. asymmetrical spinning-out.

6. The elements essential for the understanding of the structure of a given

form can be grouped into two categories, according to their main effect:

those that primarily serve the underlining of the division, the structure of

the form (structural pause, stressed cadence formation, dynamic change,

emphasized motivic contrast, etc.), and those that act (less obviously) as

agents of the formal development and the melodic-rhythmic progression

(linear development, harmonic rhythm, etc.).

For an understanding of

the substance of the form both are of fundamental significance: the

division of the complete form and the filling-out of the formal framework.

The traditional description of sonata form has canonized a one-sided, established

realization of a too-narrowly limited concept of form. If no correspondingly clearly-

defined form has been presented here, it reflects the whole tendency of this small study:

the search for a widening of the boundaries both in relation to the tonal form concept

itself, and also even more in relation to the highly variable content whose diversity,

frequently almost improvisatory in its effect, can hardly be done justice by the

traditional sonata form definition.

Translated by Jerald C. Graue

Cf. J. LaRue, "A System of Symbols for Formal Analysis," in Journal of the American Musicological

Society X (1957), 25-28.