Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Classical Sonata Analysis

We don't want you being bored. (You listen to Satie who allows enough time between bars to read the paper but you find Schubert boring? Hmmm!)

There are five other MM to choose from or eight Impromptu's. I'll go through any of them with you or you might try and persuade the others to change piece. I'm fine either way. But I don't want you, of all people, missing out on one of the finest exporers of key.

Schubert Opus 94 Number 6

I expect I'll find it more interesting as I delve into the harmonies more. I'm intrigued by his writing of E7 enharmonically with a bunch of flats, before shifting key signature to E major. I called it quits for the night before getting to the Trio, or really grappling with his harmony throughout. I'll tackle it again tonight.

I'm also looking at the unity tieing his phrases together, and the variety differentiating them from each other.

Maybe I should try playing just the top notes, with select bass notes, as a start on a skeleton of the piece. I have had very little practice playing heavily chorded pieces like this; this is a big gap that I want to fix.

Schubert, Op. 94/6, AllegrettoIn




You can go ahead and dispel this notion, Richard. Indeed, when I saw the waltz like time signature I right away went to the closet to dig out my dancing gear. But unfortunately, packed it all back away again (in utter frustration and disappointment,) shortly thereafter .

One of these days though ...

Richard, do I understand that this is part of a suite then? I think my theory book has a write up about Minuet form. All that we had so far is that this was a piece called Allegretto, with a performance and link to the score. A lot of us are in different stages of learning.

I'm going for subjective rather than "knowledgeable" impressions, (especially since I don't have that much knowledge here).

Mostly I was observing chords, and some movement in the music. There is a huge particular contrast between the main part and the Trio part. The main part has a lot of minor chords, and there is a lot of chromatic movement going up and down. The progressions themselves are not as "usual" as in the first music that we analyzed. All together it feels a bit sadder, more unsettling. The chromatic movement makes me think of the shark theme from (lost the name of the movie suddenly). All of that together may give this unsettled, sad, or similar feeling which you are experiencing, PianoStudent88, especially when playing it slowly.

When you get to the Trio, this same thing lifts. You have the more predictable things that we analyzed before, the movement is larger, and there are lots of major and seventh chords. In fact, I think that it is the contrast which creates an effect.

I would like to hear other performances to see what various performers have done with this piece, but it seems to be hard to find (I'll try some other key words).

I know that by this time the Minuet or Menuet was a "dance form" but it no longer functioned as a dance, so it would have lost some of its rhythmic qualities. But might other performers put more rhythm into it, or play it faster, or highlight particular notes? If so, then this would also give us aspects of the music to listen for and notice.

I totally love the Fb7 = Fb(aug6) or however that might be written out. Music is absurd logic or logical absurdity. Just the right thing for this wacky world.

Schubert, Op. 94/6, Allegretto


This is not a minuet and is not part of a suite.

It is structurally similar to one of the doubles in a Bach Suite, such as a minuet, but is no longer anything to do with a dance.

Bach and his contemporaries used a minuet as part of a suite. Mozart and Haydn adopted it as part of a sonata and Beethoven adapted it to form a Scherzo. The first part was not typically repeated. The second movement of his Moonlight sonata is an Allegretto of exactly this structure.

A (specifically marked without repeat)
B (plus repeat)
Trio: A (plus repeat) B (plus repeat)
da capo: A (without repeat)
B (without repeat)



Schubert has returned the form to its previous style, repeating the A section.

You might also check out these two Scherzi, D.593. The B flat is very popular and easy (ABRSM grade 5). I learnt it years ago. They have the same structure as this sixth Moment Musical.

Ok, I'm getting confused about the information being presented. First I read something about a minuet. Then, Richard, your previous post began with information about suites, and went on from there. I'm seeing information, but I can't seem to contextualize it.

Now here you have written that the Moonlight Sonata is "an Allegretto of the same structure". This makes me assume that there is such a thing as "an Allegretto" like there is such a thing as "a Sonata" or "A Minuet". I thought "allegretto" referred to a tempo and maybe mood or rhythm (allegro is fast-ish and lively; allegretto is either slower or faster than that, etc.).

I feel like I've walked into the middle of a lecture mid-term after not attending classes. Where might I find the information or context that I'm missing? (What do I google?)

PS88 mentioned this as being "Minuet and Trio form, with a da capo to the minuet".

The minuet began life in the suite. It is da capo ternary form.

Haydn and Mozart continued to include a minuet in their sonatas.

Beethoven did not use the minuet but introduced in its stead the Scherzo. It continued to have da capo ternary form but Beethoven frequently omitted the repeat of the first section.

This is now da capo ternary form but no longer anything to do with a minuet.

Schubert usually includes the repeat of all the sections.

There are many variations of the da capo form just as there were many variations of the Rondo.

At the end of the trio there is usually an instruction such "minuet da capo" or, as here, "Allegretto da capo" (go to the head of the Allegretto).

There are da capo forms, there are ternary forms and there are ternary da capo forms (or da capo ternary forms). This piece can be described by any of these terms. Because the tempo indication is allegretto the piece is an allegretto. This does not refer to its form.

A song would have song form. There are many song forms. They (the forms) don't all have names. Some of them are just the form of that particular song. It is a song form (a form of a song), one of many song forms.

This is an allegretto. It is a da capo. It is thus an allegretto da capo. There isn't one allegretto form, there are many. They don't have a set pattern or a named one.

You could try googling da capo form or ternary form.

Allegretto, btw, is slightly slower than allegro.

Is this any clearer?

Thanks, Richard. That helps.

If I look at what we have done so far here is what I see:

We started off learning what binary and ternary form is. You have mentioned these two, and we should all know what they are since they were covered.

We then went off on the topic of sonatas and sonata form. There was an immediate problem because sonatas consist of three movements, some of which are in sonata form, and some of which are in rondo form (or other forms?). We looked at sonatinas, since they are like simple sonatas, which makes learning to analyze them easier.

Now it seems that there is such a thing as a suite (not covered). This thread is called "sonata", but we seem to have jumped. The previous piece was a "song" in "song form" (of which apparently there are many), and the present piece is in a (undefined as of yet, form?) -- it has nothing to do with sonatas either, right? So we are now just freely exploring any kind of musical form? Going on a tangent which will come together later?

I'm just beginning to see the problem you're having.


We started with these because the sonata principle, which defines form by key, used a very simple structural basis, binary form. Ternary form is also frequently used and has many variations but they all follow an ABA type of structure with variations in which bits are repeated and where the end comes, etc.


In the classical period, approx 1770 - 1820 and fairly specifically to music produced by the Viennese masters the sonata took on a new meaning than the one applied by earlier musicians such as Bach, e.g. a sound piece as opposed to a sung piece. A classical sonata consists of one or more movements. One or more of these movements should be in classical sonata form, e.g. Tonic material, dominant material (or dominant substitute), modulation passage where the material is developed and finally the recapitulation in tonic.

The sonata was unique among the various forms that had developed thus far in music in that it's specific structure was defined by the key of the material being presented rather than the placement of repeat bars and other architectural means. It is the harmonic analysis of the structure that is covered by the term 'classical sonata analysis'.

The structure of a piece in da capo ternary form, for example, can be seen without being able to read much music and certainly without looking closely at the score.

Without looking at the notes we can see that the first two lines of Schubert's Allegretto being studied here are repeated, then the next six or so lines are repeated (and the last measure is marked 'Fine'. Then there is a Trio section (also two halves, each repeated) and concluding with the term 'Allegretto DC'.

There we have it! A1, A1, A2, A2, B1, B1, B2, B2, A1, A2. That's the structure. That's the form. Ternary, da capo. You can't do that with classical sonata form, you must look at the notes.

We have usually grown up with many of these forms.
E.g.

(A1) Lightly row, lightly row,
O'er the glassy waves we go!
(A2) Smoothly glide, smoothly glide,
On the silent tide.

(B) Let the winds and waters be
Mingled with our childish glee.
(A2) Sing and float, sing and float
In our little boat!

But without words to help us the composer has to repeat more frequently to make sure you get it.


The suite was the precursor to the sonata/symphony (a symphony is a sonata for orchestra and should also be covered by our current thread title) though you might have more difficulty playing it at sight (Liszt didn't but...).

A suite consists of more than one movement (a sonata can be just one). The form of all the pieces in a suite can be analysed by looking at the repeat bars etc. like our da capo Allegretto.


Sonata form is defined by the key. All other forms are defined by architectural landmarks (except the concerto which might warrant its own thread - though it needn't).

Since a sonata may contain forms other than those in sonata form, those forms are also fair game but easier. The process is just simpler - look at the landmarks instead of the keys. The rest of the analysis is the same, thematic, proportional, tension/release, unity, harmonic language, etc, whether it's a four hour Opera or a two minute pop-song.

How am I doing?

Schubert Opus 94 Number 6

I am starting to appreciate this piece more. I played it through playing just the highest RH notes and the lowest LH notes. Now I can hear the melody, and a tiny thread of how the harmony enriches it. I can also see that I need two major skills to play this piece.

One skill is simply being able to get my hands and fingers to the succession of thick chords. This is not the thin filigree of the Anna Magdalena Bach Notebook, which takes a different kind of fingering skill.

The other skill is being able to voice it appropriately, so the melody can be heard clearly above the rest of the accompaniment in both LH and RH. This is not a skill I have practiced much: to voice louder just one note of a chord in a single hand (or to voice all the other notes in the chord softer).

Franz Schubert Opus 94 Number 6

So how are we all keeping up with our friend Franzie today?

Sorry to be out of the loop somewhat on this one over the last couple of days. I've been dealing with some irate and unreasonable client demands. More importantly though, working on Mendelsshohn, Chopin and brushing up some Christmas stuff.

This 17 century stride in the Chopin (OP 9, No 2) is brutal for my pace of reading. I think it will be taking longer then the Bach preludes. I know this one has been over done. But, I still want to learn it and perhaps attempt to get it into shape for the Feb recital. Sorry, yes I know, it is all about me and my little piano world.

Thanks Richard, for sharing the interesting insight of this classical period.

Any more home work for me? Or, how are we proceeding from here.

Schubert, Op. 94/6, Allegretto

This is excellent news!


These are two very beneficial skills but don't put too high a stress on the ability to bring out notes as part of a chord. Thinking the melody will often do the job and the fingers will respond automatically. If they don't you can add exercises to improve the facility.

These thick harmonies are typical of the German Romantics. Mendelssohn abounds with it. I find it helpful when I set about such pieces to look at every chord change as an individual entity.

Someone once told me when I was struggling with difficult chords (on guitar) that it wasn't the chord but the speed at which you changed (Telecaster Ted Tomlin).

Practise changing chord as a mechanical operation, not done to any specific time but just done. When the change is accomplished without thinking do four beats of each chord, then two beats, then change chord on every beat. Do this holding each chord down for the full duration and staccato chords starting at mF and working towards FF and PP. When you can change quickly from chord X to chord Y you'll find you can change to chord Y from just about any chord or position. The trick, so to speak, is to change the hand shape in one go during the transition. Yes, that's obvious but having it said helps focus the mind on the task.

Later on, the central section of Chopin's Nocturne Op. 37/1 makes a good RH exercise requiring delicacy. The first 20 or so bars might make for a complementary LH exercise.

Only when you're comfortable with that need you worry about bringing out individual notes and thinking the note is often enough to get the job done.


As Sam said for his Op 28/15, we've not heard YOU play it, Jeff, but again, Op. 37/1 is equally lovable without as much difficulty (just) and hasn't yet been submitted. It's a huge improvement on his Op. 15/3. Although three months for either one is a bit of a stretch for recital standard (how many pieces do you normally learn at a time?).


For the insight, you are welcome. For the homework, how about looking at the harmonies and the themes in this Allegretto?

I get the gist of where you're going and I am no longer looking for sonata form in the pieces that are being presented here. We've moved on to a broad general exploration and it's an interesting one. There is also a mass of information to explore which is fantastic.

Schubert, Op. 94/6, Allegretto


I took a listen to this one. Yes, it's nice. My priority though is still showier tunes, like the Nocturne. Plus, I'm already up to M5. However, there has been another piece that has been stuck in my head like a bad commercial, and I do not know what it is.

Can you please take a quick listen and excuse the corruption of what I believe is actually a lovely piece.

I am sure you will recognize it. I have just roughly tried to sketch out some of the melody. I think it is Chopin. If this is all there is to it, perhaps I will pass on this one too. But, have a feeling there is indeed more to it and is a piece I would also like to know.

Here it is

I was reading the bits about the actual playing of this music, and the skills to go with it. Richard wrote something wise about getting to know one chord at a time, and then practice the movement from one into the next, without worrying about time. I have also learned to get to know the last chord first, so that you are always moving into a familiar chord.

I'm always cautious about "how to play" because there are so many skills, and we can get it wrong both in reading or writing about it. Like, how do you actually "play" a chord, and how/when do you release it to go into the next chord? (I don't expect an answer and there shouldn't be one, since that is the point). Or, I learned a way to become able to voice the top note louder - you first play the non-melody notes quietly, then add the louder melody note so that you can have control of the two kinds of touches. Then you bring them closer together until they are simultaneously. But - will someone necessarily know how to physically make notes louder and softer? How about if the notes are held in the same hand such as here? That's why I'm not sure that these things can be (safely) conveyed over the Internet.

Playing in order to understand the music for analysis: I don't think it has to be complete or musical playing. If you play chord progressions, even in simplified form, you will get an idea about an aspect. If you play the melody alone - and if you sense a countermelody elsewhere - and play these rather than all the notes - you will get other aspects of it. What do other people think? I certainly cannot "sight read" the present piece near anything resembling music.

Here it is, Jeff.

Waltz in A-flat, Op 69, No. 1, "L'Adieu"

You're absolutley right, keystring, about playing for analysis. If you follow the score while listening to advanced material like Beethoven sonatas and symphonies you will get to a point where you can just 'read' the score and audiate it (it worked for me).

When I'm analysing a symphony from the score I can 'hear' the music in my head but when it gets chromatic or the harmony more complex I have to separate out the instruments by playing them individually first, working out the notes for viola and trumpets (different clefs and different written pitches) and then I can 'hear' them better together.

I have the same approach to interpreting a new piece for piano. I follow the score, investigate unfamiliar pitches and intervals at the keyboard and 'imagine' from that how it's supposed to sound and let this gradually replace performances I might have heard. I'm at that very stage with my Mendelssohn piece(s) right now. Getting the my interpretation into my head before I start working at the piano.

For me analysis comes first, then understanding, then, finally, playing. Gone are the days when I would play first, analyse later and finally understand because by then all the bad habits are ingrained and are often difficult to change e.g. thoughtless heavy handedness where a light touch is better or pressing the keys where they need to be stroked.

Thanks, Richard.
This is a terrific piece. I like it a lot. It has also been done a few times in the recitals as I have found, but not nearly as much as the Nocturne. At any rate, it is on my list now and will see if I can tackle any quicker then the Nocturne.

"How many pieces do you normally learn at a time?"
I think 3 is a good pace for me, but they will be at different levels. Up until a couple of years ago, I had not learned anything new in years. Then had a teacher for a bit and started trying to get more material. But it was just lead sheets with chords and not so tough. Even so, it was always one at a time.

Things have changed since joining PW and particularly these study threads. Essentially I have shifted into high gear and want to learn more and read better. So, 3 is good.

I still want to get back to the Moonlight Sonata, but Chopin is going to be keeping me busy for awhile now.