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

The high G in M9 is the last note of the strings part (violin I) This is where the four Choral voices come in underneath it.

If I were transcribing this for piano I'd take the continuo in LH and Violins I & II in RH. If you want to keep it simple use the Trumpet (Tromba) line in RH when the voices come in.

Add viola where it works in with LH and RH alternating. You can add voices to the trumpet from the alto and tenor voice lines when you're ready to up the ante. You'll need to get familiar with the vocal clefs. The shape centres on Middle C.

The cantata in the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (Ed. Paul Waldersee) from IMSLP starts on P. 193 (marked) but the Choral is on P.213 or 23 to 28 of 44 pages downloaded.

I will be looking more at the Cantata tomorrow and will report my findings.

Today was an exciting day. No more squeaky damper pedal in my recordings forthcoming. Or, I certainly hope that is the case.

I am the proud parent of a new (used) piano. I sold the Vibes and they covered it. The Vibes were a fabulous thing when Dad and I were playing together, but he's been gone for 20 years and they weren't being used. So, this is towards a far better use I think.

I'm quite pleased. I just love the action on it. The instrument is a one hour drive from where I live and I will be trying to line up the move for later this week. So far I only have the lamp that came with it. With a bit of luck (after acclimatization and a tune) I should be in a position to record with it towards the end of March.

Here are some baby pictures.

I see now why I need to get familiar with the original chorale versions of this. When I first started working on it, I thought ... piece of cake ... even I can read it.

Getting these chorale sections to sing out above the rest is not going to be easy. It is right in the middle of all the action. Alon does a fabulous job of this. Most other presentations I have heard don't pull it off nearly as well.
I see why he is not playing the high G (violin I) in M9. Seems he is giving the melody to the tenor line here on the middle B. I don't really want to drop the low G octave, so ... need to play some of this melody with RH (or perhaps 10th with LH and drop the low low G). And this is one of the easier chorale sections I think. It is going to be some practice to make this work well, while still keeping an optimum accompaniment.

It would do no harm, and probably a lot of good, to write out your own score from the Myra Hess version and make sure of what notes you're going to play. You might benefit from comparing each measure with Bach's own while you're doing it. There's no point rushing this. It can be slow and laborious but restrict yourself to four bars at a time and you'll probably accelerate up quite quickly.

I've done this with Haydn String Quartets and Vivaldi trio sonatas, it's very enlightening.

I presume you checked out Peter's version in the piano bar.
_______________

Lovely looking piano, Jeff. Health to enjoy!

I'm hoping to post my own pictures and pieces within the week but we're rolling out new software and my evenings may be spent in the office. I was too tired to do much at the weekend either.

I'm trying to catch up. I keep seeing references to Mendelssohn Op. 102. But the score that I saw posted was to a no. 44. Some of the music seems to be pieces being analyzed. Other seems to be music that people are learning to play.

I'm also very confused. Maybe somebody should just make a decision clearly on what piece is being discussed. Right now there's probably multiple discussions going on simultaneously, and getting confused with each other. If I'm clear on what's going on, then I can possibly contribute to the conversation...

One thing I'd like to find out is whether the pieces (whatever they are) were building on top of each other - period/growth-wise for example - in which case there would actually be catching up to do. Or if it's random in which case one simply catches up to whatever is the latest.

Well, keystring, since both of us are wondering about it, and we seem to be the only ones here, do you have any pieces you want to bring up? I'll be happy to discuss them with you.

Anything except Beethoven.

Want to look at some Chopin? We could start a "Chopin Analysis" thread and discuss all his works there. Or we could do Liszt, or Rachmaninov, or Mozart, or whatever. Up to you.

Let me try and summarise where we're at.

The last declared intention after completing the six sonatinas of Clementi was to work chronologically through the sonata and we decided to look also at one piece that might be within the skill level of the participants and a bigger piece that might not.

We started with Mendelssohn 102/6, Schubert 94/6 and Haydn H16/50.

We finished up to the first movement of the Haydn (by which time we had effectively dwindled to two) but seem to have ignored the Adagio and Allegro molto.

Chopin's Nocturne in Eb, Op. 9 No. 2 was to be in the next tranche of pieces but it was expedient to move it forward so we looked at it 'out of turn'.

This thread has of late devolved to a meeting point for Jeff and me. There does seem to be a lot of lurkers judging by the 'views' but I'm not sure that relates to followers as I don't see any other contributions and I don't see the entertainment value of following us passively.

You shouldn't need to catch up. This isn't a course. Analysis skills evolve over time and not necessarily in a structured way. If you have a reasonable idea of the evolution of our musical language from the Renaissance to now you can use these analysis skills to pick and choose where to look next and at what might be of interest.

We have had to cover some theory along the way but my intention has never been to teach analysis as a discipline the way harmonic analysis has been developed in academia but to look at a piece of music beyond the notes on the page and see points of interest that might otherwise have been overlooked. My main interest is to see the piece in a practical way as a prospective study for learning at the piano or to plot the course of history as our musical language evolved. Knowing what's happening musically enhances my listening pleasure and appreciation of music. What intrigues me most is why a piece of music is popular and what makes it so.

Most advanced pianists recognise the importance of analysis before beginning work on a new piece and it doesn't have to be a strictly harmonic look. A structural analysis is more practical for learning a new piece but there are also rhythmic, thematic and even just historical aspects that can be examined and appreciated. It's a broad area and, as has been demonstrated both here and elsewhere, I'm no expert at the subject, just a bit more experienced. So you don't need to be a professor of music theory to do the job, a working knowledge will suffice.

The thread title stems from the fact that with the classical sonata music developed structure from the tonality instead of from repeat bars and da capo instructions and with the skills necessary to analyse a sonata most music can be tackled. I'm quite happy to look at symphonies, concertos and rock songs.

So in summary, whatever piece you want to look at, bring it up and headline the posts with the title in bold and we'll all muck in when we're around but if you want to follow a set series of pieces our next intended targets are:

1) Haydn H16/50. We needn't look at the second and third movements and the first is done, at least by Jeff and me.

2) Dvorak Humoresque Op. 8/2 - our next "easy" piece. The Chopin nocturne is done.

3) Mozart Sonata in A, K. 331. Our next classical sonata looking at variation form.

We (I'll use the royal 'we' as there aren't really many others here) are always, of course, happy to look back at past pieces as well as totally unexpected ones. It would help if the score is in the public domain.
_____________________________

Why does this thread have so many views and so few participants?

Are there regular followers in the forum, are there regulars viewing offline or is it just search engines indexing the pages? Is there something here of interest or is everybody looking in case something interesting comes up?

I am perplexed.
_____________________________

I am usually more active here but have been intolerably busy at work as we roll out a new software system. This doesn't happen often and I have deserved my lunch break today.

There are regular followers who are lost. I got lost at the point when the next "sonata" was not a sonata. There was a brand new form, and I had to ask what that form was. And then I got lost yesterday when I tried to catch up.


Isn't that what we were learning here? No, I do not have a reasonable idea of that.

Well, does anyone have any questions about the Mozart or the Dvorak? I'll be willing to add to the discussion.

The first non sonata pieces were Mendelssohn's Song Without Words and Schubert's Allegretto. There was nothing new here.

The Mendelssohn was not essentially different from the second movement in Clementi's first five sonatinas. The Schubert not essentially different from the Minuet and Trio in Haydn's H16/8 that we looked at but uses Allegretto as a tempo indication instead of Minuet. The Baroque suite only used dance names as an indication of tempo. These are forms that were extant in the Baroque period.

There are myriad forms. The difference between the many song and dance forms and classical sonata form is that the latter uses tonality to define the structure instead of repeat signs and other landmarks so a knowledge of harmony is required in order to discern the form. Once that's done all music forms are open season.

It's recognising structure from the harmony that we were doing here. We were not looking at the historical development of music but I was considering the historical development of the sonata. I have not lost sight of that.

The "reasonable idea of the evolution of music" that I had in mind was that in the period up to and including Bach music moved largely by one accidental at a time and a piece did not stray far from its home key or single emotion/idea/affekt. In the classical age from Haydn and Mozart to Beethoven and schubert tonality diverged, rhythmic variety increased and scale grew enormously. Larger works took on the idea of conflict and resolution. In the Romantic age the pieces became shorter and often more lyrical with greater tonal diversification and more personal emotional expression. Today film scores continue the major emotional development of tonal music and rock carries the brunt of the shorter forms. Both developed from the music of the common practise period.

Here's what we've done so far:

Sept 7 Clementi Sonatina Op. 36, No. 1
Sept 8 Haydn Hob xvi/8 & sonata form
sept 14 Clementi sonatina No. 2
Sept 20 Clementi sonatina no. 3
Sept 24 Clementi sonatina no. 4
Oct 1 Clementi Sonatina No. 5
Oct 18 Clementi Sonatina No. 6
Nov 2 Mendelssohn Op. 102/6
Nov 7 Schubert Moment Musical Op. 94 No. 6
Dec 5 Haydn Sonata Hob xvi/50 Allegro
Dec 18 Mendelssohn Op. 102/1 & Op. 30/3
Dec 28 Haydn Sonata Hob xvi/50 Allegro - recapitulation
2013
Jan 4 Haydn Sonata Hob xvi/50 Adagio
Jan 11 Chopin Nocturne in Eb Op. 9/2

I notice we did the Haydn Adagio - I'd forgotten that. We have recently covered some Mendelssohn Songs Without Words more on a practical level for approaching the pieces for the forthcoming recital than an analysis of the music. We have essentially done little harmonic analysis since early January and nothing has been missed that needs catching up on.
________________________

Polyphonist, welcome to the thread. It looks like you're eager to make progress. I think it might be a good idea to marshal the troops before going forward with anything new and find out who we're working with. Until then you might proffer some thoughts on Chopin's Nocturne in Eb and see how we compare.

Does anyone want to announce their presence and if they've not been active heretofore they might give an indication of their level and whether they might need hand holding or catching up time and we can then proceed apace with that in mind.

Given the thread's recent relative inactivity, in terms of analysis, let's allow a couple of days for voices to be heard.

Okay, I'll look at the nocturne and see what I can brew up.

Meanwhile, I'm new to the thread, so would you mind giving a few more specifics? Are you looking for discussion of the harmonic structure, or performance techniques, or something else?

We've been doing mostly harmonic analysis and I've been trying to steer it more toward thematic areas and 'points of interest'. I think it's better to add anything that might make it easier to memorise and play.

What would you normally do before (or while, or after) learning a piece?

Why is this nocturne so popular? How does it differ from other pieces around at the time?

Chopin was quite creative with the harmonies in this piece. Discuss.

This is why I got lost. We were going to do sonata (allegro) form. It got set up through the sonatinas. So you define what sonata form is, and begin with the simplest type of music that has that form. That was the done with the Clementi sonatinas, and Clementi was also early. That being set up, we could then move on to sonatas, more complex music that was in sonata form. I understood or assumed that as time went on, the composers would get more free with sonata form, and introduce more variables. So after doing simpler music, we would get to these fancier sonatas and grow.

So right after the Clementi, the next two pieces that came along were not sonatas. They were music in a form that we had not studied. The form that we had carefully built up so that we could work with it could not be used here. At the same time, we had not learned anything about the form these two pieces were in. So I got lost right then and there. I scrambled to learn something about these other forms.

Ok, so if we're studying sonata form - and I'm using Wikki to give me some dates since I WAS a student in the middle of learning:

We had Clementi: 1752 - 1832
Haydn: 1732 - 1809

They were contemporaries, and their sonatas would therefore be written along similar lines, correct?

Mendelssohn: 1809 - 1847 -- so a different generation. But the music we looked at had nothing to do with sonata form

Schubert: 17927 - 1828 -- He's back with Clementi and Haydn, but we didn't look at sonatas by him either

Then we have:
Dec 18 Mendelssohn Op. 102/1 & Op. 30/3

This is actually where I got lost last night, because the discussion kept going back and forth between the 102/1 and 30/3, and I had downloaded a 3rd Mendelssohn to which I saw a link. These were both part of the Song Without Words - so not sonatas. I think I might have been part of that.

Dec 28 Haydn Sonata Hob xvi/50 Allegro - recapitulation
2013
Jan 4 Haydn Sonata Hob xvi/50 Adagio

These are both sonatas. We're back with Haydn at the period of Clementi.

Followed by a Chopin (1810 - 1849), new time period - Nocturne - not a sonata

I cannot follow the development of sonata form this way, and I cannot build my understanding of music via the first information on sonata form this way either. But if that isn't the purpose of this thread, I'll stop looking for it.

I suppose the next thing to do is:
a) See which of the sonatas I have worked on, in order to be caught up.
b) Learn about the other musical forms which the other pieces are based on, and then study those other pieces.
.... or skip them. I already analyzed all the Chopin nocturnes so I have an idea about nocturnes. I don't know if the other people who came here to learn have that background, or if they need it.

What confused me is that this was called "classical sonata analysis".

I came on this thread because I was interested in learning about musical form, and sonata form in particular. I started drifting when I could not see a connection between what was set up, and what was presented later. So now I'm rethinking the whole thing.

Richard, thank you for outlining what has been done so far. It was a lot of work and I appreciate it. Now it's possible to see what to do with it.

I would be more on the "providing information" side than the learning side.





I'm going to start off with a harmonic overview of the first four bars:

Bar 1: E flat major prolonged for the first 3 beats, movement through the passing tone D to C dominant seventh chord
Bar 2: Resolution to F minor through the diminished chord on the 3rd beat
Bar 3: Dominant of the original key moving through the B natural to C minor; diminished chord leads through A natural to the dominant
Bar 4: 4th scale degree in the Bbsus chord resolves down, and the phrase culminates with an authentic cadence back to E flat major.

And finally, a rendition of the piece by Rubinstein, the master of Chopin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGRO05WcNDk

Anybody want to add anything?

I don't actually aim to memorize music, and playing it is not related to memorizing it. In regards to the question, I've always memorized naturally, usually by having a broad outline of its structure, a sense of where it's going. But I have tried to do so with larger works - it just happened.

What makes a piece easier to play - for me it's a question of acquiring technique. I did not have a teacher until recently, and acquiring technique is what I'm doing now.

Before: Examine it, get its general outline, find the most difficult sections to be worked on first, and also have strategies for difficulties.
During: Work on the piece in stages, and in sections. Musical elements usually last.
After: Play it.


That's an important question for composers trying to sell their works. Human nature and society, and also things like having patrons or agents or whatever is going on during that period. Sometimes excellent works remain unknown because the right things didn't come together.