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

keystring,

I've sent you a reply to the private message you sent me.

More lunchtime ramblings from the verbose one (but I did mull overnight on it).

E & O E, I'm afraid - I don't have time presently to proofread.
_________________________

Polyphonist, the analysis of the first four bars was done on Jan 14 (if you care to look further back - there's no need as you seem to be fully aware of what's happening here) but we looked again on Feb 6/7 and drew more out of it.
_________________________

Keystring, I understand your concerns. When we started this thing back in August with the Moonlight it was quite clear that our ability to analyse was being hampered by a lack of musical theory. I think we have addressed this problem and given the time we've been doing it, seven months, I think the progress is first class. It's tough stuff if it's unfamiliar and needs time to sink in. It's not like learning the dates of English Monarchs or the Presidents of the US which is just memorising names and numbers, it's about understanding and assimilating the knowledge too and getting familiar with using it.

When we looked at the Clementi sonatinas there was difficulty in grappling with the variation in themes and key ideas as they moved throughout the sonata as a whole and a knowledge of forms for the non-sonata-principle movements was required - and will continue to be the case - but they are very important to the sonata as a whole. None of the greats composers, to my knowledge, has written a sonata using the sonata principle for all the movements.

In tracing the history, the movements and their importance changes. With Haydn and Mozart the sonata-principle opening is the intellectual and important part of the sonata with a lilting, lyrical and emotional movement to follow and finish with an upbeat easy to understand rondo with a simple and catchy melody.

Beethoven upended this state of affairs and the final movement became the very point of the sonata and it was here that that sonata principle was most appropriately employed. Even the Moonlight, a work from his "middle" period has the sonata-principle movement at the end.

Before we can understand enough of what was happening here we need to look more closely at the themes in conjunction with the keys and recognise a theme from only two or three of its notes. This is not an insignificant skill and not one we're going to cover in a couple of posts.

We have further work to do in coping with analysis of pieces that are beyond our ability to play - not just big sonatas but also symphonies which are also a major part of the story.

When we started with our first real sonata, the Haydn, we noticed that the first subject became a first group of subjects and additional (transitional) material thrown in as a segue from one point to another that had little significance to the story but helped it move along. There was more going on here. We need to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff if we're to continue making progress.

The "easy" piece and "more adventurous" piece that were thrown in along the way were arrived at by consensus to sweeten the medicine as it were. They needn't be followed unless you need the extra practise. These are intended as flowers along the edge of the path to brighten our journey not as weeds that might thwart or hinder our progress.

The next sonata is scheduled to be the Mozart K. 331 Air and variations. I'm hoping with this to exercise the pattern recognition idea that flummoxed much of our appreciation of Clementi.

I'm expecting to move onto sonatas by Beethoven and Schubert after that and, if we don't look at symphonies along the way, end up with Schubert's Wanderer Fantasy (briefly) and Liszt's B Minor Sonata. At this point my work will be done and my knowledge already beyond exhausted.

We may not be doing Classical Sonata Analysis all the way through this thread but it is most definitely the end point and the all consuming idea through it.
________________________

Few advanced pianists do not memorise their music. It's an easy choice. Anyone who plays better than they sight-read makes use of memory by practise and repetition. It is but a small step to change that from a fleeting visit to a permanent residence in the cerebellum and with it all the attached benefits of intimate knowledge far deeper and more rewarding than a cursory few weeks can impart. It is also the fastest and easiest way to restore lost technique after years away. But it's a choice, take it or leave it.

But playing also involves interpreting. What is the composer trying to say with this melody and harmonic progression? It goes beyond the notes on the page and it is these that I'm trying to bring out when I'm looking at the 'points of interest'. It also benefits our ability to listen. It is as useful to understand a passage in a symphony or a concerto as well as a bagatelle on the keyboard. This is for me the whole point of analysis - it's not just filling in the chord names the way we rattle off a crossword puzzle. The music and the story it's trying to tell is the important thing not the method of solution.

It is a slow and measured journey ahead of us. I think if it's rushed the goal would not be met. We may know what sonata form is at the end of it but we may not understand it anymore than we can recite a defining phrase for it.

We've clearly had some diversions along the way. This thread has a history of development going back to last summer. And there were threads (Moonlight Sonata, Bach Prelude, Chopin Prelude, Binary form analysis) previous to this one under different titles. There were highs of 100 posts a day and cross posts galore. Those were the Glory days I guess ...

At slower times, activity was from just a few and it was unanimous to utilize this thread for practical work and share individual analysis interpretations. That is where the random pieces (Mendelssohn, Chopin Nocturne, Chopin Waltzes, Bach Chorale...) have come in that have diverted us from a normal flow of analysis that this thread title would suggest.

At the time though, this was the main interest of the participants on the thread and all were in favour.


Out of interest, this is what I have added (some still in development) to my repertoire -- actually playing post analysis -- since last August:

Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata mvmt 1(fixes applied)
Bach Prelude No. 1
Chopin Prelude Em
Bach Little Prelude 2 & 4
Schubert Musical Moments 6
Chopin Waltz A Flat Major
Chopin Watlz C# Minor
Chopin Nocturne Eb
Bach Cantata 147
Mendelsshohn 102, No.1, No. 6

I'm just pointing this out for the value this thread has been for me. It is my main (only) source of music learning. Prior to joining the Beethoven thread in August, I had not learned a new classical work in over 30 years. And had NEVER read a classical score.

Not all of this list has been analyzed on this thread. But, all is a result of being an active participant and seeking out select pieces to work on next. There are plenty of others I haven't got to yet (will be going back to select a Clementi for sure.)

Please count me among the troops.

Welcome Polyphonist. Happy to follow your or anyone's lead of where things develop next.

I am interested in what Polyphonist has to say, in addition to what was written before.

I'm pulling in what pph wrote, for my own reference. I have the original discussion on the side in Word.

Chopin Nocturne in Eb Op. 9/2



I have three sets of notes in front of me: my own, the Greener/Richard, and the above. Mine are between the two, in that G/R have every possible chord for every pulse (eighth note being a pulse), while PPh is giving the broad outline.

The choice of how detailed to get in chords is something that we often discuss when I do analysis. It depends on the effect - what the musician and audience hear; (also what the musician wants to bring out FOR the audience to hear); which also depends on what is in the music. As a rule of thumb, fast music whizzes by so you tend to hear a broad outline of the harmony; slow music does the opposite. But that isn't a "rule" either, because the composer may have written it in such a way that even in fast music the musician will hear distinct sounds.

I would hear the broad outline in those four measures, while being aware of some of the smaller movements going on. For example, m. 1 is essentially one long Eb major, but it visits a kind of rootless Bb7b9 or passing tones, which emphasize that we're in Eb major. The beginning of music often emphasizes the key in this way.

Starting with the first 4 measures makes sense, because as Greener and Richard saw, the Nocturne keeps going through A and B - m. 1 - 4 is "A". We have lots of variations (and repeats) of this A going on, so it seems a good idea to get a handle on it.

While it is true that all the chords were discussed previously, I did not get a general picture of the music before harmonically. I had a list of the chords, and might derive a general picture through it. I find this broad view to be helpful - let's say complementary.

Chopin Nocturne in Eb Op. 9/2

Personal points of interest from reading earlier discussions.

“cantilena”
“fiotura"

@Richard - You used these terms a few times. I can guess that "cantilena" has to do with a singing tone. By looking at the notes, I'm guessing that "fiotura" means when you have a whole bunch of notes crammed together and they have to fit in a flurry. Is this essentially correct?



I looked at/played the measure(s) in question. Rather than seeing a large number of accidentals - which definitely are there - I looked for patterns. For the chords in question, I have Bb, B(7)/A, E/G#, C7/G, F7, Bb7 (the Bb7 goes to Eb and the original theme in the next measure).

For beat 3 (pulses 7-9) I see/hear a chromatic downward movement of the bass line, and once I have that, the accidental almost disappear. The E/G# is a bit strange since you are used to seeing Bb going to Eb, but if you are used to the E major chord (as Greener would be), that one falls into place. After that we have a circle of fifths: C7 => F7 => Bb7 => tonic and right back to the A theme. ... This is also where analysis plays a role for playing music.

I know that Greener's first background is playing by ear and knowing his chords that way - a huge advantage that I'm still trying to acquire. Maybe that might be useful. (?)

This was interesting:


You were pointed out the CEG, rather than the CEb which would be using the notes in the key of Eb major. You see this in m. 2 and m. 6. We know that beats 1 - 4 are repeated in beats 5 - 6, so m. 6 is a variation of measure 2.

Measures 2 and 6 end in Fm, which is ii of the key of Eb major. We know that C7 is V7 of Fm. We might be able to hear that movement. I also find the sudden major sound gives an interesting shade or colour to the music. Beat 3 begins the F hammering in the bass.

How do you see/hear the chord in beat 3 (m. 2)? E dim/F which moves to Fm by half step? It's almost like a top half of our C7 if it got extended, with the bottom half having fallen away.

Thanks!

It's a way to prolong the long C7-Fm cadence happening in the second bar. It also adds aesthetics: the harmony of the diminished chord resolving into F minor is very beautiful. The whole phrase is shaped very nicely, in fact; you can follow the motion of the line by looking at the bass notes (first note of each LH triplet), (Eb, D, C, F, Bb, B natural, C, A natural, Bb, Eb, eliminating repetitions). There is a nice balance of chromatic movement and leaps.

Thank you. I see all of that.

Great, but I would add that because this is so slow we could actually think of each beat as a “measure”. In other words, Chopin does the exact opposite in something like his Bb Minor Scherzo, written in ¾, but going so fast that we hear each measure as a beat, and then the notes within the measure sound like sub-division of a beat. 1 2 3&a sounds like just one beat, with 3&a SO fast that it sounds like a rip going into the next bar, which only sounds like beat two.

My apologies to anyone who can't follow this. But you will know exactly what I mean. :

In this nocturne, if we look closer and for a moment look at each beat as a measure, fast measures of course, then beat 2 of bar 1 is pretty long. A lot happens there. So I would definitely mention IMMEDIATELY that you have Ddim7 on beat two, the real beat two. And that leads to an association with a Bb7b9 chord because later, as this theme reappears, there is a Bb7 in the same place. I have the world's worst memory, so exactly which variation uses the Bb7 chord as opposed to the Ddim7 has always been a problem when I put away the score, since both sound equally good.

Then on beat 3 and 4, Chopin does a sleight of hand by starting out with something that sounds much like an Ebsus, but he has a true Eb chord in the LH. The F in the melody can function as a 9, sort of Eb (add9), and it can just be circles or tagged as non-harmonic. But the cool thing is that as he resolves this F to Eb, resolving tension in the melody, on beat four he then adds tension in the bass with a passing tone. The D.

It can get really anal, trying to put into words, but you hear the melody relax, while the bass adds tension, Eb/D, and I don't like calling this an Ebmaj7 chord because that's now what we really hear.

Then it all resolves EXACTLY as you said. And these details that I mentioned may help, or they may be a pain the rear. The only important thing to me is that there is some kind of dominant feel on the second beat. Maybe I should have said that.

That's good. The dim7 chord just adds tension to the dominant. C7, then throw in Edim7, the two together merge or morph into a C7b9 feel, very common, and the F bass is an anticipation. I absolutely agree with what you just said, just adding a couple details...

Perfect. Just a word of note to people learning dim7 chords. There has been a huge controversy in the past about naming them, whether to use the bass note (no clear bass not here) or to use the root by stacking the thirds. If we name the dim7 chord as Adim7, again you have the top of an F7b9, and that can help students understand why it wants to slip to Bb something. Or by finding the theoretical root of the dim7 chord (A), you can expect the bass to step up ½ step, which it also does.


Perfect.

The problem is always that in trying to put these blasted concepts into words, it always feels as if we are destroying the music. When I am teaching I tend to skip small steps, or I fall so deep into details that I over-complicate. Trying to find a happy medium between simplistic and anal is VERY difficult.

That is absolutely not true.

Performing "classical" pianists are expected, by tradition, to play from memory in SOLO work. This is also true in concerto work.

It is not ever true in accompanying, nor is it true for ensemble work.

For every dollar I have made playing solo, in public, I have made $1000 playing in groups of some kind or as an accompanist. That figure is an UNDERSTATEMENT. Furthermore those of us who are very VERY fast sight-readers, and I am one of them, will always debate the idea that we are freer, in all cases, when playing without music, even in public.

There is music that I can pull apart in detail, tell you what every note does, what every mark might mean, but I still like to have the music in front of me if it is not fast and does not require big leaps. Why? Because while I am playing something for the 10 000th time, I STILL may discover some tiny detail in the notation that gives me a new idea. This is heightened in editing, which makes me go into even more detail about each mark, each dot, each dynamic marking, each word, each notational choice.

Now, if you mean that few advanced pianists are unable to memorize their music, there I would agree. There is a time and place for memory. But that is all.

Cantilena is a flowing melody line.

Fioritura (plural fioriture) is embellishment of said melody line. The fioriture here are in M4, M8 and most notably in M16 and M24. I can't find the post where I mentioned it - I know I have - but I hope I didn't mis-spell it.


I thought the context was clear and I still think so now. Of course, in a court of law I could be hung for treason.

E & O E - again.

Thanks for the more in-depth analysis. Yes, I can definitely follow it and this might also be helpful for students looking for a more complete explanation.

Now, about the Nocturne: why don't we take a look at the coda? We can analyze how Chopin takes the motifs from earlier sections of the piece and uses them to build up into a climax, from which he lets the RH notes after the fermata gradually resolve the tension down to the hushed final two bars.
It is interesting how Chopin uses only the notes of the E flat major triad in the last measures, but still creates a beautiful and satisfying resolution. In fact, the entire section from the fermata to the end is a big V-I cadence.

That would be appropriate and welcome.

I suppose my point came out harsh. Sorry about that. It's a visceral response from years of reading about memory being over-emphasized to the point that other skils, such as really good sight-reading, become under-developed.

When I stress the importance of being able to read from score (when scores are involved), I often run into so much resistance that I am shouted down.

Not at all...I agree with you completely. Sight reading is a neglected skill. What bothers me is how some students just cannot sight-read. They take ages to learn the notes of a piece, and then have to gradually work on it with their teacher until it sounds polished. They are spoonfed the music, always having months upon months to complete even a short work. Then, later, this comes back to bite them when they find they can't manage a musical career because it is sometimes necessary to learn pieces fast-which requires you to be good at SIGHT-READING.

Also, being a good sight-reader can be a lot of fun. One of the most fun things I do on a regular basis is read through duet after duet with another pianist, a pleasure I would be deprived of if I had not taken the time to get my sight reading up to a high level.

I want to address the issue of memorizing again. It's come up time and again in this thread and others before it, and I ignored it since the main point for me was analysis and understanding how the music works. But I did note some underlying ideas. One seemed to be that "learning" a piece meant memorizing it. Another was the unspoken idea (assumption?) that it was necessary or superior to do so. Another was the idea that you cannot play as expressively or well if the music was not memorized, because having the music in front of you would hamper this. These all seemed to be givens, like fact. We already know that there is some controversy in the Pianist forum on whether it is actually a negative thing in public performances.

Another thing that I picked up is that memorizing was a slow and tedious, time-consuming affair. Again, I didn't pay too much attention since I was looking for other things.

I've never memorized huge works because I never got that far with music, but I did memorize things like sonatinas without wanting to. This was before I learned anything (at all) formally. What I was actually doing was perceiving broad patterns in music, which to me were nameless. You have your ABA patterns, your subjects with variations which appear in other keys, and other smaller patterns. To me these were both audible and visible in long swaths on a page. Like, if you look at a melody that repeats, the line of notes takes on the same up-and-down shape. The opposite would be to memorize one note at a time, one chord at a time, like a long shopping list. I suppose most people do something that is between the two extremes.

We had this section that zrtf90 called "The most awkward patch of accidentals" occurring in m. 12 & 20. Trying to memorize or even play that awkward patch of accidentals would be a pain and take forever. But if you see and hear the chromatic descent of the bass line, and the dominant-tonic pattern happening (even the Enat, which could be an Fb in other circumstances, has some of that), then it becomes predictable. So if you are setting out to memorize, then seeing and hearing these patterns, and maybe making them as meaningful as possible, might speed up the process. (?)

And how about reading making playing less spontaneous. Is it because of the way we learn to read? Could that be changed? And could reading music that has become familiar end up giving us musical reminders through visual clues that might actual help make our playing more musical? I.e. must it be an either/or, or the idea that one is better than the other? I love playing "what if" and seeing where that leads.

Edit: Polyphonist - we cross-posted at the same time.

One underlying problem in music lessons is the underlying perceived goals of lessons, if that is even thought through. If it is to produce a slate of pieces one after the other, rather than acquiring skills such as reading, technique, and interpretation skills, then these will be the results. At least as older students we can play a role in what we learn, and what goals we set.

Guilty as charged.

I don't understand why. This was an easy section to memorize. The tougher ones are the occurrences of M4, M8, M27 and remembering at which place in the score to include the little 16th note accent or the 11 in the LH.

Of course, I am not defending memorization or deflating the value of good sight reading. I also totally get the absolute necessity of it, if/when playing in ensemble.

The reality for me though, is that I am just learning to read now and have relied heavily on memorization to this point in my playing. Not a good thing, but is what it is. The good side of the equation is I am likely to be quicker then some to memorize as a result, and can sit down and play just about anything I have every played without a score. The bad side is I am very slow at learning a new piece such as this from a score. Optimum for me thus, would be to become good at both.

You have to have a balance between the two, yes.

Would anyone like to add something about the Nocturne? Meanwhile, I'm going to say that the "awkward patch of accidentals" in bars 12 and 20 is actually very natural and easy to remember, for me at least...

That is the point that I was trying to make. I didn't see it as awkward either. As soon as you understand what the music is doing so that it is not a series of notes with lots of accidentals, but rather as chords with familiar relationships, then the music starts to flow in places. That is also the true role of theory. I would include as "theory" the things that one may have in the ear or a kind of instinct before ever having a name for it.

What I was trying to say is that if you see it as a place that has a lot of accidentals, then it seems awkward to play. But if you see it as music that makes sense via the chords, the descending bass line etc, then it is not awkward.