|
#1
15-12-2006, 01:49 AM
| |||
| |||
| Concerto Form Does anybody have a good grasp of the Concerto Form? I may be looking in the wrong places, but I just can't find any good material on the format of a Concerto. I'm hoping to do an Oboe Concert.  |
|
#2
15-12-2006, 04:32 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Charles Rosen's "The Classical Style" and "Sonata Forms" talk about concerti a bit. "Sonata Forms" has a discussion of how the concerto meshes with sonata form. William S. Newman has several (older) books on the subject. A concerto is like an aria with the instrument contrasting with the orchestra. There are the usual suspects for contrast, texture, tonality, rhythm, etc. |
|
#3
15-12-2006, 05:40 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Most concertos are laid out like symphonies: 1. Movement: Sonata form (often with cadenza included before the recap) 2. Movement: Scherzo 3. Movement: Slow (Largo/Adagio) 4. Movement: Vivace As usual with symphonies, not all are necessary, and all rules are breakable. You have to have a solo cadenza somewhere, for people to consider it a “proper” concerto. But if you don’t find a place for it, just drop it.  Regards |
|
#4
15-12-2006, 09:18 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| I think to get a good grasp first look and listen to some concertos . I recomend Mozart's Clarinet Concerto (i'm playing this one at the moment). Its in the following: I Movement: Allegro (Sonata Form) II Movement: Adagio III Movement: Allegro (Rondo Form) I think as Thorolf points out that the cadenza is very important but also the form. The most commong is probably how Mozart has crafted his. As for how the music is written (not so much part of the overall form but the internal form) our music encyclopedia states: 
|
|
#5
15-12-2006, 05:58 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| The baroque concertos (like Vivaldi...) didn't really have a cadenza but allowed for a more improvisatory style of playing. Just an idea in case you don't fancy the more strict classical style. In all concertos there is also a choice between whether the soloist and the orchestra work "against" or "with" each other in terms of their melodies and themes. Does the soloist elaborate on a simple theme from the orchestra or does it play a strongly contrasting theme...? |
|
#6
15-12-2006, 06:25 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| There is (in the classica concerto) the question of which keys are stated and recapped by the orchestra vs the solo instrument. The exposition isn't just a simple sonata exposition. |
|
#7
16-12-2006, 07:32 PM
| |||
| |||
Bassoonery mentions Baroque Concerti. Those are different from Classical Period Concerti. What it means is there is no set Concerto form - it is a continually evolving form. What a generic concerto is, is a work for solo instrument with orchestral (including band/wind ensemble and or choir possibly) accompaniment. I think in this day and age, having 3 movements, FSF is not a necessity. However, yes, the Classical Period Concerto Form is USUALLY 3 movements (not four as in one response), FSF. The First movement is TYPICALLY in Sonata Form with the so-called "double exposition" - this is where the exposition section of the form goes through once with orchestra, and then the when the section is repeated, the soloist joins in or takes over the themes. As was mentioned by others, the Cadenza is an important part as it's usually expected. All that said though, even Mozart, who basically crystallized Classical style, was messing with Concerto Form from his earliest. He did things like introduce the soloist right at the beginning instead of waiting until later. All kinds of studd like this. So there's not really a "set" form except what is discussed in textbooks - which is more like the "average" of what "most" Concerti for a roughly 75 year period did. Baroque Concerti, Concerti Grossi (plural of Concerto Grosso I think), Duo Concertante, Triple Concerti, etc. etc. - the form is a vary malleable one. So as I said before, the main thrust is that a "Concerto" is a work, usually multi-movement, for a featured instrument or group of instruments, with a larger ensemble playing an acoompanying role. Beyond that, you're starting to limit yourself to particular styles. You should listen to some concerti by Vivaldi and Corelli (for Baroque examples), Bach, Handel and Telemann (for later Baroque - check out some of the Trumpet Concerti which feature the high virtuosic Piccolo Trumpet playing technique), Haydn Mozart and Beethoven (for Classical period, and with which most people associate the term - especialy Mozart's Piano Concerti (Elvira Madigan) - but he wrote them for Violin, Horn, Flute, etc., and Beethoven's Piano (Emperor) and Violin Concerti) among others - Haydn's Trumpet Concerto is also quite famous). There are plenty of Concerti from the Romanic Period, though composers rightly so became interested in morphing the form into what are basically showpieces for a solo instrument with orchestral accompaniment, but are not "Concerto" per se. Liszt has many piano works like this. Brahms' Violin Concert is also often mentioned, as is Tchikovsky's Piano Concerto in Bbm (I think that's the key), Edvard Grieg's Piano Concerto in Am - he also has a Violin Concert pretty famous. As well as scads of other people like Vaughn-Williams, Medellsohn, Schumbert and Schumann, Kabalevsky, Ravel, etc. Two significant ones I want to mention: Bartok's "Concerto for Orchestra" is a completely new take on the Concerto where the orchestra itself becomse the "soloist". Also, since you are considering Oboe (and you might be an Oboist?) you MUST check out Richard Strauss' Oboe Concerto. A couple of other things I want to mention: Webern's Concerto is also worth looking at if you're interested in music. Stravinsky's Ebony Concerto, Copland, etc. There's plenty I'm forgetting here. But this last one is a VERY important one: George Gershwin's Concerto in F. The reason it's important to this discussion is that Gershwin did not know Concerto Form. He went out and picked up a book on Form to learn how to write a Concerto. There's more to it than this, but just an interesting side note. I'm not trying to be mean here, but I hope you get one thing out of this discussion: I would like you to consider the possibility that, if you don't understand concerto form, or don't know enough Concerti from the past to have an understanding of the form, that maybe you're not ready to write a concerto yet. Slapping down three movements that follow X guidelines and titling it Concerto doesn't necessarily make it a good concerto. I think a full understanding of the form would ultimately create a stronger product. I see too many student composers who walk through the door and say "I want to write a string quartet". My first question is "Why?" They've heard one string quartet by Mozart somewhere and they think it would be cool to write one. Of course they can't even write a 32 bar keyboard minuet with only two parts. How are they going to write a 4 movement work for strings that's any good (not to mention, they know nothing about the range of the instruments, the playing techniques, etc.). Someone wrote a String Quartet work and posted it on rec.music.compose or rec.music.theory and the first thing we all noticed was that their viola part was in the wrong clef! So I'm not saying that's the position you're in, but you're obviously asking about the form. Do you know the range of the Oboe? Do you know how long a player can play a note before having to breathe again? What about the other instruments? What are their ranges? Do you have the ability to get this performed by an orchestra? If not, why not write something you can get performed? There are a billion people out there sitting there with Finale or Sibelius and "composing" "Classical" music on computer using sound samples or MIDI and trusting the range instructions of the program (admittedly accurate though). I don't know if they think this music will get "discovered" some day in the future or what, but I don't think that'll happen. Now I'm not saying that people can't write music just for fun or as a hobby, or simply to learn how to compose until they get to the point that they will write "professionally". That's a good thing. But what I'm cautioning against is spending a lot of time writing something that will just languish, or not be that good, when instead one can focus one's attention on more accomplishable tasks that can be accomplished in steps, and produce a sharper experience curve. Good Luck, Steve |
|
#8
16-12-2006, 08:17 PM
| |||
| |||
To make an analogy that helps to remember them (for those of you that have to study this stuff): String Quartets and Symphonies use the "same" 4 movement form. In a sense, A Symphony is basically a String Quartet form (or let's call it "4 movement classical form" for Orchestra. Sonatas and Concerti use the "same" 3 movment form. In a sense, a Concerto is basically a Sonata form (or let's call it "3 movement classical from" for Orchestra. Now of course, these are not exact 1:1 corespondences. For instance, A String Quartet usually features more virtuosic writing for the instruments. A Concerto is more likely to follow the "Double Exposition" pattern, and have "true" Cadenza. And obviously, as you said, there are variances with the number of movements: Early Haydn works are more like Baroque Suites with 5, 6, or even 7 movements, and obviousy Beethoven's 6th Symphony is 5 movments, and the 5th Symophony even though 4 is "really" 3 because of the segue. But I think we'd be better off as musicians to speak of "four movement" and "three movement" Classical forms and then categorize piece types accordingly. And not to nitpick, but to be correct, you've got the types wrong above too. For a four movement form: I - Allegro, often with an Adagio introduction, usually Sonata Form. II - Adagio, usually a Ternary form. III ALWAYS a Minuet, until Beethoven's 3rd symphony, where Scherzo was used for movement 3 (though other composers chose either). IV - Allegro, also often Sonata Form, but less commonly so. Three movement forms where basically the same, but without the Minuet: I - Allegro II - Adagio III - Allegro. Concerti have the additions of the "double exposition" in movmement I (which is typically more often SAF in concerti than in other genre) and the cadenza in at least the first movemement, but often first and last, and sometimes in all three (there are some keyboard concerti where the 2nd movement is basically a solo in fact). Common 4 movement forms are: Symphony, String Quartet, other ensembles similar to String Quartet, such as Woodwind Quintet, other works for Orchestra not called "Symphony", such as Serenades, Divertimento, etc. Common 3 movement forms are: Concerto, Sonata, other mixed ensembles similar to solo Sonata groups, usually with Piano - thus Piano Sonata, Violin Sonata (Piano and Violin) Piano Trio (Piano, Violin, and Cello), etc. It's a shame so much emphasis is placed on these forms though. There are certainly 1 and 2 movement forms, as well as forms of 5 or more (I guess part of the reason these are not studied as much is because there was no consistency with the types of movements contained therein). And as Thorolf mentions, there are also plenty of examples of those things above being in the "wrong" category - Mozart's Prague Symphony (#36 or 38 I think) is only 3 movements (and in fact it's said that that was the style in Prague as they were still "old-fashioned"!), Tchiakovsky's Pathatique Symphony (#6) has a slow movement at the end after what sounds like the real finale (people often clap at the end of movement 3 at concerts!). Beethoven starts to go crazy (figuratively or literally) late in his career and his Sonatas and String Quartets can contain any number of movements. So in praise of Thorolf's original comment - all rules are breakable. And to our original poster, why not NOT write a "standard" Concerto Form, and break a few rules :-) Best, Steve |
|
#9
16-12-2006, 11:09 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Wow Steve! I think that music should be written without the restrictions of form etc.otherwise we would just end up writing stuff that sounded like someone else. |
|
#10
17-12-2006, 01:23 AM
| ||||
| ||||
 hehe, stevel, great reply!  The observations I bring forward, is based upon the concertos I actually know, which are late romantic and 20th century exclusively (never was much interrested in the classical period!), and what I wrote is my own deductions from my very limited knowledge of actual concertos: Shostakovich’ concerto for piano and trumpet and string orchestra (4 movements) Shostakovich’ 1. cello concerto (4 movements, movement n° 3 is the solo cadenza) Shostakovich’ 1. violin concerto (4 movements, which acually follows the very pattern I laid down in my post!):
Khatchaturian’s violin concerto (the only one I know with 3 movemets! )When I’m at it, I would like to recommend all the above concertos, as they are all great music with very interresting and diverse dramaturgical set-ups. So while my advice was historically sloppy (thanks for the corrections!), I think it’s still worth considering as pure musical advice. Do whatever you feel like, and do indeed break every rule if the music tells you to do so! Regards |
