Sonata Form

[Classicala]

I tend to do free-form theme/ variations more than anything else because I don't like the idea of writing by formulas.

Reading descriptions of musical forms can sometimes be hard to follow with words like "exposition" and "recap........tion", etc.. Sonata form is very commonly used but I don't quite grasp all the formulated aspects like key changes to the dominant and back, etc.. (I do get ABA.)

I would appreciate some insight from you Sonata Experts out there.

[ttw]

Your best bet would be to read the two books by Charles Rosen, "Sonata Forms" and "The Classical Style." It's a rather complicated topic.

A sonata basically is a musical drama. In the "classical" version, the conflict is between key centers (and a bit more.) Roughly, if a sonata is in a major key, the conflict is between the tonic and dominant keys. This conflict is set up by introducing thematic in the two keys. This material is then manipulated for effect and finally resolved by playing all the material in the tonic.

Later in the classical (and romantic) eras, the dominant is substituted by other key areas, but the idea of conflict still is there. (Beethoven liked to use mediants as dominant substitutes.)

In a minor key, the conflicting key is the relative major, generally.

These are the same key relations that occur in baroque overtures too.

The essence of "sonata form" is the conflict and resolution. For example, in Bach's fugues, the subject often sneaks in rather than entering by slamming the front door. In a more classical style, (if one uses a fugue; Beethoven liked to do that) the subject entries tend to be emphasized. It's an esthetic difference.

[stevel]

Sonata form is very commonly used

Actually it's not commonly used. It was only popular during the Classical and later periods, and even then, was still not used as much as 50 percent of the time (Minuets are probably far more common for a time). It's the over-emphasis on SF that keeps it in the public's mind and seems to make people think they should be using it. It's OK, but not all that.

To get to your question:

SF is a dual-layer form - it is a tri-partite harmonic scheme and a bi-partite formal scheme, which sort of combines the best aspects of binary form and ternary form, or also might be seen as expanding the idea of Rounded Binary form.

Basically, there are two parts, usually repeated (making it a two-reprise binary form). The first part is the Exposition, the second part is the Development and Recapitulation.

But harmonically or structurally, there are three sections: Exposition, Development, and Recapitulation.

We shouldn't see the SF as this strict form, because it evolves over the course of it's lifetime, and like any musical form, even has many variations within a given time frame (so your mention of writing by formula isn't quite right, because while SF IS a formula, it's a variable formula, unlike what is usually presented in textbooks - and hey, like what I'm telling you here!).

But the basic form is:

Exposition: Theme 1 in main key.
Theme 2 in related key (usually Dominant for Major key works, and relative Major for minor key works)

Development: usually described as "X" key meaning it can be in any key or modulate through a bunch. Very often, in simpler works it is an elaboration of the Dominant key (though often it's actually the Tonic key, with an emphasis on the Dominant harmony). Basically, the Development breaks up the Themes and explores what can be done with them - how can the composer develop them.

Recapitulation: ("cap" is like "capo" or "head" - so - back to the "head" or back to the beginning).
The Recap at it's simplest is just a repetition of the Exposition with some stnadard changes. The big deal for the music psychology types is that Theme 1 returns (after the period of Tonal unrest just experienced in the Development section) in the Home key. Then another important part is the 2nd theme is inthe home key as well.

To me, the most interesting part of SF besides the development, is a little area called the retransition - in the Expo, the composer transitions from the home key to the other key for theme 2. But in the recap, they have to keep theme 2 in the home key, so it's very interesting how they keep the music very similar, but don't make that transition modulate the second time. Mozart was a master at doing this economically - the trick is, to set up the transition the first time to allow for a skillful retransition later. Composers who do this well show a great deal of forsight and insight into the form.

There are important "other" types of SF:
Many of Haydn's SF are called "Monothematic" because he uses the same material for "Theme 2" as Theme 1 (the key scheme is "normal" though).

There are some "Sonata without Development" forms.

Later, composers stopped repeating the second half, so you got two expositions, and only one development and recap.
They usually call Theme 1 and 2 Primary and Secondary Themes or similar words (Principal, Secondary, etc.). Some SF also include a Closing Theme (so Theme 3) in the Expo, and some have a Middle Theme in the Development.

Intros and Codas are not uncommon, and more common as time goes on. In fact, we might distinguish the Classical version from the Romantic version in that the latter often has a Slow Introduction - Adagio-Allegro - the Allegro begins the main theme proper. But even Mozart and Haydn wrote this way in their later works, so it's really "high Classical" version.

Later, the form got more and more stretched, and key relationships were more varied - Beethoven often moved from I to bVI for themes, and Tchaikovsky has multiple key relationships within a single SF (for a good example of a well-known, very large scale SF, listen to the Romeo and Juliet Overture - which is not really an Overture, but what's called a Symphonic Overture - an overture to nothing!).

Im Concerti, everyone makes a big deal about the "double Exposition" where the soloist waits until the repeat to enter (and sometimes with new thematic material). However, again, even Mozart was modifying this early on.

There are also related forms:

• Sonatina form is seen as a small version of SF, and a bridge between the simpler Binary, Ternary, Rounded Binary, and full-blown SF.
• Sonata Rondo is a SF that incorporates ideas of a Rondo.

I don't dislike SF, but, like Bach, I think too much emphasis is placed on it to the detriment of many other cool things in music. Passacaglia, Theme and Variations, Arch Form, etc. are all very cool forms. Composers have done so much with so many forms - and just think - all that Baroque music existed without the benefit of SF - is it all bad? So I think it's worth studying, but not being placed on a pedestal like so many do.

Best,
Steve