Saturday, March 1, 2014

Form in Post-Tonal Music (Questionnaire answers: #1)

Inspired by a presentation by Jocelyn Morlock at this year's Newfound Music Festival, I asked several questions about musical form in my previous blog post, in part to engender a dialogue on the topic — I am genuinely interested in learning how other composers think of this — and in part to get my students to think about it. Musical form is a topic of interest to all composers.

Because of my propensity towards long-windedness, I have decided to answer the questions posed in my previous post in separate blog entries.  Here is the first question:

1. On a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), how important is form in musical composition, and why?
It's tempting to enthusiastically jump up and shout "10," with at least three exclamation marks (of critical importance, ladies and gentlemen!!!), and then wait for the applause to die down, but, when both great and not-great composers used the same forms, such as sonata, and rondo, is this justified?
Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven all used sonata form extensively.  So did virtually all European composers, good or bad, from about 1770 to 1900, including Fernando Sor.
Fernando who, you may ask? If you are not a guitarist, you have probably never heard of him, and for good reason: Sor was a competent composer of mainly guitar music, who lived from 1778 to 1839. 
His life overlapped with Beethoven's (b. 1770) and Schubert's (b. 1797), but, to use a baseball analogy (because spring training has now started!) if Beethoven and Schubert were major-league all-stars and first-ballot Hall-of-Famers, Sor was a useful guy to have on the team, ready to contribute if any of the A-listers became injured or needed days off, but who probably spent a lot of time on the bench. If you don't follow baseball and have no idea what I'm talking about, my point is that history has been kind (deservedly) to Beethoven and Schubert, but not so kind (deservedly?) to Sor.
He was reputed to be an excellent guitarist, however…
I mention Sor because, as a guitarist, I played some of his music during my youth. It is well-written for the guitar, and it has pleasing moments, but it never came close to moving me as profoundly as the music of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Charlie Parker, The Beatles, and many others. 
Here's an excellent performance of Sor's Sonata in C, op. 22, first movement. In my playing days, I practically — nay, definitively owned this piece! Yeah! (By this I mean that I purchased a copy.) I also performed it, although of course I did not play it very well… Have a listen, and see what you think:

An excellent performance, is it not? (I fail to understand the decision to repeat the exposition, however; once through strikes me as plenty!) But as a composition, I am not sure that any theorists or musicologists would suggest that it is at the level of the three classical-period "greats," Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. I certainly don't.
Why is that, you might ask? Well, I will suggest that the weakness is not the large-scale form, which does all the things a good sonata form composition is supposed to do. To wit:

  • It opens with a declamatory, attention-grabbing, first theme, and
  • follows it with another tonic-area theme. 
  • The transition modulates to the dominant, as is the norm, and 
  • even has a clever, unexpected tonicization of the chromatic mediant (Eb) along the way. 
  • This tonicization of Eb sets up a dominant pedal point on D, but it hints at the dominant minor (Gm), not the major minor (G); this (hinting at the dominant minor) is fairly common in Mozart and Beethoven, but nevertheless a clever thing to do.
  • The second theme-group includes several themes, each of which is pleasant enough, and it concludes with a codetta. All good!
  • The development is skillfully handled, and is neither too short, not too long, finishing with a dominant pedal point in the home key, as most developments do. 
  • The recapitulation is also handled competently, but has no surprises (which isn't inherently problematic; Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven wrote many recapitulations that held no real surprises).

In short, Fernando Sor clearly knew what he was doing when it came to form. Despite this, history has relegated him to minor position in relation to the "great" composers.  
This suggests to me that there must have been more to the greatness of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven than their handling of form, and that [DISCLAIMER: PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU ARE SEATED BEFORE CONTINUING TO READ] form is perhaps not the most important aspect of a musical composition!
However (he added, back-pedaling quickly!), one of the reasons we love to study Beethoven is that he did things with standard forms that were often unexpected, or even unprecedented (c.f. "Waldstein" Sonata, op. 53, I)!  
One of the best ways to evaluate composers as "musical architects" (a term sometimes used in reference to a composer's structural design (i.e., form) in a composition) is to compare the following sectioins of their sonata-form compositions: 
  •   Transitions in the exposition and in the recapitulation; 
  •   Development sections; 
  •   Codas; and
  •   Any other aspects of form that are unexpected.
Haydn deserves huge credit for the development of classical sonata form (influenced in part by C. P. E. Bach), and both Mozart and especially Beethoven often did some surprising things in the sections listed above. I would love to teach an upper-level course on just Beethoven's codas, or, more generally, classical transition sections; these offer an abundance of fascinating procedures, which reinforces the point that form is indeed important.
However, not all sonatas by the classical "greats" are examples of ground-breaking musical architecture; the first movement of Beethoven's Piano Sonata no. 1 (op. 2, no. 1), for example, is not remarkable or unusual in terms of its form, and yet it is a highly-regarded composition for other reasons (motivic unity ranking high among them). That said, I if op. 2, no. 1 represented the pinnacle of Beethoven's artistic achievement, I doubt he would be considered one of history's greatest composers.
And so, after this long-winded preamble, my answer to the question on the importance of musical form is that form is certainly important, but so are a lot of other aspects of musical composition, some of which are arguably even more important, such as motivic unity and organic growth, the play between expected and unexpected elements, and the music's ability to powerfully move listeners. It may be in this last category that Beethoven distinguished himself the most, and if you compare Sor's op. 22 sonata to, say, the transition from the third movement to the final movement, and the entire final movement itself, of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5, there is no comparison; listening to Sor's music is a pleasant experience, but listening to Beethoven's is mind-blowing, at least some of the time.
Given this, as well as the fact that (a) lesser composers generally used the same forms (e.g., binary, ternary, sonata, rondo) as great composers in a given historical period, and (b) great composers sometimes wrote excellent music whose form was not particularly remarkable, I guess I would have to say that large-scale form gets about a 7 or 8 in terms of compositional importance on my scale of 1-10.  
Ah, but why am I only discussing large-scale form, you may ask? Because to be fair, it is important to note that "form" exists on multiple levels simultaneously in a composition, from the very small scale, such as the intervalic content in a motive, the way in which a theme is constructed, motivic breakdown, the functions of each phrase segment, thematic structure such as period, sentence, phrase group, "auto-generative," fortspinnung, etc., to increasingly larger scales such as the structure of sections, movements, and entire multi-movement works. If the question is, how important is form in every sense of the word, meaning on every level, then my answer is easy: it's a 10.
It is essential to think about form on multiple levels as we compose; if we leave it to an afterthought, our music will likely suffer for it. And by "suffer" I mean that our compositions can sound confused, disorganized, inorganic, etc.
You don't necessarily have to adopt an existing form, or even know what form you are using in the early stages of writing. At many points during the composition process, however, it is good to step back from the the small-scale focus on notes, motives, lines, contour, harmonies, textures, etc., in order to assess what is going on in terms of structure, and work out what the overall form is, or will be. 
I virtually never plan the form of a piece before I start writing; I begin, see where it takes me, add or take away bits, see if I like it, and continue until a section of the music is written. While doing this, my mind is simultaneously trying to make sense of my musical ideas, through analysis, trying to get a sense for how they are structured, and how the structures can make better sense.  When I feel I have a pretty good understanding of the materials with which I am working, I begin working out a tentative overall form for the composition, but this usually changes as I continue the piece.
Many times, when I am not 100% satisfied with a piece I am writing, it is because the form just does not  work for me, and so I play around with the form until the piece makes more sense. Sometimes, in "playing around" with form, I realize that some sections are too long, too short, or even unnecessary, and I wasn't fully aware of this until I did a structural analysis.
On the other hand, some composers, like to begin with an exact, well-planned form, and that obviously can work well too.   
My advice would be to try it both ways (pre-planned form, vs. figuring it out as you go) and see which works best for you. I would also suggest, if you go this route, to try both approaches several times before deciding if one works better. 
Answers to the remaining questions in my previous blog to follow; hopefully they will be shorter!

8 comments:

Unknown said...

This was a very interesting blog for me to read; I always regarded form as one of the most important aspects of music. I still do, but this has allowed me to basically stand up and say that there are more aspects than just form.
I would like to add that one reason that I find it is so easy for us to determine form as the most important part of a musical piece is that, not only do we see it in classical music, but we also see it in popular music today. In today's music, one of the most standard types of form is "introduction - verse 1 - chorus - verse 2 - chorus - instrumental/bridge - chorus - outro." People who don't study music recognize this form, and it's easy for them, and obviously us musicians, to determine it. So, while there are other equally important aspects to music, the reason why it is so easy for us to determine form as the main aspect of music is because of the fact that it is something that everyone, even those who aren't in music, can, in some types of music, identify.

Pallas said...

Not that I am a guitar music connoisseur, but I was surprised that I am familiar with some music by Fernando Sor. I always thought that he was a Baroque or early classical composer because his music does seem simpler than that of the big 3. It's interesting how form can sometimes make or break a piece, or have absolutely no effect on the quality of the piece (if the other musical elements are used effectively, as was mentioned with the Beethoven piano sonata). I'm currently trying to be a more macroscopic composer by establishing some of the big picture aspects of a composition early on. Elements of composition like form do not come to me early in the composition process, and that is probably why my longest work to date barely scrapes past the 3 minute mark. However, I cannot even fathom a chord or melody if I am not 100% sure of what scale(s) or set classes I am going to use. I have probably overlooked form in my own work because I was not aware of how important it is. But even if the audience is not versed in musical forms, form does provide a type of structure to a piece that cannot be easily substituted by other musical elements.

Holly Winter said...

This is very interesting. I haven't really thought about form consciously or traditionally in my own composing. That doesn't mean form doesn't play a role in my compositions. Years of studying and listening to music means I am certainly aware of form. But form isn't often what grabs me in a piece. It's usually a moment that feels unexpected or perhaps inevitable but those moments are built upon form. Perhaps why something feels exciting is how it plays within our expectations within a familiar form. A development that goes on a bit longer than expected builds tension to the recap. Even if we aren't aware of it, form (both big and small version) are one of the ways a composer can play with our expectations. In your example, our ears find nothing exciting in Sor because, perhaps, he doesn't nothing unexpected. He is TOO good at form. Perhaps we love composers who break the rules a little bit. The greats become greats because of their creativity in playing with the tools given to them.

I think it might be a useful exercise in my own compositions to take a form and play with those expectations on both the micro and macro level.

Andrew Luther said...

It’s funny, when I was thinking of a response to this question I immediately wrote down 10, until I started thinking about it a little more. And, if you look back at my comment on your main form in tonal music post, you may notice that I said is similar to what you’ve written here. Like you, I suggested that, while large-scale form is important, it probably isn’t the absolute most important aspect of composition, and is very dependent on the context of the piece. It’s hard to quantify how important form is when there are so many other important things in musical composition, like motivic unity and growth, as you mentioned. You even mentioned that you would give it a 7 or an 8, and I also gave form an 8 in terms of importance from 1 to 10!
However, I didn’t consider the idea of smaller scale form as much in my response. If we think about how form is used in every level to keep music unified and organized, then maybe it should be a 10, as you’ve said. Form has a pretty direct impact on some of the other aspects of music composition you mentioned. For example, it’s difficult (maybe impossible) to achieve motivic unity and organic growth in a composition without thinking about form on some level.
It seems as though you use form in a similar way that I use it while I compose. I try not to focus too much on form in the early stages of my composition, I just use it as a means of stringing everything together. Form often happens organically when I start writing a motive or phrase. However, I later analyze what that organic form I’ve used is, and make it consistent as I continue to write to make sure things continue to feel organic. To me, form isn’t really something I can 100% decide on before I start writing. I may decide that I want to write using a specific scale, but I usually don’t decide on a specific form until after I’ve started writing the piece. I think that form is typically in the back of my head as I compose, and is something to keep me on track while I write. It’s not something that I completely plan out; I usually use it in a more sub-conscious way. I’m not sure if that makes it less important necessarily, but it’s definitely a great thing to think about and consider!

Caleb McRobb said...

I think form is pretty well anywhere between a 3 and 8 in terms of importance. I think for a piece that has to do with the cyclical nature of something if it were to be put in a form like an ABC then it would really damage the effectivity of the piece rather than like ABCBA. But for some pieces, I think the form itself isn't too needed to really make a piece rock. If you got a slapping melody over a real sick ostinato the whole world is at your fingertips without such a frivolous thing of form mattering to you.

Grace Currie said...

This was really interesting, I’ve never really consciously thought about form while composing, although I am aware of it and know that it is important. I think sometimes I fall into the trap of, as you said, treating it as an afterthought, which is why some of my works sound all over the place. You mentioned trying to plan out the form of piece beforehand to see how well it works. I think I will give that a try sometime and really think about what I’m doing instead of letting my music wander around aimlessly.

That being said, I agree with you that the form, while important, shouldn’t dictate everything that happens in the piece. I think I’m with you when I give form a 7 in terms of importance.

Christina Tan said...

It is very interesting reading this post. No I did not know Fernando Sor nor any of his music. I listened to the sonata movement, and to be honest, I think it is pleasant to listen to, nothing attacking, dramatic nor too surprising. I also would think that was a Baroque or early Classical sonata because of its simpler texture, rigorous form and more of a plain sound. I would really be happy if I could write a such sonata movement for a university level sonata form course, I'd definitely get an A with that. However, I have to admit that it isn't a sonata that I will remember, nor one that I would feel particularly attracted or related. Compared to music of the First Viennese School, it definitely lack a lot of personality, character, humor, drama, tension, motivic unity and so much more. Now, back to the question, my initial answer to it was around 6. To be honest I never think that form is the most important thing of a great composition, just like harmonic hierarchies, music forms weren't invented overnight by a genius, they are developped through the great works of the greatest composers, such as J.S. Bach, C.P.E. Bach and the First Viennese School. After all we are listening to the music as a whole not only the form or the chord progressions. Apparently, robots today could also write sonati and even symphonies! So why bother writing them if we are only following the given forms?

That being said, I think it makes sense to buid up and finesse the larger-scale form as I'm writing a piece, so not to be restrained by any given form regardless of the evolution of the music itself. And I think I'll apply that and pay more attention to not limit myself to my formal plans.

Michael Grandy said...

Interesting post, really it can be anywhere between 1-10 when it comes to form importance. I personally think of form pretty often when I'm composing, but I have listened to many compositions with no form and I still found the composition great just from its musical ideas. when I compose, I usually just think of two separate and very different musical ideas, and if I repeat either idea, I change the ideas slightly to keep the composition fresh. A lot of classical compositions have very altered variations of form, to the extent of does form really matter that much? its difficult to determine