Sonata form in the Late Romantic Era

[Chaszz]

Charles Rosen, in his books "The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven" and "The Romantic Generation" defines the Classical and Romantic eras in music by analyzing the harmonic and melodic elements of each. These books were recommended to me some time ago by Peter, when he attempted to explain to me why Beethoven is a Classical and not a Romantic composer. I read them, imperfectly, because my note reading is poor at best and they are full of examples from scores. However, I think I got the general drift. Among other things, Prof. Rosen seems to say that the classical Sonata form as taken over by the Romantics became an empty shell devoid of real life. In a larger context, I think he states that the Romantics had new things to say, but that those of them who still used sonata form were clothing their new ideas with an worn-out garment that did not really suit them.

This puzzles me, because I think (perhaps erroneously) that the tension between the first and second themes in a sonata movement is the main subject of the movement, along with their final resolution. In Brahms, I still hear this tension being worked out in detail, and the emotion that goes along with it. Is not the sonata form in Brahms still alive and well?

[Peter]

Yes Chaszz it is and that's why he was criticised by his contemporaries for being old fashioned. Wagner had it right when he said Brahms showed what could be done with the old forms, though wasn't this a reference to the fugue from the Handel variations which he especially admired? I think Rosen's comments were related to the early Romantics such as Schumann and Mendelssohn rather than Brahms.

[Chaszz]

Yes Chaszz it is and that's why he was criticised by his contemporaries for being old fashioned. Wagner had it right when he said Brahms showed what could be done with the old forms, though wasn't this a reference to the fugue from the Handel variations which he especially admired? I think Rosen's comments were related to the early Romantics such as Schumann and Mendelssohn rather than Brahms.

How about Schubert? In his works in classical sonata from, I find the development's wanderings to and fro so protracted that I confess I cannot pay sufficient attention after a while to understand what is going on. That he is trying to work things out is clear; whether he is effective IN THE FORM is the question(?)

Also, would Rosen say that a composer like Lizst, who sort of threw fomrats overboard and wandered at his will, was a more effective Romantic composer than those like Schumann who tried to continue older forms but were not really good at it? (Having read his books I ought to be able to answer this quesion myself, but the frequency of score illustrations had me nodding at times, like... well, listening to Schubert sonatas.)

[Peter]

How about Schubert? In his works in classical sonata from, I find the development's wanderings to and fro so protracted that I confess I cannot pay sufficient attention after a while to understand what is going on. That he is trying to work things out is clear; whether he is effective IN THE FORM is the question(?)

Also, would Rosen say that a composer like Lizst, who sort of threw fomrats overboard and wandered at his will, was a more effective Romantic composer than those like Schumann who tried to continue older forms but were not really good at it? (Having read his books I ought to be able to answer this quesion myself, but the frequency of score illustrations had me nodding at times, like... well, listening to Schubert sonatas.)

I agree that Schubert sometimes had a problem with sonata form, but he was a young composer straddled between the Classical and the Romantic. His natural inclination was towards the Romantic as he was primarily interested in melody rather than form. Another primarily melodic composer, Tchaikovsky had similar problems because longer melodies rather than short motiffs don't lend themselves so well to development - think of the famous tune in his Bb minor piano concerto - he never uses it again after the opening.

What Rosen was saying was that composers such as Schubert and Schumann (the early Romantics) were at their best when they didn't attempt to emulate Beethoven - i.e when they were not constrained by Sonata form. Much of their best work is in Lieder and shorter piano miniatures. I don't think Rosen meant Liszt or Wagner were more effective, only that they didn't attempt to constrain themselves and if they did it was unmemorable - who listens to Wagner's symphony?

[Michael]

Another primarily melodic composer, Tchaikovsky had similar problems because longer melodies rather than short motiffs don't lend themselves so well to development - think of the famous tune in his Bb minor piano concerto - he never uses it again after the opening.

You've just brought back a memory, Peter. I was lent a recording of the B minor piano concerto when I was about sixteen. I was delighted with the familiar opening but then I waited in vain for it to come back.
You could almost accuse the famous German composer, Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827) of doing the same thing in his Emperor concerto. The cadenza-like opening does reappear at the end of the development section but he seems to have done nothing else with it.
(I have no doubt someone has discovered connections on the sub-atomic level that I have missed.)

[Peter]

You've just brought back a memory, Peter. I was lent a recording of the B minor piano concerto when I was about sixteen. I was delighted with the familiar opening but then I waited in vain for it to come back.
You could almost accuse the famous German composer, Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827) of doing the same thing in his Emperor concerto. The cadenza-like opening does reappear at the end of the development section but he seems to have done nothing else with it.
(I have no doubt someone has discovered connections on the sub-atomic level that I have missed.)

Well it's not really the same Michael although quite novel (as is the actual cadenza being written into the score). Beethoven's opening is clearly a brief introductory passage without thematic significance, whereas the Tchaikovsky is a grandiose melody that is restated several times, stuck onto the beginning with no connection with what follows - perhaps that's what offended Rubinstein?

[Chaszz]

I agree that Schubert sometimes had a problem with sonata form, but he was a young composer straddled between the Classical and the Romantic. His natural inclination was towards the Romantic as he was primarily interested in melody rather than form. Another primarily melodic composer, Tchaikovsky had similar problems because longer melodies rather than short motiffs don't lend themselves so well to development - think of the famous tune in his Bb minor piano concerto - he never uses it again after the opening.

What Rosen was saying was that composers such as Schubert and Schumann (the early Romantics) were at their best when they didn't attempt to emulate Beethoven - i.e when they were not constrained by Sonata form. Much of their best work is in Lieder and shorter piano miniatures. I don't think Rosen meant Liszt or Wagner were more effective, only that they didn't attempt to constrain themselves and if they did it was unmemorable - who listens to Wagner's symphony?

Thank you for this, Peter, it has clarified the whole thing for me excellently. As sometimes when one reads a book of history, the main outlines disppear in a mass of detail, but if one reads a review of the book or a short summary of the period one understands it much better.

[Chris]

I was lent a recording of the B minor piano concerto when I was about sixteen. I was delighted with the familiar opening but then I waited in vain for it to come back.

Almost the exact same thing happened to me.

[Michael]

I'm not sure I would describe the opening to the Emperor as "brief", though that is my subjective feeling. As to lacking thematic significance, I tend to think of it as a huge anacrusis / upbeat, a macro articulation-cum-echo of the main melody's own anacrusis, to employ Michaels's sub or supra-atomic parlance. I do not "roll my eyes" (Cf. the icons one employs on this forum) when I say this.

Nurse, he's out of bed again!

[Peter]

I think you (Peter and Chaszz) are needlessly over-elaborating something that is much simpler to grasp than the rather formalist term "sonata form", as if it were some sort of shoehorn, or "ready-made" formula. The question is one of "structuring process". The issue (which an artist such as Chaszz should have no trouble grasping) concerns the "materials" and the structuring (or "manipulation", if you wish) of such.
Thus, it may well be that Schubert's materials (extended melody) are not well suited to classical sonata form (the process), though this is not a criticism I have heard levelled against Bruckner nor indeed Mahler. I accept though (to a point) that short and bitty "mono-thematicism" à la Haydn et al well suits the structuring processes we attribute to the seemingly hermetic Classical Period.

This is the simpler, less elaborate explanation?

[Peter]

I'm not sure I would describe the opening to the Emperor as "brief", though that is my subjective feeling. As to lacking thematic significance, I tend to think of it as a huge anacrusis / upbeat, a macro articulation-cum-echo of the main melody's own anacrusis, to employ Michaels's sub or supra-atomic parlance. I do not "roll my eyes" (Cf. the icons one employs on this forum) when I say this.

In the context of the scale of the movement (582 bars), 10 bars is brief.

[Michael]

Connections on the sub-atomic level? Most probably on a higher macro (or shall we say, to continue your metaphor - molecular) level. Are you mocking those that may have tried? Schencker, for example? This is the "Beethoven Reference Site", is it not?

In the immortal words of Lewis Carroll: "For the quark was a bosun, you see!"