How much does 'form' influence your interpretational considerations ?

[m1469]

I mean the formal structure of a piece of music.

Food for thought :

Do you find yourself making certain decisions based on the form of a piece no matter what era the piece may have come from ?

For example, if you have a repeated section, do you have some kind of rule that you call upon no matter what 'style' the piece may be ?  Perhaps, as a rule, you always change something in a second statemt of a chunk of music.

Thanks,
m1469

[phil13]

Uh...yes and no.

Yes, I will leave out the 2nd repeat of an early Classical sonata (i.e., Mozart, really early Beethoven) to give it the 'AABA' sonata-form feeling, instead of the binary form that it is.

No, I will not add ornamentation on the 2nd repetition of a section unless it is Baroque and the ornamentaton is fitting. To do that in a Romantic piece by Chopin or Liszt or Rachmaninoff or some other Romantic composer is just wrong.

This topic has so many branches upon which certain ideas and rules apply that do not affect the other branches, it's almost too open. As you can see, m1469, form will influence a few aspects but it will not influence others.

Phil

Phil

[m1469]

Just to be clear, I did not say anything about ornamentation.  I meant "doing something different as a rule" with something as simple as changing a dynamic, for example.  This subject, and that particular part of my first post, is broad but not absurd.

This particular question, regarding repeated chunks, stems from a concept that I have been told : "if you are repeating it, it has to say something different" -- which seemed to mean (as I observed over a period of time) that its interpretation/performance had to change in some way and often it had to do with dynamics or placing an accent somewhere different ... etc.

From my perspective form affects *everything* though I am not positive in what ways.     



m1469

[ted]

I do not play much classical music with repeats in it. However, I do play a lot of classical ragtime, which has many repeats built into its form. No, in general I do not like any sort of exact sectional repetition in music and, yes, I always do something different the second time through. Exactly what doesn't matter. I find if I let things happen spontaneously the result is often better than if I had planned what to do in advance. I am not the sort of person who works toward a final, personally definitive version of anything. Today's interpretation is likely to be different from yesterday's - different tempo, stick in a few new accents, even extra notes and so on.

This, no doubt, is reason number 223 why I could never have been a concert pianist.

Form is very important to me in improvisation but is based on organic principles quite different from structure and architecture.

[asyncopated]

I mean the formal structure of a piece of music.

Food for thought :

Do you find yourself making certain decisions based on the form of a piece no matter what era the piece may have come from ?

Thanks,
m1469

Even if pieces did have similar forms, the basic function of each section may be different and thus attitude that one takes should also be different. ()

To give you concrete examples.  A sonata form usually can be split into an ABA form , exposition, development and recap (I'm sure you know this).  The function of the development is usually an unstablising force.  It is the dramatic part of the piece.   The motifs and keys twist and turn.  Usually, the Exposition and recaputation are the stable and predictible parts that sandwich the 'wild bit'.

Compare this other ABA forms of the romatic period.  Say a chopin nocturn or debussy's arabasque I.  The middle bit here is usually the special bit.  For the debussy it has a clear singing line, where in  both A parts most of what appears are aural shapes (hence impressionistic), the B section is constructed of very clean lines.  Here, I would say it stablises the piece.

So in the spirit of the question, in both cases, I do usually treat the B section with more attention (and I think my teacher agrees).  But the way in which I would play each piece maybe completely different depending on what the music calls for.

[mike_lang]

I think that, in the case of repeats, it is good not be dogmatic, but perhaps it is possilbe to highlight something different the second time around, but not to change the interpretation.  It really depends on what you are playing.  What I say holds true about Bach, but not so much about, say, the repeat in the exposition of a Beethoven sonata 1st movement.  In the case of the Beethoven sonata, I would play it the same way both times - but not less tranquil, agitated, noble, or what-have-you the second time. 

It really depends on the reason for the repeat.  I think that exposition repeats in sonata form are really a courtesy to the listener to help make the development more comprehensible (in direct opposition to Schönberg's phrase compression).

In short, the key is not to lose concentration, energy, or intensity on the second time around. 

[prometheus]

Form is essential for western classical music. It is a big difference between western classical music and other forms of music.

[pianistimo]

notes from dr. sterling murray:

'perhaps most fundamental to the analytical process is the determination of musical form. the reason this form is fundamental and should be considered before style lies in the simple fact that the form of a musical composition will allow you to deal with the complete work in more manageable and reasonable sections or units.  moreover, the form (or structure) of a composition is audible and does not require having the score in front of you.  thus, when you are hearing a composition for the first time without the aid of a printed score (as, of course, is the norm), your ear will take in and absorb the music initially through its form or structure.'

[pianistimo]

cont. 

'almost all music has a form or structural logic of some sort.  indeed, composers provide formal logic in their music so that the listener will better be able to follow the 'course of events.'  in this sense at a low-level, form can be likened to punctuation in a language.  without punctuation (written down or inflected in speech), in is very difficult to understand the meaning of a text, although the sound of individual words may still have some basic appeal.  composers create a form to music by dividing it into structural sections by the principles of statement, repetition, contrast, and variation.  the analyst needs to identify those sections - but how?  how do you know when the composer has moved from one unit to another?

in vocal music, there is a text, and the logic of the words will sometimes dictate the number and division of musical sections.  however, with or without a text a composer provides numerous musical clues to his intent.  a change of musical materials is the best clue.  if the composition is based on A B A arrangement or form the B section will be set off from the A section by a wide possibility for music changes.  for example, the melody of the B section might change (thus B-flat major in the A section and E-flat minor in the B section or simply D major in the A and D minor in the B section); the contrasting section might be placed in 3/4 while the A section is in 2/4 or there may be smaller rhythmic values used in the contrasting section; the B section might include a countermelody which does not appear in either of the flanking A sections; of the A sections might be played by strings with winds added for contrast only in the B section.  any or all of these changes (and many others) might be used to create the sense of contrast that is the deciding factor of the particular form that we are trying to identify.  the more changes that occur, the stronger the contrast and, of course, visa-versa.'

taking dr. murray's approach - i would say that i play less 'contrast' possibilities with mozart and haydn and more with say, brahms.  particularly, i am thinking of the #2 intermezzo op. 118.  you have a much more dramatic countermelody (as dr. murray stated) and you have to try harder to bring out this contrast - whereas - the contrasts of earlier works by what we usually term 'classical' composers  (btw, i tend to think that brahms borrowed a lot from the classicists) were less dramatic and more lengthy.  almost as if they were 'filling time.'  more repeats, etc. etc.