Re: For Jon Slaughter: Beethoven 6, mvmt 1


"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11p0qcl637ic2b1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sorry for taking so long to reply. I had to reinstall windows and such to
> get my computer back up and running ;/

Bummer.

[snip]
>
> I think my problem is in recognizing what is a theme and what is not. It
> seems there has to be some way to determine this as it isn't arbitrary.

Of course - sound. As I stated below though, other pieces would be easier -
the themes are more obvious, when we get to Beethoven, we're talking more
about "ideas" than Themes per se.

[snip]
>
> Heh, seems so simple now ;/ I can't believe how all that stuff is just
> basicaly I and V's ;/

That's classical music for you. It's not always the complexity of the
harmony, but the elaboration of very simple things may be more important.


[snip]

>
> But why is Idea 1 not the "theme"?

It could be.

>What makes a theme a theme?

Usually the idea is a little more "complete". Also, we usually resere the
word "theme" (as opposed to "melody" or "motive", etc.) for melodies that
have some importance throughout a work - like one that will return, one that
represents a character or mood (the "Love" theme from Romeo and Juliet
etc.).

Does it have
> to cadence in the tonic?

Not necessarily the tonic, but usually a cadence of some sort tends to make
things more "themey" and less "just a melody/motive". Think about the
"theme" from Beethoven's 9th - Ode to Joy It's pretty complete as an AABA
melody in and of itself. B5 is the opposite - 4 notes. So length,
"completeness" and even recognizability become issues. but, we don't say,
for instance, that the Minuet in G from the Anna Magdelena Notebook opns
with its "theme". That's just a "melody" (or pharse, etc.) because it has no
"significance" - i.e., it's not brought back and treated contrapuntally, or
brought back in the relative minor, or developed, etc.


be in a period and start after the "introduction"?

I think being a conclusive phrase or period lends a little more "theminess"
to material.

>
>> Episode 1: mm.16-28 - mostly dominant, just prolongation - not really a
>> "theme" but a tension-building device (though this one is very docile if
>> you ask me).
>>
>
> ok, I can see that. He uses similar device several times that almost
> echo's this part. I assume that he knows he it is in our ear when we first
> here it here and uses the same "idea" later on to create unity and
> variety(cause its not the exact same)?

Yeah.

>
>> Idea 1a: m. 29 - obviously this is an expansion of Idea 1, which makes
>> this kind of more "themey" than it was originally - we'd say this is (mm.
>> 29 - 53) is "developing" Idea 1 (so because it's quasi-developmental, and
>> quasi-episodic, we might also call it Episode 2, but I won't here).
>> There's a little something new happening in m. 41 (where the Flutes do
>> the trilly thing), but not really enough to call it "Idea 3" yet I think.
>>
>
> trill thing? measure 41? My measure 41 is the same as measure 32 where the
> flutes double the in 3rds the original Idea 1.

Trilly thing is in m. 42, m 41 begins something a little new, but still
obviously related to previous measures.

>
> The way I see all that "build" up that is occuring after the forte chord
> in measure 37 is just mainly using "motives" from the original idea that
> is being doubled and in 3rds and through several voices?

Yes. Building in density and intensity.

>
>> Episode 2: mm. 53 - 67 - the triplet thing is a new idea, but again, this
>> is not so "themey", and even the original "Idea"s are reduced to just a
>> three note motive - plus we're getting some new chords - the vi, and the
>> G7, so the point of this passage is not to be a "theme" or "Idea", but to
>> get us from the previous Idea to the next one.
>>
>
> hmm... the triplets in the horns and clarinets? Isn't that the end of the
> first section? (the triplet stuff just weakening the cadence to lead into
> the next section?)... Its strange... I can't tell if its ending the
> section or starting the new one ;/ Since there is an "echo" 4 measures
> later it sounds like its starting the new one ;/

I won't let you do it to me here - I know you're going to read on and find
the answer to this, so I'll wait till below...

>
>> Secondary Key Area Material (in C).
>> Idea 3: m. 67. If it were a "theme" per se, we'd call this the "Secondary
>> Theme" usually, though again, Beethoven is fragmenting things into more
>> motivically based composition.
>>
>> But I do want you to note here how "flowing" the Violin melody is, as
>> opposed to the more rhythmic "Principal Theme" (what we're calling Idea 1
>> or 2). This is typical of sonata form - first theme more "active" and
>> second theme more "mellow". I should also note as a point of interest
>> that I've seen people make a case for this motive being derived from the
>> opening measures too.
>>
> hmm.. I can't really see how one could get that from Idea 1 ;/ unless you
> take the notes starting on the 3rd eighth except for the first 16th note.

Yeah, I think it's a stretch.

>
>> There's kind of two things going on in Idea 3 - the arpeggio melody (Vns,
>> mm.67-70) and the bass part (m.67-74) - note how this later one is
>> treated imitatively against itself (starts in Vc, then moves to Vn, then
>> to Flutes, then CB, then the Oboes and Horn start it - pretty cool huh!
>>
>
> lol, I didn't see that ;/ sorta like a cannon.

Canon. Good Grief.

>
>> Idea 4: m. 93. This is obviously recalling, at least rhythmically, Idea 1
>> (and interestingly, calling back the triplet idea from m.53 in the
>> horns) - kind of nicely laid out in an antecedent (93-96) and consequent
>> (97-100) phrases (the first to do so since Idea 2 really, but even that
>> one is not so clear cut). But it's not Idea 1, so were not going back to
>> the beginning or anything - this is still solidly in C and part of the
>> Secondary Key Area.
>>
>
> triplet's? I don't see any triplets in my score on that page ;/ oh...
> several measures later... 103?

I think it's 102 unless I miscounted somewhere.

>
>> Episode 3: m. 108 - 138. There's not really any new Ideas here, though
>> obviously a motive from Idea 1 is used from 115 on. But we're still
>> solidly in C.
>>
>
> hmm... How is that motive derived from Idea 1? in measure 3-4(the end)?
> in measure 2?

In the opening, you have Bb A G on the up beat of m.2 and the afterbeat of
beat 2 m.3 (to the downbeat of m.4). Just the idea of the downward 2 16ths
8th note figure here (starts E D C).

>
>> Episode 4: m. 135 - What finally does happen, in m. 135 is the opening
>> motive of Idea 1 returns - adding the Bb in 138 to take us back to F for
>> the repeat (so he turns the C I chord into a V7/IV in C, V7 in F, at the
>> very last moment before the repeat. This little idea sets us up for the
>> repeat. Where have we seen it in this kind of transitional usage
>> before? - why, the transition to the Secondary Key Area Material
>> (SKAM!) - cool huh! So he used the same little idea (Episodes 2 and 4) to
>> modulate us the first time to the Dominant, and the second time to set us
>> up for the return to the Tonic.
>>
>
> I can't find him using a Bn or F# after measure 123.... does he do this
> because wants the ear to "forget" about those notes so he can make the
> transition smoother when he uses the Bb in measure 138?

Possibly, but it's also "calming down" - so instead of chromatic notes, we
get diatonic, and we also have this "rocking" motion between I and implied V
over a C pedal - trees swaying in the breeze - or swaying in a hammock.

i.e., say if he used
> Bn in measure 137 then it might seem like a "drastic" change of key?

No. It's in C so B would sound perfectly reasonable. It wouldn't take it
back to F for the repeat (or for the continuation the second time) as
readily.

>
> heh, so are these little "idea's" that he uses what makes it cool or is
> there something else? Is this what provides unity and variety by using
> the same "ideas" in a variety of ways?

Yes - your ear will recognize things, but they're different enough to make
you ponder if they're exactly the same, or they've been changed, and why or
why not.

>
> When I listen to the piece am I suppose to be able to hear this stuff go
> on? (like say, hey, he used that idea to transition into the second
> section?) or is that hard stuff to do, or just takes some pratice?

Some practice. But I would say for the majority of listeners (assuming
largely untrained non-musicians) these things probably operate on a more
subconscious level.

>
>> So that's the basic gist of the Exposition
>> Two main Ideas in the PKAM, and two main Ideas in the SKAM (all with
>> transitional or episodic, or "developmental" material connecting). Some
>> people may consider more or less than this, so I'm just giving you a
>> basic idea.
>>
>
> ok, I guess what throws me off is seeing all the other stuff that goes on
> and not knowing what its for and loosing site of the basic material that
> is there. I think also I rely to much on my eyes and not enough on my
> ears(i.e. I look for visual similarity instead of auditorial similarity)

You should be able to close your eyes when you listen to music. It is about
sound after all.

>
>>
>>>
>>> bar 12 seems to intoduce(prepare) the motive starting on bar 16...
>>
>> Actually, it's from m. 3.
>>
>
> how? the rhythm is backwards?

Typo, should be m. 6. Sorry.

>
>> This "theme" (Idea 1) has 3 main motives - Motive X is m.1, motive Y m. 2
>> and Z, 3 (roughly). (so for instance, the transitional Episodes 2 and 4
>> above are made of Motive X - the section from 41 - roughly 53 is
>> comprised largely of Motive y, and so on).
>>
>
> Is this why he introduced them that way? did he compose the intro first so
> it would supply him with his material or did he write the sections first
> then make an intro using that materal so one would know what he used
> before they were used in the sections(a "hint" or something)?

This is something you can never know for sure without asking the composer.
Some opera overtures sound as if the entire opera was written, and then
themes from the opera proper were "compiled" to make the overture - Star
Wars is a good example - I fell pretty sure that Williams came up with
Luke's theme, Leia's theme, and the Imperial March stuff before he composed
the Main Title music (or end title music for that matter). I would bet
though in this case that Beethoven had an idea that was the first four
measures, and built the rest from it. In B's case we have copies of his
sketchbooks so a lot of these questions can be answered with a little more
certainty than for other composers, but you can still never be sure without
first-hand info.


[snip]
>
> What Sonatas should I start with?

Mozart would probably be a little easier (but not always) - his symphonies
too.

I have learned the basic idea for form and
> such, its pretty easy although I don't remember exactly, say, what a rondo
> is I do understand the concept of growth from a phrase to a period to a
> double period to a binary/ternary form and so forth.... I just need to
> pratice to recognize them to get it in my head.
>
> The basic idea, atleast what I read, is that cadences is what makes the
> form. Cadences break up the music into phrases, phrases break it up into
> sections and sections break up the whole thing.

Yes, but there are conclusive and inconclusive cadences, and it's important
to know the difference.

>
> The why I look at it (hypothetically atleast) is that music original
> started with just a measure or so of music... motive or something... then
> these motives were grouped together into form phrases...

No,. not at all. Is that how you talk?
The.
The Dog.
The Dog ran.
The Dog ran incessantly.
The Dog ran incessantly in.
The Dog ran incessantly in circles.

That was actually difficult for me to do becuase I didn'g think of what I
wanted to say but one word at a time.

When you speak, or write, you typically think a thought, and then
communicate it using language. Same with music. You have a sound, then you
write pitches down.

If I'm going to write a short story (and I've told you this a 100 time
already), you don't just start "It was a drak and stormy night". Instead,
you say to yourself - I'm going to write a short story. I'm going to make it
a mystery. There's going to be something lost. Now, what's that something
going to be, and so on. You develop the "plot" before you write a word. Same
with music.



then phrases into small
> songs. Through "trial and error" "they" learned how to end phrases in
> such a way to end the piece or just end a phrase but not end the piece so
> as to continue the music.

No, it just like when you have a complete thought, you just don't







[end a sentence like I just did]


But as one wanted to make longer pieces they had to
> come up with some way to keep interested... just repeating very similar
> ideas would get boring after a while.... so they decided to attach two
> songs together... by having the two different songs in a close but
> different key and with a different style they were able extend the
> song(but ofcourse they had to make them "fit" together). Then they
> learned that they could add another song to the end of that and so on and
> so forth...

Ok. Yes, originally there were "dances" and "after dances" hooked together
to make "dance pairs". But by the time people were writing forms like this,
they were no longer writing two independent pieces and "cramming" them
together. They thought about the whole thing and how it would fit together
before they wrote it.

but found out that
> "recapitulating" the first section was satisfactory.... this developed
> into more complex forms and such but the basic seems to be there?

Not quite as cut and dry as that - it's an evolutionary process. But what
you're saying is like saying people created novels by sticking a bunch of
chapters together that all had the same character (which is not how a novel
is conceived - a serial, yes, but novels no).


[snip]

>
> Its strange though. I hear the music as being perfectly fine ;/ I do
> notice after you pointed out that was a G7 chord that it sounded
> "different" in the sense I have not heard that sound before but it sounds
> perfectly fine to me ;/

That's the "some practice" I mentioned above.

>
> I think I need to pratice recognizing chord's and stuff. Probably holding
> me back from understanding a great deal about music.

Certainly won't hurt!

>
>>
>
> I read somewhere that you do this to make the cadence clearer.

[making coughing sound while I say bull***).

They do it because they are unthinking automatons who learned it from some
other person and didn't question it's validity.

I have this
> book called "Meter in music 1600-1800" and the guy talks about how they
> did all kinds of things to "articulate" the meter better like increasing
> the length of notes that fall on the strong beat and ecrease the ones that
> fall on the weak beat.... the french used something like jazz 8ths to make
> the phrase more interesting, etc...

Called "notes inegale" - yes - it's like swing 8ths. That's a style thing
though. It's doesn't serve a purpose other than to make the music
identifiable stylistically (one could certainly argue there's more to it
than that, but it's irrelevant to what we're talking about).

>
> I have a different recording of the symphony and they do the same
> thing(but a little faster). Just wondering if this was a general idea or
> not.

Yes, for unthinking conductors.

>
>> [snip]

>>
>
> yeah, I wasn't paying attention and it wasn't obvious to me at the time ;/

See way above.

Ok, gotta go.

Best,
Steve


.