Tchaikovsky's """formal defectiveness""" is honestly something I admire a lot about his music. I love that after a certain point he just said "screw it, I'm the best tunesmith that ever lived, to hell with sonata form" and managed to crank out so many eternal classics with that mindset
What a FUN episode - thank you so much for this discussion, David!! I especially enjoyed your comments on the Bizet, on Schumann’s Rhenish (I played that horn call a few times), and the Rimsky-Korsakov (Russian Easter Overture was among the first pieces I played in youth orchestra).
I'm so glad you mentioned Tchaikovsky's "Manfred" first! On an equal footing with the "Pathétique," it is my favorite work of all time! To my mind, the first movement comprises an astoundingly innovative sonata form: first the theme of Manfred is stated; then it is developed to the point of utter exhaustion - and out of a landscape of utter destruction sprouts the "Astarte" melody, one of the saddest, most tender, and most beautiful ever written! After its exposition, the "Astarte" melody is developed until, in the coda, the Manfred theme collapses on top of it like the temple of the Philistines when Samson tears it down! The melody of the fairy of the Alpine waterfall in the second movement is almost even more beautiful - and then the Manfred theme returns, this time very lyrical and melodic, while the droplets of the sunlit waterfall sparkle around it - for me, the most miraculous moment in all of music!
THANK YOU!! I'm glad I'm not the only one saying this. Musicology and music theory are full of stubborn formalists who largely ignore the very things you've emphasized in this terrific video. "A form must be justified by its results."---Ralph Vaughan Williams
Very important question, terrific answer. Interesting to combine with your 'Romanticism means more' point, which blew my mind yesterday! 'Classical Form and the Struggle to Contain the Romantic Beast' could be a good paper title..
The finale of Schumann's Symphony No. 2 is in no standard form, yet its themes are gorgeous and their deployment has a unique "narrative" logic that works superbly, making this my favorite Schumann symphony.
I have only heard the Bizet symphony a couple times, but your singing at 17:25 helped me remember the tune in the finale. People rag on you, but I really appreciate your singing and it helps me recall themes that I’ve heard before but couldn’t recall nearly as easily myself. To say it more directly, I’ve watched three thousand of your videos and estimate that your singing has helped me remember tunes at least 95% of the time. Thank you and kudos to you for your extremely impressive musical memory. -Charles
The power of a composer’s style can also safeguard against apparent formlessness. Schumann’s Papillons or Davidsbundlertaenze aren’t held together by formal processes or great tunes, but through the originality and memorability of his ideas, and the way he fits them together. Same goes for several Stravinsky ballets.
@ Really? You believe that a good performance has some bearing on the degree to which music affects the listener? Hot diggity darn, I have never heard of such a thing! You may be on to something big here!
As to Tchaikovsky - I remember reading, ages ago, about a very superior critic/musicologist who had written a treatise (I’m sorry I can’t supply the citation) taking Tchaikovsky to task for all his supposed faults and shortcomings as a composer, but who ended with the following remark: ‘But where, oh where, did he get all those tunes, and where can I get some like them?’
Thank you for that. I have played so many marches, I pretty much get the basic form. There are a few that I just don't notice the form because I enjoy the tunes/orchestration so much. Grafulla/Washington Grays, Agapkin/Slavonic Girl's Farewell, maybe a few KJ Alford marches.
Figured Messiaen or Yoshimatsu would make that list. But there are enough much more universally familiar pieces, as it turns out, to fill the discussion... and now I gotta take Éclairs sur l'Au-Delà... off the player and put the Manfred Symphony on!
@@barryguerrero6480 I completely agree. His "Antar" is another example of great tunes without much to hold the rest together. I'm not complaining though. He's such an engaging melodist and consummate orchestrator that I overlook the repetitive nature of his works
Re Strauss, in a strange way perhaps Death and Transfiguration counts. Characteristically, the pay-off doesn't come until the end, but it's cleverly accomplished and it certainly makes the wait worthwhile.
This is a case where the form can't be more disfunctional, but the tunes catch the attention (and some orchestral effects too): Langgaard's Symphony No. 4. It's a one-movement symphony with several sections and I don't blame those who may criticize the composer's development of ideas or narrative. However, somehow, the work manages to be attractive due in good part to the melodic material. Needless to say I love that piece.
I think Beethoven may have taken an interest in Diabelli’s waltz because each half ends with a build up of tension, half-climactically in the first half and fully climactically in the second. This makes these variations a joy to play, with 66 glorious climaxes to look forward to.
No. Diabelli's tune is ideal for Beethoven's purpose--in other words, its simplicity permits him to create a huge variety of contrast through variation. You couldn't say it's "terrible," just basic.
I heard a transcription of the Bolero for piano yesterday. As you would expect, even the melody failed to rescue it. The piano lacks the variation in colour to have a chance of bringing that piece off. A tour-de-force by the arranger? Absolutely. A delight to listen to? Not on your life.
A great selection of works, David - and I love them all in their own ways. What is your favourite recording of "Manfred" as I must get a really good one? I have the Goossens/Evererst with the LSO but it's cut and I also have the Tilson Thomas with that odd "half-speed" tempo in the finale but it's otherwise very good. I'm wondering if Mahler might also qualify. I was particularly thinking of the first movement of the ninth symphony where so many different ideas come and go - all fascinating and always memorable, of course. Thanks.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks, David. I'll do that. I've been thinking of downloading a hi-rez version of the Goosssens from HDtracks as I still have a soft spot for that performance, despite the cuts, and the recording is amazing for its age.
Dave, slightly off-topic: you must have read On the Musically Beautiful, the famous book by Eduard Hanslick, the 19th-century Viennese critic. I’m writing an academic article on it and was surprised by the content. It’s really interesting and quite modern. The category of “sonically moved forms,” which for Hanslick constitutes a beauty that is specifically musical, is a very clever idea. I think Hanslick’s own inept political choices, coupled with Wagner’s overwhelming fame, did him a lot of harm - he’s actually a very intelligent figure, much more interesting than people are often led to believe.
Ironically, it's those final moments in Strauss that people wait for and go to his operas to hear. The final trio in Rosenkavalier, Salome getting a head, the Countess' musings at the end of Capriccio, or Daphne turning into a tree. I admit those final celebrations in Frau ohne Schatten do go on too long and sensibly usually get cut down. I've always thought Strauss's real problems are in the middle which is why Strauss himself recommended cuts in all three acts of Rosenkavalier. But none in the last 18 minutes or so. I do feel that Elektra tends to run out of steam after the scene with Klytemnestra. And there are standard cuts in the 2nd scene with her sister and also the monologue/aria in the recognition scene where Elektra goes on way too long about the moon, her hair, and her beauty. We need to get to the murders, dang it!
That's my point--the singing starts when the plot ends. I'm not suggesting to get rid of it, only that it's evidence of Strauss' questionable sense of timing. What to do about it is an entirely different discussion.
And here I thought the prime example was Tchaikovsky PC1, especially 1st movement. Dave said "Tchaikovsky"! VIndication! But no...Manfred. that works, too.
When I saw the subject, Tchaikovsky “Capriccio Italien” came to mind … but I guess, like a rhapsody, a capriccio isn’t expected to be much more than a series of tunes. And perhaps _those_ tunes aren’t so brilliant. Great list.
Kallinikov's forms are always excellent, in my opinion. That theme that you mention is repeated, once, in the exposition. And the recapitulation does exactly the same. Just like Brahms 2, in fact...
I wholeheartedly agree with the mystery of what makes a good tune. This is why I've never given much credence to those who dump on melodists like Puccini and Grieg. If it were easy, everyone could do it. However, I do believe that narrative (how the piece moves) is more important than form, but narrative, like melody, is mysterious. All of these works move differently, but they move.
Yes, it is. Like melody. People disagree on what melody is. Beethoven and Schoenberg (and many others) were criticized for abandoning melody. I can't be any more specific than to say narrative is the rhetorical movement of music. Sometimes it moves to a specific story, as in Strauss's Don Quixote. Other times, it has the movement of an essay (Barber's Essays for Orchestra or a William Schuman String Quartet) or even a sermon (VW's Tallis Fantasia). Rimsky may, for example, have been an indifferent architect, but he certainly could "tell the tale." Same with Grieg. His Piano Concerto is patchy, but he moves you from the measure to the last. I can hum most of the first movement of that Concerto, which means that it coheres, despite its shaky formal structure. The same applies to Rhapsody in Blue and the Concerto in F.
Well constructed tune probably has less room development, maybe that's why Mozart didn't write a development section for the most part. How about the other way around? Basically can a piece be successful with subpar tunes but strong formal construct. Well, I assume not as the academic type conposers are not super successful based on the judgment of history
This is wrong on so many levels. Mozart wrote amazing development section, and yes, works can be magnificent without any tunes at all if they are effectively structured.
@DavesClassicalGuide fair enough, I see your point. Regarding Mozart, I thought he wrote sonata form without development or ABAB at least in some symphonies. Based on your comment I gathered that's a generalisation. Thanks for your reply and great content.
Yeah, I think some people complain about the strcuture of beethoven's 9th, like in the 4th movement, but to be honest, it's such a glorious movement and theme that it doesn't really matter to most people
Tchaikovsky's """formal defectiveness""" is honestly something I admire a lot about his music. I love that after a certain point he just said "screw it, I'm the best tunesmith that ever lived, to hell with sonata form" and managed to crank out so many eternal classics with that mindset
Everybody says Dvorak's 1st symphony is a immature work but it's so full of glorious melodies, I love it
What a FUN episode - thank you so much for this discussion, David!!
I especially enjoyed your comments on the Bizet, on Schumann’s Rhenish (I played that horn call a few times), and the Rimsky-Korsakov (Russian Easter Overture was among the first pieces I played in youth orchestra).
I'm so glad you mentioned Tchaikovsky's "Manfred" first! On an equal footing with the "Pathétique," it is my favorite work of all time! To my mind, the first movement comprises an astoundingly innovative sonata form: first the theme of Manfred is stated; then it is developed to the point of utter exhaustion - and out of a landscape of utter destruction sprouts the "Astarte" melody, one of the saddest, most tender, and most beautiful ever written! After its exposition, the "Astarte" melody is developed until, in the coda, the Manfred theme collapses on top of it like the temple of the Philistines when Samson tears it down!
The melody of the fairy of the Alpine waterfall in the second movement is almost even more beautiful - and then the Manfred theme returns, this time very lyrical and melodic, while the droplets of the sunlit waterfall sparkle around it - for me, the most miraculous moment in all of music!
beautiful observations
THANK YOU!!
I'm glad I'm not the only one saying this. Musicology and music theory are full of stubborn formalists who largely ignore the very things you've emphasized in this terrific video.
"A form must be justified by its results."---Ralph Vaughan Williams
Very important question, terrific answer. Interesting to combine with your 'Romanticism means more' point, which blew my mind yesterday! 'Classical Form and the Struggle to Contain the Romantic Beast' could be a good paper title..
Fascinating subject.and some great examples. Thanks.
When I saw the title, the first piece that came to my mind was Liszt Preludes.
The finale of Schumann's Symphony No. 2 is in no standard form, yet its themes are gorgeous and their deployment has a unique "narrative" logic that works superbly, making this my favorite Schumann symphony.
I have only heard the Bizet symphony a couple times, but your singing at 17:25 helped me remember the tune in the finale. People rag on you, but I really appreciate your singing and it helps me recall themes that I’ve heard before but couldn’t recall nearly as easily myself. To say it more directly, I’ve watched three thousand of your videos and estimate that your singing has helped me remember tunes at least 95% of the time. Thank you and kudos to you for your extremely impressive musical memory. -Charles
I'm plotzing!
I knew Rhapsody in Blue would be on this list before I clicked the thumbnail=)
The power of a composer’s style can also safeguard against apparent formlessness. Schumann’s Papillons or Davidsbundlertaenze aren’t held together by formal processes or great tunes, but through the originality and memorability of his ideas, and the way he fits them together. Same goes for several Stravinsky ballets.
I never even thought about the form of the Russian Easter Overture. It's just such great music, and so moving.
... depending upon the performance.
@ Really? You believe that a good performance has some bearing on the degree to which music affects the listener? Hot diggity darn, I have never heard of such a thing! You may be on to something big here!
I'd like to add Gross Fudge to this list, its form absolutely doesn't help matters 😆
BTW, I love the work to bits.
As to Tchaikovsky - I remember reading, ages ago, about a very superior critic/musicologist who had written a treatise (I’m sorry I can’t supply the citation) taking Tchaikovsky to task for all his supposed faults and shortcomings as a composer, but who ended with the following remark: ‘But where, oh where, did he get all those tunes, and where can I get some like them?’
Thank you for that. I have played so many marches, I pretty much get the basic form. There are a few that I just don't notice the form because I enjoy the tunes/orchestration so much. Grafulla/Washington Grays, Agapkin/Slavonic Girl's Farewell, maybe a few KJ Alford marches.
Figured Messiaen or Yoshimatsu would make that list. But there are enough much more universally familiar pieces, as it turns out, to fill the discussion... and now I gotta take Éclairs sur l'Au-Delà... off the player and put the Manfred Symphony on!
The apostrophe to the head is the best scene in Salome.
That's what I said.
@ You cited the chat with the head as another example is Strauss going on too long.
I think Rimsky-Korsakov is the perfect example in general.
@@barryguerrero6480 I completely agree. His "Antar" is another example of great tunes without much to hold the rest together. I'm not complaining though. He's such an engaging melodist and consummate orchestrator that I overlook the repetitive nature of his works
He did quite well in a couple of his chamber works (very obscure, I know), namely the piano trio and the quintet for piano and winds.
Re Strauss, in a strange way perhaps Death and Transfiguration counts. Characteristically, the pay-off doesn't come until the end, but it's cleverly accomplished and it certainly makes the wait worthwhile.
This is a case where the form can't be more disfunctional, but the tunes catch the attention (and some orchestral effects too): Langgaard's Symphony No. 4. It's a one-movement symphony with several sections and I don't blame those who may criticize the composer's development of ideas or narrative. However, somehow, the work manages to be attractive due in good part to the melodic material. Needless to say I love that piece.
Langggard Symphony 6 is a good example too.
But also, sometimes the tunes are terrible, but the genius of the form still makes it a masterpiece (Diabelli Variations, for example).
I think Beethoven may have taken an interest in Diabelli’s waltz because each half ends with a build up of tension, half-climactically in the first half and fully climactically in the second. This makes these variations a joy to play, with 66 glorious climaxes to look forward to.
Wait a minute.... I know you!
@@emusic4269
Piano Insights?
No. Diabelli's tune is ideal for Beethoven's purpose--in other words, its simplicity permits him to create a huge variety of contrast through variation. You couldn't say it's "terrible," just basic.
Let the discussion between Richard and David commence! 😂
I heard a transcription of the Bolero for piano yesterday. As you would expect, even the melody failed to rescue it. The piano lacks the variation in colour to have a chance of bringing that piece off. A tour-de-force by the arranger? Absolutely. A delight to listen to? Not on your life.
A great selection of works, David - and I love them all in their own ways. What is your favourite recording of "Manfred" as I must get a really good one? I have the Goossens/Evererst with the LSO but it's cut and I also have the Tilson Thomas with that odd "half-speed" tempo in the finale but it's otherwise very good. I'm wondering if Mahler might also qualify. I was particularly thinking of the first movement of the ninth symphony where so many different ideas come and go - all fascinating and always memorable, of course. Thanks.
Have a look at the "Manfred" Repertoire video.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks, David. I'll do that. I've been thinking of downloading a hi-rez version of the Goosssens from HDtracks as I still have a soft spot for that performance, despite the cuts, and the recording is amazing for its age.
Dave, slightly off-topic: you must have read On the Musically Beautiful, the famous book by Eduard Hanslick, the 19th-century Viennese critic. I’m writing an academic article on it and was surprised by the content. It’s really interesting and quite modern. The category of “sonically moved forms,” which for Hanslick constitutes a beauty that is specifically musical, is a very clever idea. I think Hanslick’s own inept political choices, coupled with Wagner’s overwhelming fame, did him a lot of harm - he’s actually a very intelligent figure, much more interesting than people are often led to believe.
Ironically, it's those final moments in Strauss that people wait for and go to his operas to hear. The final trio in Rosenkavalier, Salome getting a head, the Countess' musings at the end of Capriccio, or Daphne turning into a tree. I admit those final celebrations in Frau ohne Schatten do go on too long and sensibly usually get cut down. I've always thought Strauss's real problems are in the middle which is why Strauss himself recommended cuts in all three acts of Rosenkavalier. But none in the last 18 minutes or so. I do feel that Elektra tends to run out of steam after the scene with Klytemnestra. And there are standard cuts in the 2nd scene with her sister and also the monologue/aria in the recognition scene where Elektra goes on way too long about the moon, her hair, and her beauty. We need to get to the murders, dang it!
That's my point--the singing starts when the plot ends. I'm not suggesting to get rid of it, only that it's evidence of Strauss' questionable sense of timing. What to do about it is an entirely different discussion.
Ravel s Bolero is so repetitive that you can't get that tune out of your head.
And here I thought the prime example was Tchaikovsky PC1, especially 1st movement. Dave said "Tchaikovsky"! VIndication! But no...Manfred. that works, too.
When I saw the subject, Tchaikovsky “Capriccio Italien” came to mind … but I guess, like a rhapsody, a capriccio isn’t expected to be much more than a series of tunes. And perhaps _those_ tunes aren’t so brilliant. Great list.
I have a question: what is good form?
I think you can answer that yourself.
Kallinikov's Sym. #1. Can't get enough of that overly-repeated melody from the 1st movement. It should be a failed piece... but it's not.
Kallinikov's forms are always excellent, in my opinion. That theme that you mention is repeated, once, in the exposition. And the recapitulation does exactly the same. Just like Brahms 2, in fact...
@@chrismoule7242 I think the first symphony could probably do without that long repeat in the first movement.
I wholeheartedly agree with the mystery of what makes a good tune. This is why I've never given much credence to those who dump on melodists like Puccini and Grieg. If it were easy, everyone could do it.
However, I do believe that narrative (how the piece moves) is more important than form, but narrative, like melody, is mysterious.
All of these works move differently, but they move.
Your definition of "narrative" is very vague.
Yes, it is. Like melody. People disagree on what melody is. Beethoven and Schoenberg (and many others) were criticized for abandoning melody.
I can't be any more specific than to say narrative is the rhetorical movement of music. Sometimes it moves to a specific story, as in Strauss's Don Quixote. Other times, it has the movement of an essay (Barber's Essays for Orchestra or a William Schuman String Quartet) or even a sermon (VW's Tallis Fantasia). Rimsky may, for example, have been an indifferent architect, but he certainly could "tell the tale." Same with Grieg. His Piano Concerto is patchy, but he moves you from the measure to the last. I can hum most of the first movement of that Concerto, which means that it coheres, despite its shaky formal structure. The same applies to Rhapsody in Blue and the Concerto in F.
A very enjoyable discussion. "Bolero" has a catchy tune, but it gets a bit tiresome before it's over.
To you. The universe might disagree.
@DavesClassicalGuide My view is similar to yours of "The Lark Ascending." Overplayed.
If you can last 15 minutes in the sack it's just right, lol.
@@OuterGalaxyLounge Those were the days. lol
Well constructed tune probably has less room development, maybe that's why Mozart didn't write a development section for the most part. How about the other way around? Basically can a piece be successful with subpar tunes but strong formal construct. Well, I assume not as the academic type conposers are not super successful based on the judgment of history
This is wrong on so many levels. Mozart wrote amazing development section, and yes, works can be magnificent without any tunes at all if they are effectively structured.
@DavesClassicalGuide fair enough, I see your point. Regarding Mozart, I thought he wrote sonata form without development or ABAB at least in some symphonies. Based on your comment I gathered that's a generalisation. Thanks for your reply and great content.
Yeah, I think some people complain about the strcuture of beethoven's 9th, like in the 4th movement, but to be honest, it's such a glorious movement and theme that it doesn't really matter to most people
Some great examples there. And how about Haydn's Symphony No. 60, "Il Distratto?" Great tunes but no form other than in what order the tunes go in.
Not true.
@@DavesClassicalGuide They aren't great tunes?
@@Mooseman327 Dave has almost got to 60 in his Haydn crusade, so just hold on for that discussion.