You are on page 1of 26

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291166228

A comparison of sonata forms in hindemith's


and persichetti's band symphonies

Article in Journal of Band Research September 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 14

1 author:

Leonard Tan
National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore
19 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing 21st Century Skills Through the School Band View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leonard Tan on 12 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
A Comparison of Sonata Forms in
Hindemiths and Persichettis Band Symphonies

Leonard Tan
Indiana University Jacobs School of Music

The band symphonies of Paul Hindemith and Vincent Persichetti have long been

established as two major cornerstones of the wind band repertoire. Written in 1951 and 1956

respectively, both works have received numerous performances since their premieres. A number

of writers have analyzed the forms of both symphonies.1 However, as far as can be determined,

there is no research that compares how both composers recreate sonata form in their respective

first movements.

Eighteenth-century theorists saw sonata form as essentially binary rather than ternary,

placing harmonic considerations above thematic ones. The first section begins in the tonic and

progresses to a secondary tonal area, usually the dominant, creating the large-scale structural

dissonance that must be resolved later in the work.2 The second section intensifies the tonal

tension through a myriad of modulations and concludes with a return to the tonic, thus resolving

the structural dissonance. Nineteenth-century theorists, however, saw sonata form as essentially

ternary rather than binary, placing thematic considerations above harmonic ones. The exposition

states the contrasting themes, the development works out these themes, and the recapitulation

restates them. Consequently, the twentieth-century composer who decides to employ the sonata

form is at a quandary. Which tradition should one consider more valid?

The purpose of this paper is to argue that while Hindemiths sonata form reflects an

essentially eighteenth-century concern with tonality as a principle of structuring, Persichettis

sonata structure is more in line with a nineteenth-century preoccupation with themes. In keeping

with eighteenth-century traditions, Hindemith sets up the structural dissonance in the exposition,

1
intensifies tonal tensions in the development section, and resolves the structural dissonance in the

recapitulation. However, he puts his personal spin on this eighteenth-century recreation by

displacing the medial caesura,3 creating an unusual third tonal area, employing an innovative

simultaneous recapitulation, delaying the resolution of the structural dissonance, and creating an

unusual large-scale tonal structure. Though thematic-formal drama is important, it is essentially

harmonic-formal drama that Hindemith seeks to achieve.

Persichettis approach to sonata form is nearly the opposite. He recreates a twentieth-

century sonata structure which is somewhat more in line with the nineteenth-century

preoccupation with themes. His sonata form does not set up a structural dissonance, and he

appears more interested in creating local harmonic interests. In other words, his approach to

tonality is more coloristic than structural. More crucially, he creates several interesting reversals

of thematic functions. These include swapping the rhetorical character of themes I and II,

rendering theme II in the exposition more developmental in character than in the actual

development section, and creating a theme II in the development section that really functions

more like an exposition statement. Though there are aspects of harmonic-formal drama, it is

essentially thematic-formal drama that Persichetti seeks to achieve.

This essay will now unpack the key points listed above via an analysis of both first

movements, beginning with the Hindemith before proceeding to the Persichetti.

2
Hindemiths Symphony in B flat for Concert Band, First Movement

Section Thematic material Measures Key Center(s)4


Exposition P and Theme I 1-23 b
Transition 24-25 V of V
Theme II 26-50 f (c#, c)
Themes IIIa and IIIb 51-77 e
Development Theme D1 78-128 f, shifting centers
Theme D2 129-146 f, a, d
Retransition P 147-154 f#
Recapitulation Theme I and II 155-184 e
Themes IIIa and IIIb 185-208 b
Cadential material 209-212 b

Figure 1: Hindemith, Symphony for Band, Movement I, Form Diagram.

Setting up the Structural Dissonance

The exposition begins in B-flat minor. Cornets and trumpets state theme I (ex. 1) while

bassoons and tubas concurrently announce primary motive P5 (ex. 2):

Example 1: Hindemith, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 1-11 (theme I).

3
Example 2: Hindemith, Symphony for Band, Movement I, m. 1 (primary motive P).

The second statement of theme I at m. 11 is also in B-flat, this time with a new

descending countermelody added (saxophone and horn). A two-measure transition at m. 24, with

the timpani articulating a structural dominant of the dominant (i.e. pitch C) leads to a crucial

F major chord at m. 26. This creates the opposing tonal pole with unmistakable clarity and sets

up the structural dissonance. This chord, however, contravenes traditional expectations as it is a

F major rather than a F minor chord. However, this surprise is short-lived, as theme II (ex. 3)

soon enters with the expected F minor (using F harmonic minor) at m. 28:6

Example 3: Hindemith, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 28-33 (theme II).

Theme II then moves away from F, ending on a C-sharp which dovetails into the second

statement of theme II at m. 33. At m. 41, there is a third statement of theme II in C. Despite these

movements away from F, the fact that the structural dissonance has been set up is unequivocal.

This structural dissonance is an important aspect of the work that is to have far-reaching

ramifications.

4
The Unusual Third Tonal Area and Displaced Medial Caesura

Theme IIIa (ex. 4) in E-flat is then stated at m. 51, with subsequent statements at mm. 57

and 63:

Example 4: Hindemith, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 5157 (theme IIIa).

With the entrance of theme IIIb (ex. 5) at m. 57 in counterpoint with theme IIIa, the E-flat

tonality of this section becomes more apparent:

Example 5: Hindemith, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 5763 (theme IIIb).

Thus, with the clear establishment of E-flat, there are three primary tonal areas in the

exposition: B-flat (mm. 1 25), F (mm. 26 50), and E-flat (mm. 51 77). This forms a three-

key exposition, bringing to mind the precedence set by composers such as Schubert, Brahms, and

Bruckner.7 The interesting and significant deviation is that while three-key expositions typically

arrive at the dominant only at the third tonal area, Hindemiths second tonal area is already in the

dominant, while the third tonal area is interestingly in the subdominant. Hence, this third tonal
5
area, a section which Charles Gallagher8 and Earl Bruning9 term the closing section, is highly

unusual.

Even more interestingly, just before the statement of theme IIIa at m. 51, there is an

eighth rest the first tutti silence hitherto. Previous scholars have not discussed this important

momentary silence, which is not far-fetched to term a medial caesura.10 James Hepokoski and

Warren Darcy illuminate this crucial structural hiatus in a sonata exposition as follows:

At the point of the MC (medial caesura) one frequently encounters a general pause (GP)
or rest in all voices. This is one of the main hallmarks of an unequivocal MC, and it
usually signals the precise moments of a medial caesura. The silence of the caesura-gap is
a watershed moment relinquishing the preceding drive and energy-gain. The silence
articulates and represents energy-loss, thus initiating the subsequent, normative drop to
piano for S (secondary-theme zone).11

At m. 51, the caesura-gap is indeed a watershed moment which ushers in the

subsequent quieter moments. However, whereas an authentic medial caesura would delineate the

first and second tonal areas, this medial caesura has now been displaced to separate the second

and third tonal areas. In fact, as shall be discussed later, this displaced medial caesura is to have

an important structural function in the recapitulation.

In sum, the first movement of Hindemiths Symphony for Band has a three-key

exposition. However, the third tonal area is unusual for two reasons. First, it is cast in the

subdominant key. Second, it is structurally delineated by a displaced medial caesura.

In keeping with sonata conventions, Hindemith marks the end of the exposition at m. 77

with double bar lines. This practice further suggests that he essentially views the sonata form as a

bipartite entity in the spirit of eighteenth-century theorists. In fact, he even goes a step further to

place a fermata over the double bar lines to emphasize the two-part structural demarcation.

6
Intensification of Tonal Tension

In keeping with the eighteenth-century conception of the sonata form, Hindemith

intensifies the tonal tension in the development section. The unusual aspect, however, is that this

tonal intensification is done via the employment of Baroque fugal techniques.12 It opens with

theme D1:

Example 6: Hindemith, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 78-80 (theme D1).

After a series of fugatos, the music culminates in an important F minor chord at m. 129,

as if establishing a further tension with the F major chord at m. 26. Thereafter, it suddenly pulls

back dynamically with the solo cornet stating theme D2 (ex. 7):

Example 7: Hindemith, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 129134 (theme D2).

The tonal intensification soon leads to a spectacular retransition in F-sharp at m. 147. The

primary melodic material, an augmentation of P, soon crashes into a highly dissonant chord at

the second beat of m. 151. This chord, which consists of ten different pitches (D-flat and E are

missing in the otherwise complete twelve-tone chord), represents the culmination of the tonal

intensification process.

7
A plagal-like cadence from mm. 154 to 155 (A-flat to E-flat in the basses) leads the

music into the recapitulation. This approach to the recapitulation via IV is interesting as

traditionally (as in a Beethoven Symphony), the approach to the recapitulation is via a V instead.

An Innovative Simultaneous Recapitulation

Though the concept of simultaneous recapitulation is not new,13 three aspects make

Hindemiths use here particularly interesting. First, in the first statement of the simultaneous

recapitulation (mm. 157 167), Hindemith tricks the listener with the possibility of a reversed

recapitulation. By reversed recapitulation, the author refers to the compositional procedure where

the second theme is recapitulated before the first.14 At m. 158, when theme II appears, one might

momentarily suspect the use of reversed recapitulation. This suspicion is, however, short-lived,

as theme I soon asserts itself on the last eighth note of m. 158. Thus, it is only upon hindsight

that the bare fifths heard earlier at m. 157 was in fact theme I. In just a matter of seconds,

Hindemith tricks the listener with the possibility of a reversed recapitulation, before masterfully

twisting it the other way round again.

Second, Hindemiths use of fifths to recapitulate theme I results in the top line (first flute

and first oboe) restating theme I in the original pitches. Hence, the tradition of recapitulating the

first theme in home key is fulfilled though the underlying tonality is subdominant. This probably

explains why Hindemith makes such outright use of bare fifths, which may appear audacious, at

such a crucial structural moment.

Third, Hindemith recapitulates theme II in the subdominant, not the tonic. This is

somewhat unusual: while subdominant recapitulations of first themes are common, those of

second themes are not. In traditional subdominant recapitulations, the first theme in the

subdominant modulates up a fifth, like in the exposition, so as to lead neatly to the second theme

8
in the tonic. This statement of the second theme in the tonic resolves the structural dissonance.

However, this is not the case here. Since theme II is in the subdominant and not the tonic, it is

evident that Hindemith has not yet resolved the structural dissonance.

Delayed Resolution of Structural Dissonance

Yet an even stranger phenomenon happens with the second statement (mm. 168 184) of

Hindemiths simultaneous recapitulation. At m. 168, the first theme is stated in E-flat, the key of

the recapitulation, but the second theme is in F-sharp. This is certainly unusual, and tonally

destabilizing in what is supposed to be an area of tonal resolution. This section ends on a whole-

tone chord at m. 184, void of any clear tonal allusions. Why is the first statement of the

simultaneous recapitulation fairly stable, but that of the second comparatively unstable? Is the

simultaneous recapitulation meant to be the tonal recapitulation?

The answers to the above lies in the critical structural role of the subsequent tonal area

(m. 185) as the true tonal recapitulation of the movement. This true tonal recapitulation in the

home key of B-flat also resolves the structural dissonance. By making the second statement of

the simultaneous recapitulation less stable, the stabilizing role of the final tonal area beginning at

m. 185 becomes critical. Like the parallel passage in the exposition (m. 51), the medial caesura at

m. 185 draws our attention to theme IIIa, now in B-flat. There are hence two main tonal areas in

the recapitulation, the first in E-flat, the second in B-flat, and a less stable passage (mm. 168-

184) serving as a transition between the two. The structural dissonance thus resolved, Hindemith

gradually drives the music towards its conclusion. The movement ends with Hindemiths

characteristic tonic major chord, a total resolution of all large-scale harmonic tensions in this

movement.15

9
In sum, Hindemith does not resolve the structural dissonance by casting theme II in the

tonic. Instead, he presents theme II in the subdominant simultaneously with theme I (m. 157) and

delays the resolution of the structural dissonance to the recapitulated third tonal area (m. 185).

Such an approach to the recapitulation is highly interesting and unique.

An Unusual Large-Scale Tonal Structure

Stepping back to look at the overall tonal architecture, at first glance, the progression

from tonic to dominant in the exposition via a quasi V of V seems conventional enough,

preserving the traditional function of key relations. Though the presence of a third tonal area is

not unprecedented, it is interesting that it is the second, and not the third tonal area that is in the

dominant. With the simultaneous subdominant recapitulation of both the first and second themes,

Hindemith creates a two-key recapitulation. The resultant form is a three-key exposition and two-

key recapitulation, an unusual large scale tonal structure of a partial arch symmetry:

Expo Th. I Expo Th. II Expo Th. III Recap Ths. I, II Recap Th. III
(m. 1) (m. 26) (m. 51) (m.155) (m. 185)
b f e e b

Figure 2: Hindemith, Symphony for Band, Movement I, large-scale tonal structure.

In addition to the simultaneous recapitulation, it is also the displacement of the medial

caesura that makes this unusual structure possible. Furthermore, by weakening the arrival at the

start of the recapitulation (m. 155), the true return of B-flat at m. 185 becomes even more

significant.

Yet, despite all these unusual structural features, Hindemith has preserved the essential

tonal drama of an eighteenth-century sonata form, that of tonal conflict, intensification, and

resolution. Following a first tonal area in B-flat minor, Hindemith sets up the structural

10
dissonance by planting F as the opposing tonal pole before intensifying it further. In the

recapitulation, he resolves the structural dissonance, albeit delayed.

In conclusion, Hindemiths recreation of eighteenth-century sonata form is sui generis.

Far from treating it as a static structure, Hindemith uses it flexibly and creatively to create a

structurally idiosyncratic sonata form: an unusual large scale tonal structure of a partial arch

symmetry.

Persichettis Symphony for Band, First Movement

The purpose of this analysis is two-fold. First, this analysis will demonstrate how

Persichettis approach to tonality in this movement is more coloristic than structural. While

harmonic innovations may be interesting at the local level, they do not have large-scale

ramifications. Furthermore, Persichetti does not set up a structural dissonance in the exposition,

and hence recreates a sonata form that is clearly not of the eighteenth-century tradition. Second,

this analysis will illustrate how Persichetti creates several interesting reversals of thematic

functions. These include swapping the rhetorical character of themes I and II, rendering theme II

in the exposition more developmental in character than in the actual development section, and

creating a theme II in the development section that really functions more like an exposition

statement. Both key observations support the authors thesis that Persichetti recreates a sonata

structure which is more in line with the nineteenth-century concept of the sonata form.

Before proceeding, it is worth noting that a key analysis of this work is potentially

problematic in that bitonality and polytonality are extensively employed. In an effort to better

understand Persichettis approach towards bitonality and polytonality, the author turns to

Persichettis theoretical writings. In Twentieth-Century Harmony: Creative Aspects and Practice,

Persichetti notes that although each tonal plane has its own organizational center, a single

11
overall tonic structure is usually felt in the bass.16 It makes sense therefore to privilege the bass

when determining the key structure of individual sections, even if the main theme or other

textural layers are in different keys. Thus, in the form diagram below, bitonal sections will be

marked BT, polytonal sections PT, and overall tonal centers stemming from the bass will be

indicated in parentheses. Non-functional harmonies that do not establish any tonal or pitch

centricities but are present as distinct separate tonal layers will be marked ambiguous (amb).

Section Thematic material Measures Key Center(s)


Slow introduction S and theme I 1-20 B, shifting centers
Exposition Theme I 21-54 B, F, G, D (E ped.), A
Transition 55-60 shifting centers
Theme II 61-109 PT (Ab), A, amb. (F), E
Closing theme 110-119 amb.
Development Part I: Theme I 120-140 B, shifting centers
Part II: Theme II 141-170 amb. (E)
Part III: Theme I 171-199 G, E
Part IV: S, theme I 200-207 E, F#
Retransition Retransition theme 208-219 F#
Recapitulation Theme I 220-233 PT (F)
Transition 234-236 amb.
Theme II 237-259 BT (B), shifting
Closing theme 260-279 amb., B
Coda S 280-292 B

Figure 3: Persichetti, Symphony for Band, Movement I, Form Diagram.

Coloristic Harmonies in the Slow Introduction

Unlike Hindemiths first movement which begins directly with the exposition,

Persichettis begins with a slow introduction. The use of a slow introduction harks back to

Haydn; there is evidence suggesting that Persichetti saw Haydn as a role model and inspiration.17

Source motive S18 opens the work in B-flat major:

12
Example 8: Persichetti, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 12 (motive S).

At m. 3, the bass instruments present a theme that is to blossom into theme I in the exposition:

Example 9: Persichetti, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 37.

However, at m. 4, Persichetti slips into B minor in the bass, additionally bringing in a melody in

the upper voices in A minor. Though further harmonic twists and turns finally cadence on C at

m. 7, Persichetti soon subverts it with the timpani on an F maj7. He moves away again at m. 8,

starting in G but immediately shifting through various keys, none of which is strongly

established. Not surprisingly, the tonal point of arrival that closes the slow introduction (m. 19) is

not a clear V of B-flat.19

Typically, harmonic tensions generated in the slow introduction would be resolved by an

establishment of the tonic at the beginning of the exposition. This is not the case here. At m. 21,

instead of stating theme I in the tonic, Persichetti presents a four-measure percussion

introduction and a bass countermelody (euphoniums and tubas) which do not really establish

tonic B-flat. Hence, unlike a traditional symphony, the harmonic tensions established in the slow

introduction are not resolved at the beginning of the exposition. This reflects Persichettis

penchant for creating local harmonic interests, and an approach to tonality which is more

coloristic than structural, a trait which is to recur throughout the movement.

13
Absence of Structural Dissonance

Theme I enters at m. 25 (ex. 10). Interestingly, its tonal center is that of the dominant

instead of the tonic:

Example 10: Persichetti, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 2533 (theme I).

Persichetti, however, does not establish F, as what follows are a series of constantly transformed

statements in different keys. Persichettis abridged second statement at m. 33 (ex. 11) is in a

surprising key of G major:

Example 11: Persichetti, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 3339.

The third statement at m. 39 (ex. 12) is also in G major and like the second statement, is

accompanied by non-functional parallel chords in the lower voices:

Example 12: Persichetti, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 3944.

14
The inverted fourth statement at m. 45 (ex. 13) is in D major over an E pedal:

Example 13: Persichetti, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 4549.

Following a brief recall of source motive S at m. 57, Persichetti states theme II in the

tonic at m. 61 (ex. 14):

Example 14: Persichetti, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 5766 (theme II).

The presence of B-flat, however, is weakened polytonally by the syncopated bass line in

A-flat and the timpani in F. Like the first subject area, this second subject area is tonally fluid.

The second statement of theme II (trumpets and cornets) enters over an A minor brass

accompaniment at m. 77. The third statement (low brasses) at m. 85 is in F, accompanied by

non-functional woodwind chords that do not imply any particular pitch center (ex. 15):

Example 15: Persichetti, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 8588.

15
The fourth statement in F (low brasses) at m. 93 continues the tonal ambiguity and leads to the

fifth and final statement (upper woodwinds) that hints at E-flat at m. 100.

One important structural distinction between the two composers should by now be

obvious. Persichetti, unlike Hindemith, does not set up the structural dissonance in his

exposition. Even the first theme, traditionally a stable tonal area, is tonally fluid. Theme II is in

the tonic amidst a polytonal background before embarking on another series of tonal ventures,

erasing all hopes of setting up the structural dissonance. The essential drama of an eighteenth-

century sonata form, that of a tonal conflict between two distinct tonal poles, hardly shines

through the kaleidoscopic series of tonal ventures in the exposition.

Unlike Hindemith, Persichetti does not have a third tonal area. Also, unlike Hindemith,

Persichetti does not mark the end of the exposition (m. 119) with a customary double bar line.

This further suggests that he does not conceive his sonata form in eighteenth-century bipartite

terms.

In sum, this discussion has illustrated how Persichettis approach to tonality in the

exposition is coloristic and non-structural. There is a clear absence of the structural dissonance,

supporting the thesis that Persichettis recreation of the sonata form is not based on the

eighteenth-century model.

Interest Centered on Themes

In place of large-scale tonal drama, interest in the exposition is created via thematic

means. First, Persichetti swaps the rhetorical character of themes I and II. In a traditional sonata

form, the first theme usually takes on a masculine character, while the second theme usually

takes on a feminine character. However, these rhetorical characters are reversed here: while

16
theme I (ex. 10) is a lyrical melody that resembles a stereotypical second theme, theme II (ex.

13) is a rhythmic and aggressive melody that resembles a stereotypical first theme.

Second, the themes continually unfold and develop in the manner of Brahmsian

developing variations.20 As discussed above, there are four statements of theme I (exs. 10-13).

These statements are not literal restatements; instead, each statement continually unfolds and

evolves from the previous one. Similarly, there are five statements of theme II (exs. 14-15) all of

which are continual modifications. Thus, even at the exposition, Persichetti already avoids mere

repetition, making changes to each subsequent statement of the first and second subjects,

reflecting a nineteenth-century preoccupation with themes.

The interest centered on themes continues in the development section. Unlike a

traditional development section, Persichettis development section does not play the crucial role

of heightening the tonal drama; to begin with, there was no structural dissonance in the

exposition. For example, from m. 120 to m. 140, the polychordal harmonies do not serve to

intensify any tonal drama. In the absence of tonal drama, Persichetti creates interest via thematic

means in three ways.

First, at m. 141, the second theme (tubas) is even more balanced and complete than its

first appearance in the exposition. Theme II in the development section hence arguably takes on

the character it should have taken in the exposition, whereas the exposition developed theme II

as if it were a development section, an interesting reversal of structural roles.21

Second, at m. 173, Persichetti brings in the percussion introductory measures which open

the exposition, this time without the xylophone. So striking is this return that Pare calls it a false

recapitulation.22 Any suspicion of a genuine recapitulation is however dispelled in the

following measures where Persichetti continues to develop materials from theme I. The false

17
recapitulation teases the listener; once again, Persichetti creates interest through thematic

means.

Third, in contrast to Hindemiths retransition which, as discussed, takes the music to its

harmonic culmination in the form of a ten-note complex chord, Persichettis retransition (ex. 16)

is melodic and lyrical:

Example 16: Persichetti, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 208220.

In fact, this retransition theme is very interesting as it recalls a melody from the slow

introduction (mm. 8-10, ex. 17):

Example 17: Persichetti, Symphony for Band, Movement I, mm. 810.

Both the retransition theme and the original theme from the slow introduction are further

interesting in that they are both colored by different instruments.

In sum, Persichettis development section does not heighten the tonal drama. Instead,

interest is created by thematic means, reflecting a nineteenth-century focus on themes.

18
Coloristic Approach to the The Recapitulation

Persichettis use of tonality in the recapitulation is highly coloristic. This approach is

possible as he has no need to resolve any structural dissonance, and is hence unbounded by tonal

conventions. While interesting in their own right, these harmonic innovations bear no structural

ramifications.

The first coloristic harmonic innovation in the recapitulation is that of a whole tone

approach to the recapitulation. The recapitulation at m. 220 begins, like the exposition, with a

percussion introduction. The B major chord (colored by a raised fourth) at m. 220 is

enharmonically transformed to C-flat at m. 221, which then flashes out a whole-tone collection

in the subsequent measures. It is interesting that Persichettis harmonic approach to the

recapitulation of theme I is neither tonic nor subdominant, but a coloristic whole tone collection.

The second coloristic harmonic innovation is that of a polytonal recapitulation of theme I.

Theme I is recapitulated at m. 226 by the alto saxophone in F major, superimposed by the E-flat

clarinet in A major and piccolo in G major as coloristic overtones. All three keys were used in

the first subject exposition where they were presented successively (mm. 25, 33, 49).

It is worth mentioning that although this is a polytonal recapitulation, the alto saxophone

line stands out dynamically and draws attention to the key of F. Furthermore, it is plausible to

interpret the bass line as F mixolydian.23 In keeping with the earlier cited comment by Persichetti

that although each tonal plane has its own organizational center, a single overall tonic structure

is usually felt in the bass, one may see this polytonal recapitulation as an interesting and

unusual dominant recapitulation as well.

Thus, contra sonata conventions, Persichetti up till this point does not at all recapitulate in

the home key of B-flat. Instead, his approach to the recapitulation is whole tone, polytonal, and

19
dominant. At m. 237, he does, however, ostensibly arrives at B-flat. This arrival, however, is not

approached via a cadence, is weakened by the lowered seventh in subsequent measures (mm.

238, 240, 242), and is so brief that by m. 246, the music already centers on E-flat. Furthermore,

theme II which accompanies this tonic return is not in B-flat but in F Lydian (ex. 18):

Example 18: Vincent Persichetti, Symphony For Band, Movement I, mm. 237239.

Theme II is subsequently recapitulated at mm. 249 and 256, both times exploiting

polychordal textures and not in the tonic. Persichettis tonal return at m. 237 as such merely pays

lip service to sonata conventions and does not carry much, if any, structural weight. Persichetti

concludes the movement with a coda of polychordal harmonies (m. 280) punctuated with tonic-

dominant notes in the timpani.

In sum, Persichettis use of tonality in the recapitulation is highly coloristic. This

approach is possible as he has no need to resolve the structural dissonance and is hence

unbounded by eighteenth-century tonal conventions.

Closing Remarks

Stepping back to look at the large-scale tonal structure, we see Persichettis highly

camouflaged large-scale IV arguably present:

Slow intro Expo Th. I Expo Th. II Recap Th. I Recap Th. II
(m.1) (m.25) (m. 61) (m.226) (m. 237)
B F B F B

Figure 4: Persichetti, Symphony for Band, Movement I, large-scale tonal structure.

Each of these keys, however, are not clearly established, nor do they last for a significant

amount of time. Therefore, tonality appears to be used more for local coloristic purposes, and is

20
not structural in function in accordance with the eighteenth-century concept of sonata form. As

demonstrated in this analysis, large-scale formal interests are not harmonic but primarily

thematic. Thus, Persichetti recreates a twentieth-century sonata structure which models primarily

on the nineteenth-century concept of the sonata form.

Conclusion

On the whole, Hindemith seems much more concerned with large-scale tonal drama than

Persichetti. Tonal conflict is a crucial aspect of his symphonic dialectic. In keeping with

eighteenth-century traditions, he sets up a large-scale structural dissonance in the exposition,

intensifies tonal tensions in the development section, and resolves the structural dissonance in the

recapitulation. At the same time, he innovates by displacing the medial caesura, creating an

unusual third tonal area in the subdominant, employing an innovative simultaneous

recapitulation, and delaying the resolution of the structural dissonance. All these structural

features creates an unusual large-scale tonal structure of a three-key exposition and two-key

recapitulation. Though thematic-formal drama is important, it is essentially harmonic-formal

drama that Hindemith seeks to achieve, recreating a twentieth-century sonata structure that

reflects an essentially eighteenth-century concern with tonality as a principle of structuring.

Persichettis approach to sonata form is nearly the opposite. His use of the form is less

driven by tonality as a principle of structuring. Despite preserving aspects of the tonic-dominant

idea, the tonal relations among sections are largely static. His sonata form does not set up

structural dissonances. Rather, he appears more interested in creating local harmonic interests,

and his approach to tonality is more coloristic than structural. More crucially, he creates several

interesting reversals of thematic functions. These include swapping the rhetorical character of

themes I and II, rendering theme II in the exposition more developmental in character than in the

21
actual development section, and creating a theme II in the development section that really

functions more like an exposition statement. Though there are aspects of harmonic-formal

drama, it is essentially thematic-formal drama that Persichetti seeks to achieve, recreating a

twentieth-century sonata structure which is somewhat more in line with the nineteenth-century

concern with themes.

In conclusion, while Hindemiths sonata form restores an essentially eighteenth-century

concern with tonality as a principle of structuring, Persichettis sonata structure is more in line

with nineteenth-century preoccupation with themes. With these two differing philosophies, both

composers recreate their respective sonata forms in divergent directions in the opening

movements of these two major cornerstones of the wind band repertoire.

22
NOTES
1
For analyses of Hindemiths Symphony for Band, see William Tarwater, Jr., Analyses of
Seven Major Band Compositions of the Twentieth-century (Ph.D. diss., George Peabody
College, 1958); Charles Gallagher, Hindemiths Symphony for Band Journal of Band
Research Vol. 2, no.1 (Spring 1966); Thomas Ferguson, An Analysis of Four American
Symphonies for Band (Ph.D. diss., Eastman School of Music, University of Rochester, 1971;
Earl Bruning, A Survey and Handbook of Analysis for the Conducting and Interpretation of
Seven Selected Works in the Standard Repertoire for Wind Band (D.A. diss., Ball State
University, 1980); and, Mark Belcik, Paul Hindemiths Symphony in B-flat for Concert Band
(D.M.A. diss., University of Texas at Austin, 1996). For analyses of Persichettis Symphony No.
6, see Vincent Persichetti, Symphony No. 6 for Band, Journal of Band Research 1, No. 1 (Fall
1964); Joe Mullins, Three Symphonies for Band by American Composers (Ed.D. diss.,
University of Illinois, 1967); Frederick Fennell, Vincent Persichetti: Symphony for Band, BD
Guide 2 (September October 1987).
2
The term structural dissonance is borrowed from Charles Rosen, see Rosen, Sonata Forms
(New York: W.W. Norton, 1980), 272.
3
By medial caesura, the author follows James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy to mean the brief,
rhetorically reinforced break or gap that serves to divide an exposition into two parts, tonic and
dominant, see James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types,
and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata (New York, Oxford University Press,
2008), 24.
4
In this and all other form diagrams, upper cases will be used for major keys and lower cases for
minor keys.
5
The term primary motive was first used by Mark Belcik (Belcik, Paul Hindemiths
Symphony in B-flat, 44).
6
It is erroneous to interpret theme II as D-flat. First, F rather than D-flat in m. 28 by sheer
duration dominates, and the ear aurally gravitates towards F as the pitch center. Second, the
bassoon countermelody articulates a decorated dominant-tonic motion in F.
7
Examples include the first movements of Schuberts Piano Sonata in B-flat, D. 960, Brahms
Symphony No. 2 and Bruckners Symphony No. 5.
8
Gallagher, Hindemiths Symphony for Band, 20.
9
Bruning, A Survey and Handbook of Analysis, 185..
10
For Classical examples of medial caesuras, see Mozarts Jupiter (m. 55), Haydns London (m.
64), and Beethovens Fifth (m. 58).

23
James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy, The Medial Caesura and Its Role in the Eighteenth-
11

Century Sonata Exposition, Music Theory Spectrum 19, no. 2 (Autumn, 1997): 125.
12
The combination of sonata form with fugal procedures is rare but not without precedence. For
example, Karl Amadeus Hartmann, in the finale of Symphony No. 6, wrote a sonata finale on
three fugues, each corresponding to the three large sections of the sonata structure. In the Finale
of Waltons First Symphony, fugue is used in the second subject and parts of the development
section.

Ferguson notes that the concept of simultaneous recapitulation has been preceded by Richard
13

Wagner in the overture to Die Meistersinger, see Ferguson, An Analysis of Four American
Symphonies for Band, 180.

For examples of reversed recapitulation, see Mozarts Symphony No. 20, Piano Sonata K. 311,
14

Violin Sonata K. 306, Symphony in C major, K. 339, Haydns finale of Symphony No. 44, and
Clementis Sonata in G major, op. 39 no. 2.
15
Music, as long as it exists, will always take its departure from the major triad and return to it
(Hindemith, Craft I, 22).

Vincent Persichetti, Twentieth-Century Harmony: Creative Aspects and Practice (New York:
16

W.W. Norton, 1961), 255.


17
Rudy Shackelford, Conversation with Vincent Persichetti, Perspectives of New Music, Vol.
20 (1981): 108.
18
The term source motive was used by Persichetti himself, see Persichetti, Symphony No. 6
for Band, 17.
19
Slow introductions in the Classical and Romantic eras typically conclude with a V in the home
key, see for example, Haydns London, Beethovens First, and Dvoraks Ninth.
20
By Brahmsian developing variations, the author follows Walter Frish which refers to the ways
in which one musical idea continually evolves from the previous one, creating a very prosaic
musical narrative, see Frisch, Brahms and the Principle of Developing Variation (Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1990), 1-2.
21
For an interesting discussion of how developmental tendencies existed within non-
developmental sectionals and vice versa, and how such precedents in Classical and nineteenth-
century sonata structures influenced twentieth-century ones, see Christopher Ballantine,
Twentieth-century Symphony (London: Dennis Dobson, 1983), 94.
22
Craig Pare, An Examination of Innovative Percussion Writing in the Band Music of Four
Composers: Vincent Persichetti Symphony for Band; Karel Husa Music for Prague 1968;
Joseph Schwanter and the mountains rising nowhere; Michael Colgrass Winds of Nagual
(D.M.A. diss, University of Cincinnati, 1993), 8.

24
23
For alternative readings of this bass line as C minor, see Tarwater, Analyses of Seven Major
Band Compositions, 174; Mullins, Three Symphonies for Band 136; and Bruning, A Survey
and Handbook of Analysis, 219.

25

View publication stats

You might also like