Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291166228
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
The purpose of this paper is to argue that while Hindemiths sonata form reflects an
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
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
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
This essay will now unpack the key points listed above via an analysis of both first
2
Hindemiths Symphony in B flat for Concert Band, First Movement
The exposition begins in B-flat minor. Cornets and trumpets state theme I (ex. 1) while
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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).
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
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
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.
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
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).
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
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:
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
establishment of the tonic at the beginning of the exposition. This is not the case here. At m. 21,
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
13
Absence of Structural Dissonance
Theme I enters at m. 25 (ex. 10). Interestingly, its tonal center is that of the dominant
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
The third statement at m. 39 (ex. 12) is also in G major and like the second statement, is
14
The inverted fourth statement at m. 45 (ex. 13) is in D major over an E pedal:
Following a brief recall of source motive S at m. 57, Persichetti states theme II in the
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
non-functional woodwind chords that do not imply any particular pitch center (ex. 15):
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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)
In fact, this retransition theme is very interesting as it recalls a melody from the slow
Both the retransition theme and the original theme from the slow introduction are further
In sum, Persichettis development section does not heighten the tonal drama. Instead,
18
Coloristic Approach to the The Recapitulation
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
enharmonically transformed to C-flat at m. 221, which then flashes out a whole-tone collection
recapitulation of theme I is neither tonic nor subdominant, but a coloristic whole tone collection.
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
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-
approach is possible as he has no need to resolve the structural dissonance and is hence
Closing Remarks
Stepping back to look at the large-scale tonal structure, we see Persichettis highly
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
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
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
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
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
drama that Hindemith seeks to achieve, recreating a twentieth-century sonata structure that
Persichettis approach to sonata form is nearly the opposite. His use of the form is less
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
twentieth-century sonata structure which is somewhat more in line with the nineteenth-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
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
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