Norms and Individuation in Chopin's Sonatas (Zofia Helman)

Polish Music Journal 3.1.00: Zofia Helman - "Norms and Individuation ...
1 of 18
http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/PMJ/issue/3.1.00/helman.html
Polish Music Journal

Vol. 3, No. 1, Summer 2000. ISSN 1521 - 6039
Norms and Individuation in Chopin's Sonatas

Zofia Helman
Translated by Radosaw Materka and Maja Trochimczyk
I.
The reception history of Chopin's sonatas, seen from the perspective of both musical criticism and
musicology, could nowadays create a subject for a separate research paper. It is rare that music that
has existed in the world repertoire for 150 years can still elicit such extremely varied theoretic
interpretations. However, scholars writing about Chopin have already pointed out these discrepancies,
devoting much attention to disputing the opinions of others (i.e., Opieski 1928-29, Jachimecki 1957,
Chomiski 1960). [1] Differences in understanding of both the sonata form and the sonata cycle in the
works of Chopin depend largely on theoretical paradigms dominant in certain professional circles. If,
for example, scholars use the "textbook" definition of a sonata-allegro form (i.e., Niecks 1890, Huneker
1900, d'Indy 1909, Leichtentritt 1921-22)[2], Chopin's sonatas seem excessively fantasy-like,
complicated, and badly constructed. This applies not only to the Sonata in C Minor, Op. 4 (1827-28)
which is controversial to this day, and the Sonata for Piano and Violoncello, Op. 65 (1845-46), but also
to Chopin's most famous piano sonatas: those in B-flat Minor,, Op. 35 (1837-39) and in B Minor, Op.
58 (1844).
A totally different approach to analysis may be found in the works of Halm (1920), Kurth (1920), and
Mersmann (1926).[3] The form here is interpreted not according to a scheme, but as an individual and
unrepeatable system of musical occurrences, with their own dynamics of tension and release. This
approach finds its reflection in the writings of certain Polish scholars (i.e., Chomiski 1950, 1960).[4]
Chomiski does not consider Chopin's departures from the academic definition of the sonata-allegro
form to be "errors;" rather, he uses a dualistic conception of the sonata-allegro form based on thematic
conflict as his point of reference. From the perspective of historic relativism, all the changes made to
the sonata form were perceived by some scholars as evolutionary in character. Not only Chomiski, but
also Opieski (1928-29), and Jachimecki (1957) strongly emphasized the "romanticism" of Chopin's
sonatas, trying to place them between the classical and late-romantic types of the sonata, especially
as exemplified by Liszt or Franck.
The subject of the transformation of Chopin's approach to the sonata form appeared in the writings of
the above-mentioned scholars with an almost automatic repetitiveness. On the one hand, scholars
focused on the obvious difference between the Sonata in C Minor (composed by the very young Chopin
and considered to be a less than successful attempt at creating a work based on the formal framework
of the sonata-form) and the mature Sonatas in B-flat Minor and B Minor. On the other hand, while the
enigmatic character of the Sonata in G Minor led some scholars (especially Niecks and Opieski) [5] to
believe that this work was proof of the composer's lessening creative "impetus," other researchers
(Jachimecki and Chomiski) viewed this Sonata as a further expansion of the sonata form. As
Chomiski wrote, "Chopin's sonata output does not follow any progressively developing trajectory." [6]
While there is a noticeable difference in quality between the Sonatas in C Minor and in B-flat Minor, this
difference could be a result of the large time gap separating the works. One should note that this
temporal distance is somewhat filled-in by the Piano Trio in G Minor, Op. 8 (1828-29) and both Piano
Concerti; however, these works were not considered by the authors discussing Chopin's sonatas.
According to Chomiski (ibidem), the role of the Piano Concerti is limited to the formation of the
"cantilena themes" which are characteristic of Chopin; nonetheless, he does not mention the Piano Trio
in this context. Protopopov [7] in his 1967 study regarded the feature of "unusual recapitulations" to be
the most characteristic element of Chopin's early works in sonata form; these recapitulations contain
different layouts of key relationships than those provided by classical models, and sometimes (i.e., in
18-09-2013 13:13
the Trio in G Minor, and the Concerto in E Minor) the recapitulations contain a reversed key relationship
between the themes presented in the expositions. Andrzej Chodkowski[8] also states that the
construction of the sonata-allegro form in the early works of Chopin (i.e., the Sonata in C Minor and the
Trio in G Minor) was the result of a fully purposeful compositional design; this approach allows one to
interpret these works as much more than just examples of an unskillful application of the sonata form
model.
Regardless of the evaluation of the form of these works, one should point out the temporal gap
between the creation of the Concerto in E Minor, Op. 11 (1830) and the Sonata in B-flat Minor
(1837-39). The Allegro de Concert in A Major, Op. 46 (1834-41) does not provide a sufficient basis for
drawing conclusions about transformations in Chopin's style, though it could at least support the thesis
that there is a definite continuity in Chopin's interest in the sonata form. The next three sonatas belong
to the late period of Chopin's compositional output and all the scholars agree that those pieces
significantly differ from their predecessors; the differences are noticeable in architectural conceptions,
types of dramaturgy, and musical language. Moreover, the sonatas' artistic value is incomparably
higher. Opieski (1929, 161) considers the absence of the main theme in the recapitulation to be the
most characteristic element of Chopin's late sonatas. Protopopov (1967, 128-9) agrees with Opieski
and expands this idea by proposing the existence of a specific kind of bi-partite structure as an
essential, basic aspect of the sonatas' construction. [9] The first part of this construction consists of
the exposition, while the second part combines the development and recapitulation. This bi-partite
outline stems from "the transformation of values of the classic tri-partite sonata form, resulting from the
romantic pathos, filled with emotion" (ibidem, 28). Could these sonatas be understood solely as
replications of a single, "Chopinesque" formal scheme? Chomiski observed not only similarities, but
also transformations of the model that permit us to notice a certain evolutionary line of development.
The differences in presenting expositions and the ways of treating final movements could be seen as
proofs of an evolutionary theory. [10] Chomiski also treats the Sonata in G Minor, Op. 65 as a further
instance of formal expansion with its overall construction and variances in the structuring of themes.
Even if the Sonata in G Minor, with its musical isomorphisms, did not exemplify the elementary concept
of a thematic conflict, the unification of motivic substance still marked a historic development in the
evolution of this form. According to Chomiski, this unification led to Chopin's reliance on the "principe
cyclique" in shaping the form of this work. [11] This principle, noticed also by Leichtentritt in Chopin's
Sonatas in B-flat Minor and in B Minor, allowed these scholars to defuse accusations against Chopin
regarding the absence of organic qualities in his music.[12]
Chomiski attempted to find a new explanation for changes in Chopin's model of the sonata form,
remaining profoundly dissatisfied with simplistic interpretations stemming from the notion of a romantic
transformation of classical principles. The Polish scholar explained Chopin's use of cantilena and the
nocturne-like themes as being directly influenced by the specific socio-demographic situation of his time
(i.e., the creation of a middle-class that revelled in reading sentimental poetry).[13] Finally, Chomiski
justified the "pessimistic" and unified character of the Sonata in G Minor by tragic occurrences in
Chopin's life at the time of this works's creation. The scholar concluded that such pessimism was
compensated for by the use of thematic conflict and an optimistic resolution in the work's finale.[14] In
both cases it is extremely difficult to agree with the author's proposal of an immediate connection
between "external occurrences" (communal or private) and transformations of the musical form.
Such general conclusions, not reaching beyond the musical sphere, focused on romantic
transformations of the classic sonata form in Chopin's works as well as on the appearance of futureoriented trends in these compositions ("principe cyclique"). These evolutionary theoretical
interpretations explain neither the true nature of choices made by Chopin himself nor their causes.
Arguing from a point of view centering on the elucidation of changes in Chopin's individual style, the
authors either assembled theories of the style's growth, peak, and collapse (i.e., Opieski), or
confirmed a constant growth leading to future changes (Chomiski).
Examples of a different approach to the 19th-century sonata form can be found in the writings of
Newman (1969) and Rosen (1988). [15] Newman, while describing the greatest sonata composers
after Beethoven, i.e., Schubert, Schumann, Chopin, and Brahms, did not attempt to build a linear
theory of growth, highlighting instead different approaches to the sonata form (e.g., "Process," "Mold,"
and "Unicum"). He qualifies Chopin's Sonata in B Minor as a "Unicum," since in this work the composer
radically departed from the classical standards.[16] Rosen, in turn, maintains that at the time of the
codification of sonata form in theoretical works (1830-40) it was impossible to talk about expansion of
the form, but only about influences of the musical language on the form. For Rosen, the point of
reference was provided by a theoretical scheme, not the works of a given composer's predecessors.
[17] An ongoing controversy still surrounds the issue of whether such schemes (perpetuated via the
system of compositional education) influenced the theoretical writings of Reicha (1824-26), Czerny
2 of 18
18-09-2013 13:13
(1849), and A. B. Marx (1845) before the final codification of the theoretical frameworks of the sonataallegro form and the sonata cycle.[18] This problem becomes especially important with reference to
Chopin's compositions in sonata form created before 1830.
Numerous descriptions of the sonata form existed in the 18th century, e.g., in the Versuch einer
Anleitung zur Composition of H. Ch. Koch (1796), or the Elementi teorico-pratici di musica of F.
Galeazzi (1796). [19] A characteristic element of both of those theories is that the first movement of a
sonata is treated as a two-part form and described as an instance of a distinctive tonal organization
(Dahlhaus 1978).[20] In Koch's rhetorical conception of form, the criteria for articulating formal divisions
are the rhythm of phrases, periodic structure, cadential extensions, etc. Only in the 19th century,
especially in the theoretical writings of A. B. Marx, the "point of gravity" relocates to the concept of the
theme. Thematic conflict in the exposition, its transformations in development, and resolution in the
recapitulation became the most important components of the theory. The tri-partite construction
established by Marx, became a foundation for the "science" of musical forms later on. In the
descriptions of Czerny and Reicha, however, the sonata form consisted of two sections with the
second section further divided into two segments. In his treatise, Reicha does not introduce the term
"sonata form," using the term "La grande coupe binaire" instead. [21] Its scheme is described below in
Tables 1, 2 and 3 in Figure 1 (see Figure 1 below).
In his theory, Reicha established the location of themes in the exposition as well as the scheme of key
relationships that later appeared in academic studies of the sonata form: major tonic - major dominant
in the major keys, and Minor tonic - parallel major tonicin the minor keys. He claimed that the final
cadence of the exposition should be in the dominant and the whole exposition should be repeated. The
development and recapitulation created one section divided into two segments. The end of the
development, while preparing for the return of the first theme should also be based on the dominant
key. The first theme could be shortened, or transposed to a different key (i.e., a Minor subdominant).
According to Reicha, one could transpose the transitions, but the main key should predominate and the
second theme should be also be presented in the main key. Reicha further stated that the
recapitulation could start with the "seconde idee," where the first theme then became the basis for
further development. [22] He recognized a distinction between the "idee mere" and the "idee
accessoire," in which the first term referred to the main themes (both first and second), while the
second term described material appearing in the transitions and epilogues. Finally, the theoretician set
the durational ratio between the two large-scale sections of the "grande coupe binaire" as 1:2 or even
1:3 (obviously without considering the repetitions).
Theoretical findings referring to the form of the first movement in a sonata cycle undoubtedly reflected
compositional practice at the turn of the 19th century. While Reicha drew his examples mostly from the
music of Haydn and Mozart, the Majority of models in the theory of A. B. Marx were provided by the
sonatas of Beethoven. Earlier, in the 18th century, the unified sonata-allegro form that would be
universally used in the first part of the cycle did not yet exist (see Rosen); [23] moreover, it would have
been extremely difficult to conceive of the gradual development of the sonata-allegro model that was
adopted later. A significant feature defining early-classical sonata forms is the polarizing of tonalities in
the exposition (major tonic and major dominant or minor tonic and parallel major tonic), which seems
far more appropriate and better justified than the principle of thematic dualism (see Dahlhaus 1978).
[23]24 Even in the so-called monothematic sonatas and symphonies of Haydn the area of the dominant
(or the parallel in minor) constitutes a dissonant area in the exposition; the second theme may appear
in the main key, if the key of the dominant becomes the basis for the epilogue.
While centering our attention on the transformations in Chopin's approach to the sonata genre as
presented in his output, I would like first to point out the connections and tensions emerging between
the norms and their individual realizations. I do not equate this norm with the abstract theoretical
3 of 18
18-09-2013 13:13
constructions, but following Leonard Meyer (1989) I assume that the norms exist as a result of musical
experiences (the knowledge of styles inherited from the past) and that they constitute a particular
repertoire of possibilities that are at the disposal of the composer who makes particular, conscious
selections from this reportoire.25[24] In every style and in every epoch, to continue Meyer's thought,
there exists a certain repertoire of universally applicable means and a certain, limited number of rules
which define a given style. However, the number of compositional strategies is infinite, and therefore
various realizations of the same norms may exist within the confines of one style. Individuation, on the
other hand, is connected with individual solutions that are a result of the conscious activities of a
composer, which are, nonetheless, not entirely free. Instead, they are somehow connected to the
found norms, appearing, as it were, as their new realizations, modifications or expansions. These
norms do not have to lead to the creation of a new universal norm, or to the change of style, since they
could remain solely among the aspects and characteristics of a compositional idiom.
It is obviously very difficult to reconstruct, on the basis of the analysis or secondary sources, Chopin's
creative thinking and the degree of his theoretical awareness. It is also difficult to ascertain what in his
style stems from an intuitive acceptance of tradition and what stems from a creative transformation of
this tradition, or is even an original compositional gesture. Finally, it is still more difficult to point to the
reasons for these transformations, and to answer the question of whether these transformations are a
result of internal laws of development of musical style, or whether they emerged under the influence of
external factors. All the statements and solutions presented here have only an approximate,
hypothetical character.
II.
All the authors of studies of Chopin's sonatas suggest the existence of a connection between his
Sonata in C Minor and Elsner's compositional school. Rosen expresses doubt as tho whether the
essence of the sonata form as such was comprehended in the Warsaw school: "They evidently did not
have very clear ideas about sonatas art there in Warsaw" (Rosen 1988). [26] Opieski assumes that
the point of departure for Elsner's composition teaching was the sonatas of Haydn and Mozart, not
those of Beethoven. One should add that Elsner based his teaching in a greater measure on the
compositional practice of these classical composers than on the codified descriptions of the sonata
form by, for instance, Koch, Galeazzi, or Gervasoni. [27] In any case, Elsner's own compositions,
which confirm the universal practice, testify to his awareness of the sonata form. Alina NowakRomanowicz,[28] points to the classical regularity of Elsner's sonata structures, providing proof that in
the Warsaw Szkoa Gwna Muzyki [Main Music School] the principles of the sonata form were very
well known, despite Rosen's suspicions. This regularity pertains to the clear division of the form, the
schematic nature of the period structure and the tonal relationship between the themes in the
exposition and in the recapitulation (major tonicmajor dominant in the exposition and the unification of
the key scheme in the recapitulation with a return to the main key). The characteristic details of
Elsner's sonatas, emphasized by Nowak-Romanowicz are also the motivic kinship of the main and
secondary themes and the appearance, directly after the presentation of the first theme, of a "new"
thematic idea also in the principal keythis gesture is probably borrowed from Mozart (actually it is
derived from the practice of the Italian masters). It is significant, in any case, that a "second thought" of
the main theme ["secondo motivo"] appears in the model of the sonata form described by Galeazzi.
[29]
Therefore, sources for the non-schematic nature of Chopin's Sonata in C Minor can not be discovered
in his educational gaps or lack of knowledge about the works of the classical masters. On the one
hand, the formal scheme had not yet been sanctioned by theory to the degree that it would be later,
especially after the publication of the studies by Reicha, Czerny, and, in particular, A. B. Marx.[30] On
the other hand, there is no reason to consider a sonata composed in 1829 from the point of view of
18th-century music theory. It is known that Chopin tried to avoid ready-made solutions and that he was
not forced to follow them by Elsner.[31]
The most striking feature of Chopin's Sonata in C Minora feature which is also the most divergent
from the normsis not the assumed monothematic character but rather the absence of key changes in
the exposition. The second characteristic feature, which stems from the first, is the lack of prominence
of the second theme, i.e., its absorption by the unified motivic stream. This feature has caused
differences in the interpretation of the exposition by a number of Polish scholars (e.g., Chomiski and
Gob).[32] The same aspect of this piece also led to claims that Chopin did not understand the sonata
form. Despite their differences, both Chomiski and Goab point out that the basic material for the
sonata is provided by two motives appearing in the first measures of the introduction and labeled here
4 of 18
18-09-2013 13:13
as motives a and b (See Example 1 or
a larger image).
The first section of the exposition (mm. 17-24) is based on motive b while the second section (mm.
25-30) on motive a. Both sections are in the same key. In mm. 31-43 a repetition of these sections
occurs with small modifications. While not denying the segmentation of form into phases proposed by
Gob, we should complement his segmentation by a statement that the main theme consists of two
parts in the same key, similar to the examples from Italian masters mentioned earlier, to the schema
proposed by Galeazzi, and to works by Mozart and Elsner. The transition is based on harmonic
progressions and chromatic passages. New material, which could be interpreted as the traditional
second theme, enters at m. 59, also in the key of C Minor. This material, however, does not introduce
distinctly contrasting elements, but rather indicates a transitory character; the same character can be
distinguished in the closing group. We should note that Reicha points to the possibility that a second
theme may belong to the idea-type he called idees accessoires. [33] Therefore, in this case Chopin
does not transcend the received norms, even though these were not the norms of the sonata form
universally accepted later. Nonetheless, the absence of key contrast in the exposition may be
surprising, especially since Chopin moves this contrast to the recapitulation. The key scheme of the
exposition and the recapitulation in this work is as follows (See Figure 2 or
a larger image):
Figure 2 (Table 4): Captions for columns: Introduction / Main theme, motive b / Main theme, motive a /
Transition / Second Theme / Epilogue. Captions for rows: Exposition / Recapitulation.
The keys appearing in the recapitulation (minor dominant and its parallel minor) are not distant, but they
are typical for the development, rather than the recapitulation. One may conclude (similarly to Reicha's
conception), that in Chopin's Sonata in C Minor the development and the recapitulation constitute one,
integral whole. The novelty introduced by Chopin was the absence of key contrast in the exposition,
which was compensated for by the differentiation between the thematic parts (tonally stable) and the
transitory parts (tonally unstable). In its proportions, the Sonata in C Minor does not differ from
classical sonatas, i.e., the development and the recapitulation together form the longer part (not
counting the repeats) in the proportion of 1:2. Each segment of the form takes about one-third of the
whole ;the recapitulation is somewhat shorter and begins roughly three-fourths through the movement
(the repeated exposition lasts for 89 measures; the development for 90 measures and the
recapitulation for 70 measures). When one takes into account the repetitions, the formal proportion
between the exposition, on the one hand, and the development and recapitulation on the other is 1:1
(178 measures versus 160 measures).
Chopin's subsequent works in sonata form confirm his knowledge of classical rules and proportions of
form, and confirm that this knowledge was coupled with a conscious avoidance of typical tonal
contrasts in the exposition. In the Trio in G Minor for violin, cello and piano, Op. 8, the first theme also
consists of two parts related to each other in terms of their motivic content. Both parts appear in the
main key of G Minor (mm. 1-8 and mm. 9-28). The transition based on harmonic progressions does not
introduce a modulation; also the second theme (mm. 53-60), while more prominently marked than in
the Sonata in C Minor (but short, consisting of 8 measures only), does not bring tonal contrast. In the
closing section of the exposition, however, the second idea from the first theme appears in the key of
E-flat Major in the antecedent and in the key of G Minor in the consequent. This gesture resembles one
used by Haydn.[34] In the recapitulation both parts of the main theme return according to the rulesin
G Minorwhile the second theme (actually an incomplete form of it) is in D Minor, and the second
appearance of the first theme takes place in the key of B-flat Major. Only in the coda is there a unity of
keys.
Already in the Sonata in C Minor Chopin revealed his ability to derive themes from basic motivic cells.
This fact, perhaps, reveals his connection to the North German sonata tradition, which was
characterized by the unity of thematic material and homogeneity of expression, while maintaining an
individuality of themes and the potential for development. [35] Also in the Trio, despite a more distinct
5 of 18
18-09-2013 13:13
6 of 18
segmentation of the form, the tendency towards unity is maintained; especially in the themes of the first
movement. Also, in the subsequent movement, the same motivic cells are repeated: (a) the
introductory motive, ascending on the scale degrees (and in inversion, creating a characteristic
cadential formula), (b) the intervals of the fourth and the fifth which provide the basis of the second
idea in the main theme and the second theme in the finale. (see Example 2 or
a larger image):
Chopin introduced key contrasts for the first time between themes in the exposition of the Piano
Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21 (1829); moreover, the contrasts follow classical rules: F Minor for the first
subject and A-flat Major for the second subject. However, in the recapitulation, after the first theme
which is shortened to mere four measures, the second theme enters in the same key as in the
exposition (!), only in the closing segment does it modulate to F Minor. In the Piano Concerto in E
Minor, the second theme appears in E Major, that is again in a key traditionally reserved for the
recapitulation. This theme appears in the recapitulation in the key of G Major; thus Chopin completely
reverses the relationship between exposition and recapitulation.
A question arises whether these kinds of innovations in the domain of tonal relationships in the sonata
form may be justified by artistic reasons, or whether they should be seen as proof of a lack of
professionalism and craftsmanship. Obviously, Chopin's indifference to, or contrariness toward, tonal
contrasts may have been a result of his boredom with the rules and a conscious attempt at breaking
them. Here, I will quote a fragment of Chopin's letter to Tytus Wojciechowskia letter concerning not
the issues of form, but the instrumentation of the Concerto in E Minor, yet indicating this possibility: [36]
Perhaps it is a wrong thing, but why should one be ashamed of writing wrongly despite of
one's knowledge [Z. H.'s emphasis], only the result will show whether it was a mistake or
not. In this probably you may notice my inclination to do wrongly despite my will.
On the other hand, however, Chopin's setup clearly indicates his understanding of sonata-allegro as a
binary form, in which the recapitulation constitutes a continuation of the development, hence the
possibility of continuing a typical "developmental" gesture, i.e., transposition to a different key. In this
way, the recapitulation does not become a realm of literal repetitions of sections from the exposition.
The issue of key in Chopin's sonata allegro forms is also connected to another characteristic feature,
the expansion of the dimensions of the form, which was in turn influenced by the development of the
piano texture and instrumental virtuosity. The virtuosic, figurative sections required a counter-balance in
the form of more developed thematic fragments. According to the classical norms, the exposition was
not supposed to include developmental elements; for instance Reicha in his treatise does not
recommend such means. [37] Chopin expands the dimensions of the themes on the basis of an additive
principle, adding periods and, at times, introducing direct repetitions, as in the Sonata in C Minor. In all
18-09-2013 13:13
the discussed sonata-allegro forms the principal theme encloses two segments in the same key, similar
to some sonatas by Mozart, Elsner, and to the schema put forward by Galeazzi. However, the way in
which Chopin applies this method of expanding the scope of the principal subject is different in every
composition. If, for instance in the Sonata in C Minor the second segment is a kind of a
complementation, in the Trio or in the Piano Concerto in F Minor the first segment acquires the
character of an introduction with only the second segment constituting the principal thematic idea. In
the Piano Concerto in E Minor one may describe these two segments as equally important.
Simultaneously, in both Concerti and the Trio it is significant that a lyrical cantilena is introduced within
the framework of the main theme. Therefore, there are no elements of contrast between the main and
the second theme; rather, such contrasts may be seen to exist either between the first and second part
of the main theme (e.g., in the Trio, the risoluto and the espressivo), or between the thematic
segments (frequently marked by Chopin as dolce or espressivo) and the virtuosic, figurative transitions
(marked con fuoco or leggiero). The dramaturgy of the sonata allegro in Chopin's music differs
significantly from that of the classical sonatas. In Chopin's model, the exposition presents thematic
ideas (tonally stable) interlaced with figurative, virtuosic segments serving to dynamize the form through
reliance on rhythmic and harmonic motion. The recapitulation had, on the one hand, a stabilizing
character - through the return of principal thematic ideas and domination of the main key, on the other
hand, it continued certain features of the development. Full stability was only reached in the final part of
the recapitulation or the coda (e.g., in the Trio).
A significant issue in Chopin's early sonatas is the interpretation of the finale forms. The studies by
Opieski and Chomiski include statements that Chopin's knowledge of the rules of thematic duality is
revealed in the finale of the Sonata in C Minor. [38] While noting the existence of the key and theme
contrasts (C Minor and G Minor), these authors did not further investigate the details of the finale's
structure. In contrast to my predecessors, I would be inclined to define this finale as a type of a rondo,
similar to the form identified by Reicha as "coupe de rondeau." [39] Each of the four parts of this rondo
consists of two segments: a thematic segment and a figurative-developmental segment, which also
contributes additional thematic ideas. The schema of the finale of the Sonata in C Minor can be outlined
in the following table (See Figure 3 below or
a larger image):
In the third part a kind of recapitulation appears, with the return of themes and repetitions; because of
that the rondo has certain sonata traits. In the Trio in G Minor the final rondo is simpler and less
expansively structured, but similarly to the finale of the Sonata in C Minor, it features figurativedevelopmental sections after thematic sections, with themes appearing in an identical key relationship,
i.e., G MinorD Minor; and in the recapitulation G Minor and C Minor.
III.
One should not overestimate the gap between Chopin's Piano Concerti and the Sonata in B-flat Minor,
Op. 35 that is often emphasized in the scholarly literature of this subject. This gap is supposed to prove
Chopin's apparent lack of interest in greater cyclical forms and his preference for miniatures; this
hypothesis also underlines the principles on which the periodization of his output was based. It is true,
however, that in the 1830s there was a general turn away from the genre of the sonata. Newman
quotes excerpts from French, English and German criticism of the time, stating that the sonata was
passee, that it was discredited in favor of smaller forms such as the fantasia, capriccio, or stylized
dances. [40] The return and flourishing of the sonata occurs only in the 1860s and 1870s. It is also true
that in Chopin's output before 1839, small forms dominatedmazurkas, waltzes, nocturnes, etudes,
and songsbut he also composed the Ballade in G Minor, Op. 23 (1833), the Scherzo in B Minor, Op.
20 (1833), the Scherzo in B-flat Minor, Op. 31 (1837), Allegro de concert, Op. 46 (probably planned
as a piano concerto), and other one-movement compositions that included elements of the sonata in
their formal conception, i.e., the contrasts of themes and keys and developmental techniques. These
works constitute a typically romantic effort to express oneself in "new," more freely shaped, forms.
Nonetheless, Schumann [41] accurately observed that the sonata, even in this period of its decreased
popularity, still remained the measure of a composer's craftsmanship, ability, and talent, and that it
remained a certain test of the composer's creative potential. Therefore, the lack of interest in the
sonata form in the 1830s and the fact that Chopin returned to this form at the end of the 1830s, does
not testify about the existence of a turning point in his output from that period. What is more significant
are the changes in his compositional thinking, the new choices and strategies which led to the
transformation of the form of the sonata-allegro.
7 of 18
18-09-2013 13:13
8 of 18
While discussing the group of Chopin's late sonatas (Sonata in B-flat Minor, Op. 35, Sonata in B Minor,
Op. 58, and the Sonata in G Minor for Piano and Cello,, Op. 65), one should take into consideration
the following factors: (1) common traits and differences with respect to the first group of works
adhering to model of the sonata form, (2) the existence of a formal invariant, Chopin's own model of
the sonata allegro form and the sonata cycle; (3) the issue of transformations of this model within
individual compositions.
It is easy to notice that certain external traits of the sonata, i.e., the four-movement cycle and the
structure of the sonata allegro form, do not change in the three late sonatas. Nonetheless, a different
model of the sonata allegro becomes stabilized in these works; this model is defined by such features
as: proportions between components of the form (exposition, development, recapitulation), thematic
dualism, the particular character of the second theme, the tri-partite character of the exposition, the
beginning of the recapitulation from second-theme material, the return to the first theme at the end of
the recapitulation, the tonal relationships in the exposition and the recapitulation, the motivic unity of the
themes in the first movement and, possibly, in the whole cycle.
Three late sonatas display, above all, a distinct binary division with exact proportions. The exposition
constitutes the first part, the development and the recapitulation are the second part, divided into two
respective sections. This arrangement closely adheres to the theoretical conception of Reicha ("la
grande coupe binaire"); such a bi-partite character can also be noticed in the Sonata in C Minor and
the Trio (especially in the treatment of the recapitulation), but now the proportions of the parts are
changed. Also at this moment Chopin changes the guidelines proposed by Reicha. What matters in this
case is not the theoretical issue of the bi- or tri-partite nature of the whole sonata-allegro form (as is
well known, opinions are divided in this respect). The binary character of Chopin's sonata-allegro
seems intended because the proportions that are consequently applied in his works differ from the
proportions appearing in sonatas by others, both earlier composers and his contemporaries. Newman
includes the following table which presents the proportions between the exposition, development and
recapitulation in works by several romantic composers (See Figure 4 below or
a larger image). [42]
The basis for these calculations was provided by the last two sonatas by Chopin. The dimensions of
the exposition in Chopin's works are evidently larger than in works by other composers; they approach
50% while works by others feature expositions that constitute about 40% of their length. It is
interesting to note that in subsequent sonatas by Chopin, the dimensions of the exposition increase, so
that in the Sonata in B-flat Minor there are 104 measures of exposition and 138 measures of
development with recapitulation (the exposition takes 43% of the whole work); in the Sonata in B Minor
the exposition lasts for 91 measures and the development plus recapitulation for 113 measures (the
exposition takes 44.6% of the duration of the piece); in the Sonata in G Minor the exposition lasts for
114 measures while the development with recapitulation for 122 (48%). Obviously the proportions are
changed even further if the repeats of the expositions are taken into account. In the traditional sonata
form (also in Chopin's sonatas in the 1820's) there is a proportion of 1:1 between the exposition and
the development with recapitulation (this proportion is most distinct in Schumann's music). In contrast,
in Chopin's sonatas a golden ratio appears, with greater or smaller differences of detail. For instance
in the Sonata in B Minor the point of the golden section falls on measure no. 181, that is the beginning
of the development (the whole lasts for 293 measures, the repeated exposition for 180 measures; 293
times 0.618 equals 181). In the Sonata in B-flat Minor, the difference between the point of the golden
section and the beginning of the development is 7 measures; in the Sonata in G Minor this difference is
14 measures. In addition, the golden section plays a certain role in the structure of the exposition: the
segment of the first theme is the shorter part while the segment of the second theme with the epilogue
is the longer part; this proportion is the most exactly articulated in the Sonata in B-flat Minor where the
exposition lasts for 104 measures, the point of the inverted golden section falls at 39,7 measure (104
times 0.382) and the second theme appears in m. 40. In the sonatas in B Minor and G Minor the
differences between the point of the inverted golden section and the entry of the second theme are 6
and 11 measures, respectively.
Beginning with the Sonata in B-flat Minor, Chopin's model of the sonata allegro contains certain
classical invariants, which belong to a well-grounded tradition, as well as individual features perhaps
not introduced by Chopin for the first time, but absorbed and adapted by him in such a fashion that
18-09-2013 13:13
9 of 18
these traits became elements of his personal compositional idiom. This model is repeated in the three
sonatas, though there are slight divergencies between them (See Figure 5 below or
a larger
image).
Chopin's formal schema. First row: ExpositionDevelopmentRecapitulation; Second

row: 1st theme (minor tonic), 2nd theme (parallel major), epilogue (parallel major); in two
parts, ending on major dominant; 2nd theme (major tonic), epilogue (major tonic), a
reminiscence of 1st theme (major tonic).
All three sonatas are kept in minor keys, therefore the tonal relationships between the themes in the
expositions and in the recapitulations are also similar. It is important to notice what was earlier
emphasized by Rosen, that there is a regularity in key relationships that did not occur in Chopin's
earlier works. [43] The second theme appears in the exposition in the key of the parallel major; this
theme appears in the recapitulation in the key of the major tonic. Only in the Sonata in G Minor does
the epilogue appear in a key different from the second theme. The exposition ends with the chord of
the upper dominant to the main key (in the Sonata in B-flat Minor it is the dominant of the parallel
tonic). The development reveals a clear division into two parts, with internal differentiation into phrases;
it ends with a longer segment based on the function of the dominant to the main key, preparing for the
appearance of the recapitulation. After the repetition of the material from the second theme and the
epilogue, a reminiscence of the first theme appears in the closing passages of the movement; this
reminiscence is, however, considerably abbreviated, and marked stretto (in the Sonata in B-flat Minor
and in G Minor).
In contrast to the Sonata in C Minor, both later piano sonatas strongly differentiate between the
character of the first and second themes; their manifest conflict is articulated by the contrast of modes
(major/minor), the tonal centers (minor tonic and its parallel), melodic material, texture, emotional
character, and even the formative principles. It is easy to conclude that the second theme in the
Sonatas in B-flat Minor and B Minor constitutes a certain novum in the sonata genre resulting from
Chopin's preference for crossing different genres, which was noted by earlier scholars, such as Zofia
Lissa. [44] Especially in the Sonata in B Minor the second theme has the clear features of a nocturne.
Chopin's themes do not belong to the category of the so-called "secondary themes" (in German:
"Nebensatz" or "Seitenthema"), but in respect to the function that they play in the whole, they are not in
any way less important than first themes; both themes could be called, to use Reicha's term, idee
mere. Thus, in the sonata allegro form Chopin defines a certain equilibrium between the expansive,
developmental first theme and the lyrical, cantabile second theme, which is constructed as a period
and shaped in a variational, rather then evolutionary, fashion.
The character of the second theme also defines the arrangement of the recapitulation which is typical
for Chopin. Beginning the recapitulation from the second theme while bypassing the first theme was not
Chopin's invention. Protopopov indicates that one may notice numerous such examples in pre-classical
sonatas, e.g., by Scarlatti. Chomiski enlists Weber's Sonata in C Major, Op. 24 as a pattern that
Chopin could have followed. [45] Nonetheless, already in his Traite Reicha mentions such a possibility.
The stereotypical explanation, cited by Reicha, connects the beginning of the recapitulation from the
second theme to the domination of the first theme in the development. This explanation does not seem
to suffice in the case of Chopin's sonatasin the Sonata in B Minor, for instance, the second theme
also plays a significant role in the development. The reason for Chopin's atypical layout of the
recapitulation is rooted in the different dramaturgy of the form (which, by the way, varies from one
sonata to another). In the piano sonatas in B-flat Minor and in B Minor, the character of the
recapitulation stems from the stabilizing function of the second theme which removes the tensions and
conflicts of the development. The repetition of the first theme would bring a continuation of these
conflicts and not their solution; the conflict could not have been alleviated solely by the introduction of a
unified key. We should also remember that already in his first works in the sonata form, Chopin tried to
avoid exact repetitions in the recapitulation. In the later sonatas the elements of the first theme are
introduced only at the end of the recapitulation (in the stretto) and these elements bring in a recurrence
of increased dramatic tension leading toward the next part of the cycle.
It is obvious that in doing so, Chopin does not change the basic principle of dualism in the sonata
allegro form. He merely intensifies the contrasting character of the themes; moreover, the increased
dimensions and new character of the second theme (which is, as it were, "a form in a form") cause an
interruption in the dynamic development carried by the first theme. In the Sonata in B-flat Minor this
method of continuous "slowing down" or "halting" the expansive nature of the theme is obvious with all
18-09-2013 13:13
10 of 18
the elements of the allegro, even in its first four measures. The harmonic content of this section may be
reduced to the sequence of the major dominant of major dominant with an added sixth of the moving to
the Minor tonic. Other scholars have already pointed out the similarity of this gesture to the initial
measures of Beethoven's Piano Sonata in C Minor, Op. 111. [46] However, the "realization" is divergent
from the "implication" (to use expressions borrowed from Narmour, 1977).[47] (See Example 3 below
or
a larger image).
The fifth, C-sharp - G-sharp, superimposed on the E in the bass, harmonically means the alteration of
the fifth in the chord (G-sharp is a leading tone of A and C-sharp=D-flat ). In the presented textural
arrangement a consonant triadic sonority arises, C-sharpEG-sharp; its role is to counterbalance
the activity of the dissonant chord. This temporary stabilization on the consonant sonority still further
increases the character of tension. Thus, the principle is carried out in the whole movement of the
sonata. The increasing dynamic curve of the exposition is thus broken up through stabilization of the
secondary theme; it is only continued in the epilogue. The principle of slowing down and delaying of the
development also rules in the development; e.g., in the first segment, an interlacing of short, restless,
syncopated motives of the first theme and the motives from the introduction of a contrasting character.
In the following segment (mm. 122-125, 130-133), the falling melodic line is juxtaposed with the
nervous rhythms in the left hand; and both four-measure units constitute a counterbalance to the
progressions that follow them and lead to a culmination. The recapitulation, with the predominance of
the second theme, introduces a certain equilibrium of two emotional qualities into this pattern.
The differences between the Sonata in B-flat Minor and the Sonata in B Minor define the essence of
transformation in Chopin's approach to the sonata form. The similarities between the realizations of the
model of the sonata-allegro itself are obvious, despite certain small differences, e.g., the use of
different harmonic functions in the closing section of the exposition. The second theme in the Sonata in
B Minor, for instance, articulates the same principles of dualism and contrast that engage all the
possible means as appeared in the Sonata in B-flat Minor. The basic difference lies in the transitions
between the themes. In the Sonata in B- flat Minor the transition is virtually non-existent: the exposition
essentially consists of the juxtaposition of two thematic and tonal planes which are connected by a
short modulation. The expansiveness of the first theme in this work stems from its rhythmic and
dynamic features, not from its harmonic traits. In the Sonata in B Minor, however, the harmonic
evolution begins already at the closure of the first group of eight measures; after a fragment based on
chromatic juxtapositions of chords, the music transverses through the keys of B-flat Major, its Minor
parallel(G Minor) and, finally, the Major= subdominant in the key of E Minor, that is in the minor
dominant of the main key. The polyphonic transition remains in the key of D Minor (m. 23-28). It serves
as a intermediary between the first and the second theme; the entry of the latter is prepared by a
prolongation of the dominant. Rosen (1988, 390-392) indicates that this compositional strategy has a
different goal than a simple modulation to the second theme; here, the harmonic evolution becomes a
goal in itself and the transition acquires an independent character. [48] Simultaneously, chromaticism
strongly intensifies in these sections (see Gob).[49] Thus, Chopin extends the polarization of modes,
keys and expressions to the polarization of chromatic and diatonic textures. Rosen suggests that the
model for these aspects of Chopin's Sonata in B Minor was provided by Hummel's Sonata in F-sharp
Minor, Op. 81. In Hummel's work a harmonically-volatile segment appears between the first and the
second theme. However, Rosen's thesis that Chopin could have been influenced only by one, definite
model in this Sonata is not entirely convincing. In this period, the expanding harmonic means
contributed to the articulation of form by causing a greater "openness" of the first theme.
The closing segment of the exposition in the Sonata in B Minor is also transformed in comparison with
the Sonata in B-flat Minor. In the work composed earlier, the closing group increases tonal instability
and anxiety; in the Sonata in B Minor this role is taken over by the modulating transition based on
harmonic progressions and placed between the second theme and the epilogue. Simultaneously, the
epilogue itself, marked dolce, introduces an element of the cantilena continuing the mood of the
second subject. On the basis of these features Chomiski claims that "the bourgeois features of the
Sonata in B Minor are much more prominent than of the Sonata in B-flat Minor." [50] While this opinion
sounds very negative (and methodologically dated), it emphasizes the intensification of lyrical elements
in the Sonata in B Minor. In particular, the epilogue reveals more distinct thematic features and its role
stems from a different dramaturgy of the exposition than the one occurring in the Sonata in B-flat
Minor. The exposition is polarized into two parts, despite an apparent tri-partite division: the first theme
18-09-2013 13:13
and the transition have an expansive, open character and the second theme and the epilogue introduce
lyrical, nocturne-like features.
A similar polarization appears in the development. It is, in principle, bi-partite, with an internal
differentiation of phrases. Whereas in the Sonata in B-flat Minor a culmination follows a phase of
increasing tension, then giving way to a gradual decrease of intensity, in the Sonata in B Minor a return
of the second, cantilene-like theme provides a surprise at the moment of the expected culmination.
Only the closing segment of the development follows a similar pattern to the one presented in the
Sonata in B-flat Minor: a wave of increased tension followed by a prolongation of the major dominant in
the key of the second theme of the recapitulation (B Major). Chominski assumes that at the moment
when the key of B Major is reached in the development (m. 135) and when the motives from segments
of the main theme enter (m. 137) we are already dealing with the recapitulation, whichin his
interpretationbegins an abbreviated version of the first theme. [51] His conception is difficult to
accept because in all of Chopin's sonatas the recapitulation is always preceded by a extended
prolongation of the major dominant; in the Sonata in B Minor such a dominant prolongation occurs no
earlier than in mm. 142-150. To locate the beginning of the recapitulation at the moment indicated by
Chomiski would, therefore, be completely unjustified dramaturgically.
In addition, it is worthwhile to consider the harmonic structure of Chopin's developments. At first
approach, this structure seems to be very convoluted and very distant from theoretical premises.
Modulations, both in classical and early-romantic developments do not follow a free course, but
proceed according to a concrete plan, for instance by using related keys that are separated by the
intervals of the fifth or the third. In contrast to this model, Chopin's developments bewilder with sudden
modulatory turns and with establishing connections between distant keys. Nonetheless, one may find a
logic in his harmonic progressions. In important, crucial points of the development keys related to the
main key appear according to classical rules. For instance in the Sonata in B-flat Minor the
development begins in the key of F-sharp Minor (i.e., G-flat Minor) and the successive entries of new
segments are marked by the keys of C Minor, F Minor, G Minor, and finally C-flat Major (the lower
mediant of the subdominant in B-flat Major, i.e., the Neapolitan chord) preceding the emergence of the
dominant in B-flat Major. The tonal center is not stabilized between these nodal points and one may
note the incessant flow of the harmonic progressions (e.g., at the beginning of the development) or the
sequences of chords that are mostly related by thirds in the second part of the development.
In the Sonata in B Minor the first part of the development in particular belongs among the most
harmonically convoluted musical fragments in all of Chopin's works. Only its beginning includes related
keys: F-sharp Minor, B Minor, and G-sharp Minor. After that, there is a sudden enharmonic modulation
to F Major in m. 104; following a complicated chromatic passage through a series of keys on the flat
side (m. 106-109, see the passage and its harmonic reduction in Example 4 below), the music reaches
first the key of D-flat Major, in which the second theme appears, and finally the key of E-flat Major
(both keys are enharmonically connected to the main key of the Sonata). Therefore, in the second part
of the development (from the moment when the second theme appears) the tonal centers are
stabilized. In contrast, the first segment is generally unstable. This is one more proof for Chopin's
conscious creation of the dramaturgical conception of this work.
The chromatic passage mentioned above deserves a closer scrutiny; while this sequence of
arpeggiated chords seemingly does not have any functional connections, it actually represents a
chromatic passage of voices moving in a descending direction, the harmonization of this passage is
based on the enharmonic polyvalence of meanings of diminished chords and of chords with altered
fifths (See Example 4 below or
a larger image):
IV.
11 of 18
18-09-2013 13:13
The Sonata in G Minor for piano and cello, composed shortly after the Sonata in B Minor again
bewilders with the diversity of its formal solutions while preserving the same, unchangeable
architectural framework. First of all, Chopin abandons the principle of sharply-delineated contrasts by
creating a sonata-allegro form that still includes many themes, yet is more homogeneous in its
expressive aspects. The main theme consists of two ideas in the same key of G Minor, both lyrical and
cantabile (mm. 1-20 and 24-41); these ideas are separated by a short transition. A delayed second
motive plays an essential role in their integration; this motive appears in m. 2 and 4 of the piano part,
m. 8 and 10 in the cello part, as well asin inversionas the motive opening the second thematic idea
in m. 24. One could say that in structuring the first theme Chopin returns to a formal conception from
the first period of his creative output (the main theme consisting of two ideas in the same key; the
homogeneity of expression). The difference between the Sonata in G Minor and its predecessors lies
in the expansion of the theme into a whole thematic group, on the one hand, and on the transformation
of the syntax, on the other hand. Only at the beginning does one perceive the "pulsation" of segments
consisting of 2, 4 and 8 measures; such phrasing structure is typical in Chopin's music. In the following
passage the cadences are not simultaneous in the parts of the cello and the piano; at the same time,
Chopin avoids closing musical ideas with cadences that consist of the major dominant resolving to the
minor tonic. Moreover, he does not separate individual segments with pauses or rests, thus creating
fluid transitions between subsequent phrases. In Chopin literature this melodic continuum received the
name of Chopin's "unendliche Melodie" (term from Rothstein 1988). [52] The fluid motion is articulated,
to a large extent, by harmonic means; despite the general expansion of the repertoire of harmonic
means the elements of developmental harmony do not occur within the main theme (as they do in the
Sonata in B Minor).
The introduction of the second theme is both original and new. The arpeggiated transition, bringing in at
first a shift to the key of A-flat Major, ends with a return of the key of G Minor and a suspension of
motion on the major dominantthat is with a way of introducting a new theme that was characteristic
for Chopin. Meanwhile, however, an eight-measure modulatory passage appears after a pause (it is
again marked dolce); this passage leads to the key of the second theme, i.e., B Major. The entry of
the second theme in a key that has not been stabilized after the expected resolution of the dominant
brings in a degree of surprise; Chopin's way of beginning the theme with a modulatory passage is also
a new gesture. The second theme is marked by a noticeable intensification of harmonic motion, similar
to the one occuring in the transition to the second theme during the stabilization of the key of B-flat
Major (in mm. 84-87); a modulation to the key of D Minor follows and a new theme appears with an
expressive marking of dolce which is characteristic for most themes of this sonata. This time, however,
the epilogue of the exposition becomes a third theme: it is characterized by a greater independence
than the typical themes of closing groups (i.e., it is an "idee mere" and not an "idee accessoire").
Therefore, we are dealing with an exposition that includes three themes and three keys (G Minor
B-flat MajorD Minor). Expositions of a similar type occur already in Schubert's sonatas. [53] The
layout of the development in Chopin's Sonata in G Minor resembles the developments in both piano
sonatas by Chopin discussed earlier: the intensification towards the climax in the first phase, the
appearance of the second idea from the main theme in the key of D Minor at the climax (forte) followed
by the idea's transposition to the key of E Minor. The second wave of intensified tension leads to the
appearance of the first motive from the main theme in a stretto followed by a phase of decrease
(diminuendo) based on the sustained dominant in A Minor that serves to prepare the recapitulation.
Here, Chopin repeats a gesture from the exposition. The key of A Minor does not turn out to be the key
of the recapitulation. The entry of the second theme after the return of the dominant Major in A Minor
has a modulatory character and leads to the tonic major, i.e., the key of G Major (in m. 185). The third
theme, however, recurs in the main key of G Minor. In this way, Chopin emphasizes the expressive
homogeneity of this movement. In the conclusionas in the previous sonatasthe initial ideas from the
main theme make a brief appearance in stretto. Even if the basic Chopinesque architectural model is
repeated in the Sonata in G Minor, its realization leads to a different internal form and to different
solutions of the dramatic flow of the work.
V.
The subsequent movements in the sonata cycle only seemingly are subjected to unified formal
principles; in every sonata Chopin endows these movements with different characteristics. Thus, the
character of the scherzo is completely different in the Sonata in B-flat Minor (dramatic, filled with
contrasts, resembling self-standing scherzos by Chopin) than in the Sonata in B Minor (light,
ephemeral) or in the Sonata in G Minor (lyrical, without strong contrasts). The slow movements also
12 of 18
18-09-2013 13:13
13 of 18
reveal diverse physiognomies in each of these sonatas: a funeral march, a nocturne, and a brief
intermezzo in the Sonata in G Minor. In contrast, the finales of both piano sonatas, in B-flat Minor and
in B Minor, share many common features both with each other and with the sonata rondos from
Chopin's early period. Nonetheless, even in these works one may distinguish diverse formal solutions.
For instance a binary layout appears in the Sonata in B Minor (it occurs in Chopin's earlier music; see
Figure 6 below or
a larger image).
However, in comparison with rondos from the Sonata in C Minor and the Trio in G Minor, in the Sonata
in B Minor themes do not appear in the main key and are presented in transposition to different keys (E
Minor and E-flat Major). Only towards the end does the main key return with its parallel Major variant,
G Major. In the Sonata in G Minor for Cello and Piano the rondo includes three different themes. (See
Figure 7 below or
a larger image ):
At the same time, Chopin retains the principle of the sonata recapitulation, i.e., the main theme always
returns in the main key.
Only the Sonata in B-flat Minor features a finale that is structured in a different fashion; it is not
accidental that Schumann called it "a sphinx." Cholopov put forward a hypothesis that this finale
displays the characteristics of a rondo form. [54] It is difficult to agree with this hypothesis, even
though it would have confirmed the existence of a unified model of Chopin's finales which is presented
in my study. It is true that in the finale of the Sonata in B-flat Minor a binary arrangement appears,
because in m. 39, that is more or less in the middle of this movement, a kind of recapitulation emerges
with the repetition of the first eight measures of this movement. Thematic contrasts and changes of
texture occur in other rondos in Chopin's finales; however, the isomorphic finale of the Sonata in B- flat
Minor is closer to Chopin's evolutionary forms with a hidden periodicity, i.e., to certain preludes and
etudes that were composed at the same time (e.g. Prelude in E-flat Minor, and Prelude in E-flat Major
from, Op. 28, 1838-39; Etude in B Minor, Op. 25 no. 10, 1835-37).
The issue of integration of Chopin's sonata cycles often recurs in the literature of the subject. If these
sonatas were initially described as amalgams of non-related movements, later authors (e.g.
Leichentritt) began to discover their connections to the "principe cyclique." Opieski and Chomiski
reject Leichtentritt's thesis about the motivic unity of themes in the first movement of the Sonata in
B-flat Minor. [55] Meanwhile, the link of these themes via a motivic cell consisting of the intervals of
thirds and seconds seems distinct enough to not allow us to deny the possibility of its conscious use as
a means of integration, especially that this cell occurs in the Funeral March as well. Since the Funeral
March was composed earlier than the other movements of this Sonata, it is highly probable that its
melodic line became the source for further thematic ideas. The connection of the beginning of the
Finale to the main motive of the whole sonata is more obvious; this connection was already pointed out
by scholars researching Chopin's sonatas. [56] In the Sonata in B Minor integration by means of
common intervallic cells plays perhaps a less prominent role; as Chomiski has already pointed out.
[57] it appears more prominently in the Sonata in G Minor. In addition to the motive based on seconds
which connects all the movements in this sonata cycle, one may also emphasize the integrative role of
the rhythmic motive (Beethoven's "motive of fate") in the first and the last movements of the Sonata.
(See Figure 8 below or
a larger image):
18-09-2013 13:13
The method of integrating thematic material with intervallic cells is derived from Beethoven and already
appeared in Chopin's early period. Therefore, it may be described as a characteristic stylistic feature,
even though it does not constitute a highly significant factor in the transformations of Chopin's style.
The Sonata in G Minor, for instance, does not constitute an apex in the development of the sonata form
in Chopin's music; it is only one of the varieties of Chopin's model of the sonata.
VI.
The analysis of Chopin's sonatas leads to the following conclusions:
1. In all of Chopin's sonatas the four-movement sonata cycle appears with a stable arrangements
of the movement and the sonata-allegro form featuring a classical division into a repeated
exposition followed by the development and recapitulation. There are no noticeable attempts at
breaking the norms of the genre.
2. The internal organization of the form in the sonatas provides a basis for distinguishing two main
groups of Chopin's works: the first group including sonata cycles composed before 1830 and
the second consisting of three sonatas from the late period.
3. In the early period Chopin alluded to various traditions of the sonata-allegro form while avoiding
the most common schema which was accepted by music theory. His individuality was expressed
in his custom of maintaining the expositions in a unified key and of moving the tonal contrasts to
the recapitulation.
4. The transformation of Chopin's style around the year 1837 probably resulted not from his return
to the sonata genre (that he had abandoned in the intervening years), but from the changes in
the internal organization of the sonata-allegro form and the simultaneous transformation of
musical language.
5. In Chopin's late sonatas the model of the sonata-allegro form is stabilized; this model maintains
classical traits with a distinct binary division that is defined by the proportions of the forms, key
schemes, the habitual beginning of the recapitulation with the second theme, and the
appearance of reminiscences from the first theme at the end (in stretto).
6. Almost all of Chopin's sonata cycles are marked, to a greater or smaller extent, by a tendency
to unify thematic material of the individual movements, or of the whole cycle with recurrent, brief
melodic cells.
14 of 18
18-09-2013 13:13
7. Independently of the common model that provided a general, compositional framework, each of
Chopin's late sonatas is marked by its individual traits and constitutes a particular variant of the
model. The individuation is connected to the transformation of musical language in the late
period and to the dramatic conception of the sonata-allegro form and the whole sonata cycle.
8. As one could assume, the transformation of Chopin's approach to the sonata form after 1837
resulted from an enrichment of Chopin's artistic experiences and a deepening of his musical
knowledge and his creative experiences after his departure for Paris. Chopin's creative
awareness, despite his attachment to tradition, was shaped by romantic tendencies that
inspired a novel way of thinking and stimulated the emergence of individual solutions and
concepts. The reasons for this stylistic transformation are, on the one hand, internal-musical and
linked to the domain of compositional invention; on the other, they belong in the ideological
atmosphere of Chopin's times and milieu. In respect to sonata forms, Chopin definitely remains
in the sphere of classical influences, in the domain of active norms. As a romantic creator,
however, he searched for new solutions. That is why each of his sonatas has an individual
dramatic form.
Abstract
Author's Biography
PMJCurrent Issue
NOTES:
[1]. Zdzisaw Jachimecki, Chopin. Rys ycia i twrczoci [Chopin. An outline of life and works]
(Krakw: PWM, 1957); Henryk Opieski, "Sonaty Chopina, ich oceny i ich warto konstrukcyjna"
[Chopin's sonatas, their evaluations and their constructive values], Kwartalnik Muzyczny no. 1 (1928)
and no. 2 (1929); Jzef Chomiski, Sonaty Chopina [Chopin's Sonatas] (Krakw: PWM, 1960). [Back]
[2]. Friedrich Niecks, Friedrich Chopin als Mensch und als Musiker, vol. 1-2 (Leipzig, 1890); James
Huneker, Chopin. The Man and His Music (New York, 1900); Vincent d'Indy, Cours de composition
musicale, vol. 2 (Paris, 1909); Hugo Leichtentritt, Analyse der Chopin'schen Klavierwerken, vols. 1-2
(Berlin, 1921, 1922). [Back]
[3]. August Halm, Von zwei Kulturen der Musik (Munich, 1920); Ernst Kurth, Die romantische
Harmonik and ihre Krise in Wagners "Tristan" (Bern-Leipzig, 1920); Hans Mersmann, Angewandte
Musikasthetik (Berlin, 1926). [Back]
[4]. Jzef Chomiski, Preludia Chopina (Krakw: PWM, 1950); Sonaty Chopina (Krakw: PWM,
1960). [Back]
[5]. Niecks, Chopin als Mensch, 1890, vol. 2, 250; Opieski, "Sonaty Chopina," 1929, 159. [Back]
[6]. Jachimecki, Chopin, 1957, 279; Chomiski, Sonaty Chopina, 1960, 255, and 81. [Back]
[7]. Wodzimierz Protopopov, "Forma cyklu sonatowego w utworach F. Chopina," [The form of sonata
cycle in the works by Chopin], in Polsko-rosyjskie miscellanea muzyczne, Zofia Lissa, ed. (Krakw:
PWM, 1967), 128-129. [Back]
[8]. Andrzej Chodkowski, "Kilka uwag o Trio fortepianowym Fryderyka Chopina" [Some remarks about
Chopin's Piano Trio], Rocznik Chopinowski vol. 14 (1982). [Back]
[9]. Opieski, "Sonaty Chopina," 161. Wodzimierz Protopopov, "Nowa interpretacja klasycznych form
muzycznych w utworach Chopina" [New interpretation of classical musical forms in the works by
Chopin], Rocznik Chopinowski, vol. 19 (1987): 128-9, 26. [Back]
[10]. Chomiski, Sonaty Chopina, 276. [Back]
[12]. Leichtentritt, Analysevol. 2, 212 and 250. [Back]
15 of 18
18-09-2013 13:13
16 of 18
[13]. Chomiski, Sonaty Chopina, 176, 190, 195, 201, 249. [Back]
[14]. Chomiski, Sonaty Chopina, 259, 333. [Back]
[15]. William S. Newman, The Sonata since Beethoven. A History of the Sonata Idea, vol. 3 (Chapel
Hill: Prentice Hall, 1969); Charles Rosen, Sonata Forms (New York and London, 1988). [Back]
[16]. Newman, The Sonata, 109-113. [Back]
[17]. Rosen, Sonata Forms, 365. [Back]
[18]. Anton Reicha, Traite de haute composition musicale (Paris, 1824-26); Anton Reicha,
Vollstandiges Lehrbuch der musikalischen Composition, vol.4, trans. Carl Czerny (Wien: bei A.
Diabelli und Comp, 1834). Reicha, School of Practical Composition, vol. 1-3 (London, 1849); Adolf
Bernhard Marx, Die Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition, vol. 3 (Leipzig, 1845).
The term "sonata form" [Sonatenform) was introduced by Czerny in the Appendix of the Translator
[Zusatz des Ubersetzers) to the first part of his edition of the treatise by Reicha. This name refers
there to the whole sonata cycle and not to the form of the first movement of this cycle, even though
Czerny did include a concise description of its structure. The form "sonata form" in reference to the first
movement of the whole cycle was probably first used by A.B. Marx; see Ian Bent, "Analysis," in The
New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Stanley Sadie, ed. (London: McMillan, 1980), vol. 1.
[Back]
[19]. Heinrich Christoph Koch, Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, Vol. 1-3 (Leipzig, Rudolstadt
1782, Leipzig 1787, Leipzig 1793; reprint Hildesheim 1969), 301; Francesco Galeazzi, Elementi
teorico-pratici di musica, vol. 2 (Rome, 1796). [Back]
[20]. Carl Dahlhaus, "Der rhetorische Formbegriff H. Ch. Kochs und die Theorie der Sonatenform,"
Archiv fur Musikwissenschaft 35, no. 3 (1978): 155-177. [Back]
[21]. Reicha, Traite, vol. 4, 1158-1165. [Back]
[22]. Reicha, Traite, vol. 4, 1163, note. [Back]
[24]. Dahlhaus, "Der rhetorische Formbegriff." [Back]
[25]. Leonard B. Meyer, Style and Music: Theory, History, and Ideology (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1989). [Back]
[27]. Koch, Versuch; Galeazzi, Elementi; Carlo Gervasoni, La scuola della musica (Piacenza, 1800).
[Back]
[28]. Alina Nowak-Romanowicz, Jzef Elsner (Krakw: PWM, 1957), 41. [Back]
[29]. Nowak-Romanowicz, Elsner, 42. [Back]
[30]. It is doubtful whether Chopin knew Reicha's theory in the period of composing his Sonata in C
Minor. We have no testimonies to the fact that he learnt about it later, even though from his
correspondence with Elsner one may surmise that he was interested in Reicha. While classifying
Reicha in the comical category of "shrivelled bottoms" [suszone pupki], Chopin simultaneously stated
that "one can learn from their works." See: Bronisaw E. Sydow, ed., Korespondencja Fryderyka
Chopina [Correspondence of F.Ch.], vol. 1 (Warsaw: PIW, 1955), 193, 206. [Back]
[31]. On 27 November 1831 Elsner wrote to Chopin: "In teaching composition one does not need to
give recipes, in particular to the disciples whose abilities are apparent, let them find the rules by
themselves, so that at times they could transcend themselves, let them have means to discover what
was not discover as yet." See Sydow, Korespondencja vol. 1, 197. [Back]
[32]. Opieski, "Sonaty Chopina," 154; Chomiski, Sonaty Chopina, 28-50; Maciej Gob, Chromatyka
i tonalno w muzyce Chopina [Chromaticism and Tonality in Chopin's Music] (Krakw: Musica
Iagellonica, 1991), 104-108. [Back]
18-09-2013 13:13
17 of 18
[33]. Reicha, Traite, vol. 4, 1164. [Back]

[34]. Chopin later repeated this gesture in his Allegro de concert where both the first and second
themes appear in the key of A Major, while, after a figurative transition the first theme enters again in
the key of E Major, i.e. in the key of upper dominant. [Back]
[35]. Rosen, Sonata Forms, 133ff. [Back]
[36]. Sydow, Korespondencja, vol. 1, 125. [Back]
[37]. Reicha, Traite, 1159. [Back]
[38]. Opieski, "Sonaty Chopina," 154; Chomiski, Sonaty Chopina, 61-80. [Back]
[39]. Reicha, Traite, 1169. [Back]
[40]. Newman, The Sonata, 39. [Back]
[41]. For a discussion of Schumann's case see Newman, The Sonata, 41-42. [Back]
[42]. Newman, The Sonata, 148. [Back]
[44]. Zofia Lissa, ed., The Book of the First International Musicological Congress Devoted to the
Works of Frederick Chopin, Warsaw 16-22 February 1960 (Warsaw: PWN, 1963), 207-212. [Back]
[45]. Protopopov, "Nowa interpretacja," 26; Chomiski, Sonaty Chopina, 21. [Back]
[46]. Protopopov, "Nowa interpretacja," 27. [Back]
[47]. Eugene Narmour, Beyond Schenkerism: The Need for Alternatives in Music Analysis (Chicago,
London, 1977). [Back]
[48]. Rosen, Sonata Forms, 390-392. [Back]
[49]. Maciej Gob, Chromatyka, 171. [Back]
[51]. Chomiski, Sonaty Chopina, 212-123. [Back]
[52]. William Rothstein, "Phrase Rhythm in Chopin's Nocturnes and Mazurkas," in Chopin Studies, ed.
Jim Samson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Jurij Cholopov, O zasadach kompozycji
Chopina: zagadka finau Sonaty b-moll, Rocznik Chopinowski, vol. 19 (1987). [Back]
[53]. See Rosen, Sonata Forms, 353-364. [Back]
[54]. Jurij Cholopov, "O zasadach kompozycji Chopina: Zagadka finalu Sonaty b-moll [About Chopin's
compositional principles: the mystery of the finale of the Sonata in B-flat Minor], Rocznik Chopinowski
vol. 19 (1987: 233-234. [Back]
[55]. Opieski, "Sonaty Chopina," 68; Chomiski, Sonaty Chopina, 106-107. [Back]
[56]. See Leichentritt, Analyse, 212-213, 250ff. Also see Chomiski, Sonaty Chopina, 164; Cholopov,
"O zasadach," 220-221. [Back]
[57]. Chomiski, 1960, 305ff. [Back]
Copyright 2000 by Zofia Helman.

Editor: Maja Trochimczyk. Publisher: Polish Music Center
Design: Maja Trochimczyk & Marcin Depiski. Summer 2000.
18-09-2013 13:13
18 of 18
Comments and inquiries by e-mail: polmusic@email.usc.edu
18-09-2013 13:13

Norms and Individuation in Chopin's Sonatas (Zofia Helman)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Norms and Individuation in Chopin's Sonatas (Zofia Helman)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Polish Music Journal 3.1.00: Zofia Helman - "Norms and Individuation ...

Polish Music Journal