Nice job overall on your analyses of the Schumann! I have some questions for you.
Wild Horseman: We definitely do have an ABA structure here, but looking more closely, at the section you labelled 'B', do you really think these phrases require a new letter? The texture has certainly changed, but what has happened is that the material from the right hand is now in the left and vice versa. This combined with the change of key I think distinguishes it as an independent section, but I think there is an argument for naming the phrases ant. A' and cons. A' since the thematic material is essentially the same; though I think your original answer is defendable. What do you think?
Orphan: You marked the passages at bar 9 and 21 as 'interludes', I see how they could be heard that way, but with the repetition don't you think it takes on more structural significance? Remember, 2nd parts can be anywhere from a single phrase to a double period in length; so I think this is more like a very short 2nd part.
Hey Max,
ReplyDeleteNice job overall on your analyses of the Schumann! I have some questions for you.
Wild Horseman: We definitely do have an ABA structure here, but looking more closely, at the section you labelled 'B', do you really think these phrases require a new letter? The texture has certainly changed, but what has happened is that the material from the right hand is now in the left and vice versa. This combined with the change of key I think distinguishes it as an independent section, but I think there is an argument for naming the phrases ant. A' and cons. A' since the thematic material is essentially the same; though I think your original answer is defendable. What do you think?
Orphan: You marked the passages at bar 9 and 21 as 'interludes', I see how they could be heard that way, but with the repetition don't you think it takes on more structural significance? Remember, 2nd parts can be anywhere from a single phrase to a double period in length; so I think this is more like a very short 2nd part.