Purpose and Function of Form?

[Guido]

What are people's ideas on this? Rythmn, harmony and melody seem like more fundamental and immediately appreciable elements of music, and are usually the things that make the greatest impact on a first listen. But all these things would be impotent without some formal structure in which they are placed. Equally though form is utterly pointless without good melodic, rythmic or harmonic ideas or whatever other elements one may choose when constructing music - the greatest composers have both and they seem inextricably linked.

But what is form? - a way of ordering these other elements so that they make a cogent intelligable piece? A way of presenting these elements so that they produce the greatest effect (emotional or otherwise) on the listener?

Is the best form like the best instrumental technique in that at its best it 'disappears' and allows one to focus on other aspects of the music more clearly (i.e. virtuoso performers, where questions of technique are no longer a concern). Or should it become a feature of the music, that becomes noticable and an emotional force in it's own right?

For example, late Beethoven is always said to contain superlative formal structures - why do we say this and what does it mean? Is it just that it effectively transmits what Beethoven is trying to say? Does it draw attention to itself as great form?

[Bonehelm]

It's just like writing an essay. Without the five-paragraph structure, it feels more "empty", and lack depth. So I would say form helps in conveying and delievering  an idea.

[Mark G. Simon]

But what is form? - a way of ordering these other elements so that they make a cogent intelligable piece? A way of presenting these elements so that they produce the greatest effect (emotional or otherwise) on the listener?

This pretty much sums it up for me.

[johnQpublic]

Form for me, as a composer, is the path that I'm traveling along with my material.

Do I want to travel a familiar (i.e traditional) route and let my focus be on handling the materials to make it a strong enough case for revisiting a familiar byway or do I let my imagination take me on a course whose final arrival point is not pre-planned and hopefully is a surprise even for me?

[drogulus]

This pretty much sums it up for me.

     I have a very indistinct idea of form. I get the feeling that composers are given credit for form when they are just following their ideas where they lead. A successful composer might inspire listeners to think there's a form involved. And there probably is, even if only in retrospect. But this might argue for a sort of Chomsky-like innate form, I guess.

[johnQpublic]

     I have a very indistinct idea of form. I get the feeling that composers are given credit for form when they are just following their ideas where they lead. A successful composer might inspire listeners to think there's a form involved. And there probably is, even if only in retrospect. But this might argue for a sort of Chomsky-like innate form, I guess.

No! Only sometimes with some composers.

There are times when a fascinating form is designed first before a note is written.

[drogulus]

No! Only sometimes with some composers.

There are times when a fascinating form is designed first before a note is written.

     Yes, that's no doubt true, and sometimes sounds like it's true even when it isn't. We seem to sense form, or construct it as part of an attempt to understand what we're hearing. Any way of arriving at form will work, I guess, and the inabilty to find it is one very good way for music to suck.

[johnQpublic]

and the inabilty to find it is one very good way for music to suck.

Suck...hehe...most likely.  Except for the greatest composers who can intuitively create an marvelous, but unplanned journey.

[Mark G. Simon]

     Yes, that's no doubt true, and sometimes sounds like it's true even when it isn't. We seem to sense form, or construct it as part of an attempt to understand what we're hearing. Any way of arriving at form will work, I guess, and the inabilty to find it is one very good way for music to suck.

I have to agree with you. It should be remembered that form is more than just a pre-cut pattern you mold music into. Form is the shape that emerges once the composer has followed his intuition into uncharted territory, as John Q says. It need not resemble any standard formula. As long as the result follows a logical progression it can be said to be "good form". When no logic can be discerned, that is indeed a very good way for music to suck.

Even within standard forms, there are countless ways to follow ones intuitive logic. There are as many sonata forms as there are sonatas. The greatest composers are very strong in that intuitive logic, and can thus create a marvelous but unplanned journey. This doesn't mean their compositions lack form. Quite the contrary. What is the form of Sibelius' 7th Symphony? It has a form unique unto itself, but it is still a form, and a very logical and powerful one.

[jochanaan]

Even within standard forms, there are countless ways to follow ones intuitive logic...

Indeed.  It is said that, while there is a "textbook" fugue form, Johann Sebastian Bach, that great contrapuntal master, never used it; each of his fugues is unique in form.

There are three form principles: repetition, variation, and contrast.  Let's say that you have a musical idea.  Once you've played or sung it, what do you do?  You can play it again: repetition; you can play it with a slight difference: variation; or you can do something else: contrast.  (Well, you could also quit; in which case you'd have a very short composition! )  Nearly all forms are a mixture of repetition, variation, and contrast.

One of the most formally intriguing compositions I know is Bartók's Violin Concerto #2.  Bela had wanted to write a large-scale set of variations, in the manner of Rachmaninoff's Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, but Joseph Szigeti, the violinist who commissioned the concerto, insisted on a three-movement work.  So Bartók wrote a three-movement concerto--but he later bragged that he had also fulfilled his original intent to write a variation set.  The third movement is a large-scale variation of the first (the theme is in a completely different rhythm but easily recognizable); the second is a set of variations; and the recapitulations of the first and third movement differ from the expositions more than is usual.  You'd think such a work would be sprawling and completely unconvincing in form--haha!  It's one of Bartók's most magical works.

[karlhenning]

I vote for this as the coolest thread of the month.

[johnQpublic]

Well, you could also quit; in which case you'd have a very short composition! 

No, when you quit you get a lot of unfinished works.

I personally have a trunk load of 'em.