In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 1 1 N o t e s Notes SONATA THEORY AND DIALOGIC FORM James Hepokoski 1. The method is laid out in James Hepokoski & Warren Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms, Types, and Deformations in the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata (2006). 2. Mark Evan Bonds, “The Paradox of Musical Form,” Chapter 1 of Wordless Rhetoric: Musical Form and the Metaphor of the Oration (1991), pp. 13–52. 3. A third, more recent category is William E. Caplin’s ‘functional’ theory of form (Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart,and Beethoven(1998)). In this method thematic and intrathematicunits are considered primarily in terms of their musical functions on their way to essential form-defining cadential goals—such functions as successions of beginnings (initiatory units), middles (continuations), and endings (cadences). (Other functions , such as framing functions, are also part of the process.) Sonata Theory is also a system attentive to local functions and purposes—beginnings, middles, endings, cadential goals, and so on. It differs from form-functional theory in some of its basic definitions (and hence in its terminology and ramifications), in its concern for what it regards as the more fundamental concepts around which the sonata process turns, and in its insistence on proceeding beyond the identification of functions into larger questions of historical dialogue and expressive hermeneutics. Accepting certain aspects of thematic function as self-evident, Sonata Theory invites one into an expansive, interpretive way of thinking about sonata procedures as realized in individual works. 4. James Hepokoski, “Back and Forth from Egmont: Beethoven, Mozart, and the Nonresolving Recapitulation” (2001), pp. 127–54. 5. Exceptions, nuances, and caveats abound, of course: the topic is extremely complex. See James Hepokoski, “Beyond the Sonata Principle” (2002), 91–154. 6. ‘Sonata-space’ is that space occupied by the exposition, development, and recapitulation (whose ending is identified as that moment corresponding rhetorically and thematically with the conclusion of the exposition). Introductions and codas are regarded as accretions articulated outside of sonata-space. See, e.g., Elements of Sonata Theory, pp. 281–83. 7. Elements of Sonata Theory, pp. 170–77. 8. What immediately follows the overture is Ilia’s recitative Quando avran fine omai (which begins on G minor), and this leads to the G-minor aria (No. 1) Padre, germani, addio! 9. On the truncated recapitulation see Elements of Sonata Theory, pp. 247–49 andCaplin,ClassicalForm,p.216(whereitisincludedinthechapter“Slow-Movement Forms”). On the important question of tempo in this instance, see note 24 below and the accompanying discussion in the text [>84-85]. 10. This passage is mentioned as an example—along with others—of the blocked MC in Elements of Sonata Theory, p. 47. p p . 7 1 – 7 7 1 1 2 N o t e s 11. Elements of Sonata Theory, p. 29. From a different point of view, form-function theory grants a TR function (and hence a TR designation) only to those spans that conclude with a half cadence or dominant arrival in either the tonic or the new key (Caplin, Classical Form, pp. 133-38). If that span ends with a I:PAC it retains P-function; if with a V:PAC it fulfills an S-function (pp. 97, 111–19, 201–03). As opposed to this—and for a host of reasons that would require a separate, extended discussion to deal with here—Sonata Theory recognizes that a TR leading ultimately to an S-zone may indeed conclude with either a V:PAC MC or (much more rarely) a I:PAC MC as third- and fourth-level defaults (Elements of Sonata Theory, pp. 25–40). In the case of Die Ruinen von Athen, however , it is also possible to suggest that Beethoven might have—for whatever reason—omitted the transition-zone completely. 12. Elements of Sonata Theory, p. 275, notes the example of the finale to Schubert ’s Piano Quintet in A, D. 667 (Trout) along with that of the B-flat Quartet, D. 36. 13. While not downplaying the strangeness of this ‘wrong-key’ subdominant move in the overture, it might be worth remarking that in subsequent works (‘late Beethoven’), we often find a strong—and unusual—subdominant emphasis: descending-third chains, the fugal answer in Op. 131/i, and so on. Beethoven’s subdominant leanings in the late style have not gone unremarked, and in some instances such subdominants have been provided with a hermeneutic or representational function (beyond, that is, their typical pastoral...

Share