Cadential Structure in Beethoven's Op. 2 No. 1 (First Movement), summary |
| Next: Analysis of Op. 10 No. 1 Back |
| In overall form, the first movement of opus 2 no. 1 is a standard minor-key sonata-allegro movement. The exposition begins with a clear statement of the first theme (mm. 1-8). Then a transition follows, modulating to the relative major key (mm. 9-20). The second theme (mm. 20-41) is in the relative major key. A brief codetta (mm. 41-48) concludes the exposition, which is then repeated (mm. 1-48 again). The development section follows (mm. 49-101), using basic motives of the first and second themes and modulating through various keys before returning to the home key for the recapitulation. The recapitulation repeats the first theme, only slightly modified (but to significant effect) (mm. 101-108), followed by a transition reaffirming the home key (mm. 109-119), a restatement of the second theme in the home key (mm. 119-140), and finally, the codetta (mm. 140-152), which is extended into a brief but impressive coda. |
| A major part of what holds symphonic movements together is the cadential structure. As in opus 2 no. 1, the cadential structure is often binary. You will notice, however, that the binary sonata-allegro structure (mm. 1-48 and 49-152) does not coincide with the binary cadential structure (mm. 1-100 and 101-152). This is structural counterpoint, a broad topic I intend to explore later. Without structural counterpoint, of some sort, every piece of music would fall apart. Just as bridges and skyscrapers must have cross-structures to prevent collapse, so symphonic movements must have structural counterpoint. In a sonata-allegro movement, the music must be supported across the hiatus at the end of the exposition, and at other junctures. |
| Many students of theory and composition learn that Beethoven put the second theme of a minor-key sonata-allegro movement in the relative major merely because it was customary. I don't believe this idea relates to Beethoven's compositional process or to the necessities of symphonic structure. In opus 2 no. 1 - as well as in opus 10 no. 1 and in opus 13, both to be discussed later - the key of the second theme is a logical consequence of the opening thematic idea. Similarly, in opus 27 no. 2 (last movement), opus 31 no. 2, and opus 90 - where the second theme is in the minor dominant - this, also, is a logical consequence of the opening thematic idea. Notice the importance of the dominant note in the opening theme of opus 27 no. 2 (in both the first movement and the last movement); opus 31 no. 2 opens on a sustained dominant chord; and opus 90 has a cadence in the minor dominant in the fourth phrase. In opus 111 - where the second theme is in the submediant (a-flat major, to the home key's c-minor) - the key of the second theme is anticipated in the maestoso introduction (similar to the anticipation of the mediant in the introduction to opus 13). |
| The sonata-allegro movement is a child of the binary dance-suite movement. The exposition, usually repeated in the works of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, is the first half. The development and recapitulation together constitute the second half. (This is, obviously, not a mathematical division into equal halves.) |
| This is the thematic structure, and also the overall architectural structure as presented to the listening audience. This is not enough, however, to hold a symphonic movement together. Just as what we see of a skyscraper - the Sears Tower in Chicago, for example - tells us little or nothing (and may even mislead us) about what supports such a massive structure, similarly, what we hear, as a listening audience, tells us little of what supports the massive structure of a symphonic movement. Will it hold our attention? Or bore us? Will it be compelling? Or chaotic? What gives it both beauty and power? |
| In discussing the first movement of Beethoven's opus 2 no. 1 we have at least touched on a number of concepts I intend to discuss later. We discussed the large binary structures holding the movement together, as well as the unitary structure of the opening statement of the theme, mm. 1-8. We have focused almost entirely on linear (horizontal) structures so far, but (as a simple example) in m. 11 we have a periodic (vertical) structure - the first three notes of the opening theme, stated at this point as a simultaneous triad. The contrast between modality and rationality appears in the differing treatment of the e-natural (m. 8) to e-flat (m. 10) cross-relation, a modality, and the appearance of f-flat resolving to e-flat in the second theme (mm. 20-24), a rationalization of the modal cross-relation. (But modalities and rationalities are not confined to pitch relationships.) Structural counterpoint has already been mentioned in connection with the two types of binary structure in opus 2 no. 1. And, in summary, all of these concepts are aspects of modular composition. |
 |
|
 |
 |
Introduction The Chaconne Cadential Structure --- Unitary & Binary Structures Linear & Periodic Structures Modules and Modalities Structural Counterpoint Modular Composition Appendices |
| MODULES Cadential Structure In Symphonic Composition: Analysis of Beethoven's Op. 2 No. 1 (First Movement), continued Lester Allyson Knibbs, Ph.D. |
|
| Sonata Movements Op. 2 No. 1 (I) 1 2 3 4 Op. 10 No. 1 (I) |