As I stated in my first discussion I feel that this piece is definately in ternary form, with three distinct sections. Each section is made up of two phrases. The first phrase acts as a sort of exposition with the second phrase contrasting in material and then transitions into the next part. However, the trasitional material is thin, since the parts do not really intersect. We do not change keys between sections, and the change in time signatures is abrupt (although a ritardando skews our meter between sections). Each section ends with a perfect authentic cadence, lending an air of finality to each. The final section is a recapitulation of the first, with slight variation (most notably, the low Ds in the left hand). Once again we reach the ritardando at the end of the second phrase, but instead of our Authentic cadence, we have a chromatic extension, before our final PAC. If I had to group this into larger group ideas, the first section is expository, with the second section development and the third section terminative.
Now back to bed, this flu is kicking the crap out of me...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
After much thought I think you're right. I split the three sections into smaller sections, but since this is such a short piece, a better analysis would be that each section serves a different function.
Post a Comment