Sonata

(from It. suonare: to sound).

A term used to denote a piece of music usually but not necessarily consisting of
several movements, almost invariably instrumental and designed to be performed by a soloist
or a small ensemble. The solo and duet sonatas of the Classical and Romantic periods with
which it is now most frequently associated generally incorporate a movement or movements
in what has misleadingly come to be called Sonata form (or first-movement form), but in its
actual usage over more than five centuries the title sonata has been applied with much
broader formal and stylistic connotations than that.
From the 13th century onwards the word sonnade was used in literary sources simply
to denote an instrumental piece, as for example in the Provenal 13th-century Vida da Santa
Douce: Mens que sonavan la rediera sonada de matinas. In a mystery play of 1486 the
phrase Orpheus fera ses sonnades occurs as a stage direction. Cognate usages appear to be
the sennets called for in Elizabethan plays and the term sonada found in German
manuscripts of the same period for trumpet calls and fanfares, a later manifestation of which
were the more extended Turmsonaten (tower sonatas) of the 17th and 18th centuries. In El
maestro (1536) Luys Miln referred to villancicos y sonadas, including among the latter
pavans and fantasias. Gorzanis gave sonata as the actual title for passamezzos and paduanas
in the first book of his Intabolatura di liuto (1561), and it is similarly employed in later
collections of lute music. The rapid development of instrumental music towards the close of
the 16th century was accompanied by a plethora of terms which were employed in a confused
and often imprecise manner. Sonata was one of them, although it was nearly always applied
to something played as opposed to something sung (cantata).
1. Baroque.
2. Classical.
3. 19th century after Beethoven.
4. 20th century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
SANDRA MANGSEN (1), JOHN IRVING (2), JOHN RINK (3), PAUL GRIFFITHS
(4)
Sonata
1. Baroque.
(i) Introduction.
(ii) Origins and early development.
(iii) Development 16501750.
(iv) Socio-cultural context.
(v) Performing practice and dissemination.
Sonata, 1: Baroque
(i) Introduction.
In the 17th century title-pages often used the term sonata generically to cover all the
instrumental pieces in a volume, which might well contain no single work actually called
sonata; there are no sonatas, for example, in Buonamentes Il quinto libro de varie sonate,
sinfonie, gagliarde, corrente, e ariette (Venice, 1629). As a genre label, the term competed
with others (especially canzone and sinfonia, but also capriccio, concerto, fantasia, ricercar,
toccata) that were applied to individual pieces difficult to distinguish from sonatas, even in the
works of an individual composer within a single printed volume. Only after mid-century did
sonata finally displace its competitors as the most appropriate term for such instrumental
works.
For Brossard (Dictionaire, 1703) the sonata was to all sorts of instruments what the
cantata is to the voice, and was designed according to the composers fancy, free of the

constraints imposed by dance, text or the rules of counterpoint. Brossard categorized sonatas
as da camera or da chiesa, a division that has informed much later commentary; however, the
former term, while it appeared on title-pages more frequently than the latter, was rarely
applied to specific sets of dance movements before Corellis op.2 of 1685. The mature
Baroque sonata did acquire a set of more or less consistent attributes, even if copyists still
wavered between concerto and sonata for a work borrowing something from each genre.
By 1750 sonatas were independent pieces, usually in three or four separate movements, which
could be heard not only in church and chamber, but in concert or as interval music at the
theatre, where they might be played orchestrally rather than by the chamber ensembles for
which they had originally been written. J.G. Walthers concise definition (Musicalisches
Lexicon, 1732) is accurate for his time, and indeed for much of the Baroque period: the
sonata is a piece for instruments, especially the violin, of a serious and artful nature, in which
adagios and allegros alternate. Here the use of the term and the development of the genre
from Gabrielis Sacrae symphoniae (1597) to the galant sonatas of Scarlatti and Telemann will
be traced. But discussion cannot be limited strictly to sonatas so called, since often enough
what are (and were) recognizably sonatas appeared under labels referring to another genre
(capriccio), or to the number of parts (solo, quadro), or even to proper names (Cazzatis La
Galeazza, 1648). The main concerns in what follows will be the origins and stylistic
development, sociocultural functions, performing practices, dissemination and reception of
the sonata and its near relatives. (For more comprehensive lists of composers, arranged by
chronology and geography, see NewmanSBE, 4th edn.)
Sonata, 1: Baroque
(ii) Origins and early development.
The instrumental canzona, which had grown in Italy from instrumental arrangements
of imported chansons, has usually been regarded as the most significant precursor of the
Baroque sonata. The similarities between many early sonatas and contemporary canzonas are
undeniable: sectional structure defined by contrasts in metre and tempo, reliance on imitative
contrapuntal texture, and immediate repetition or final recapitulation of the opening section.
For Michael Praetorius sonatas and canzonas were so intimately related that he cited the
canzonas and sinfonie of Giovanni Gabrieli in his description of the sonata, and noted that
sonatas are composed in a stately and magnificent manner like motets, but the canzonas have
many black notes and move along crisply, gaily and fast (Syntagma musicum, iii, 1618,

2/1619). Although there have been many attempts to distinguish between the two genres,
composers and publishers seem to have used the terms interchangeably. Both the generic
meaning of sonata (e.g. Tarquinio Merulas Canzoni overo sonate concertate per chiesa e
camera, 1637), and the close relation between the two genres (e.g. in Cazzatis first two
volumes of instrumental works, Canzoni, 1642, and Il secondo libro delle sonate, 1648) help
to explain this interchangeability. Moreover, local usage may have varied: Montalbano, born
in Bologna but working in Palermo, published a set of sinfonias in 1629 that might well have
been termed sonate concertate had they and he been in Venice with Castello. Even a
composers occupation and training are relevant, since organists tended to write canzonas,
while virtuoso cornett players and violinists more often produced sonatas. After 1620,
however, the term canzone was used less and less, although its stylistic influence remained
evident in the sonatas fast imitative movements (actually labelled canzona by Purcell).
The close relation between the canzonas and sonatas of the early Baroque is clearly
reflected in Gabrielis two publications (1597, 1615) and in those of Gussago, Corradini and
Riccio. Some early sonatas (Gussago, 1608), are indistinguishable from the most conservative
of four- or eight-voice canzonas; others combine old and new features. Gabrieli left sonatas or
canzonas for as few as three and as many as 22 parts, often grouped in two or more choirs.
Their association with sacred vocal music (in Sacrae symphoniae), publication in Venice
(which remained central to the dissemination of Italian instrumental music until Bolognese
firms began to offer real competition in the 1660s), virtuoso upper parts and precisely
specified instrumentation are all typical of the earliest sonatas. The Venetian polychoral style
was influential even on works for small ensembles: in one of Nicol Corradinis sonatas
(1624), pairs of unspecified treble and bass instruments engage in dialogue and join together
at cadences just as they would in a double-choir canzona. Several canzonas for one to four
instruments and basso continuo and a single Sonata a 4 from Riccios 1620 collection
descend from the same tradition, although Riccio incorporated more modern elements
(tremolo, virtuoso flourishes, precise instrumentation) than did Corradini. Buonamente
(Sonate et canzoni libro sesto, 1636) and Frescobaldi (Il primo libro delle canzoni, 1628)
wrote similar pieces for one to six instruments. The modern scoring in few parts (for one to
three instruments) often invoked the label sonata in these pre-1650 prints; thus, Marinis
Sonate, symphonie, canzoni op.8 (1629) reserves canzone for larger ensembles, but most
composers made no such terminological distinctions. One might compare the instrumental
works in few parts to Viadanas Concerti ecclesiastici (1602), composed in response to the

practice of performing four-voice motets as solos or duos with basso continuo. While
evidence that canzonas a 4 were performed with such reduced forces is lacking (although
many do survive as both organ and ensemble pieces), continuo players apparently provided
the imitative entries missing in the few-voiced pieces, whose model was still the multi-voice
canzona (the entries are actually supplied by Montalbano in the continuo part to his solo
sinfonias).
The stil moderno sonatas of Dario Castello (1621, 1629), while still indebted to the
ensemble canzona, are even more closely allied to vocal monody. Constructed of sharply
contrasting sections, they often begin with an imitative canzona, and continue with an
instrumental dialogue reminiscent of the polychoral idiom, but these sonatas also incorporate
virtuoso solos or duets, candenzas, and unmistakable manifestations of Monteverdis
affections, especially the stile concitato (Selfridge-Field, 1975). Riemann was not alone in
seeing incipient four-movement designs in Castellos multi-sectional sonatas, but other
scholars have rejected such analyses, arguing that predictability itself is wholly incompatible
with the essential spirit of the stil moderno sonata, which sought to overwhelm the listener in
a wealth of conflicting emotions (Allsop, 1992). Castellos inclusion of at least one solo as
well as an earlier contrapuntal section is predictable enough, but the four-movement sonata
favoured by later composers such as Vivaldi or Albinoni is rather far removed. Farina and
Marini wrote sonatas comparable to those of Castello.
The late 16th-century diminution practices described by Bassano, among others,
provided another important source of early sonata style, as in the variations constructed
around a repeated melody or bass line by Salamone Rossi, Buonamente and, later, Uccellini.
Such pieces were called sonatas (Rossis Sonata sopra laria di Ruggiero, Il terzo libro de
varie sonate, 1613) or arias (Uccellini, 1642 and 1645), or simply carried the name of the
borrowed tune (Buonamentes Le tanto tempo ormai, 1626). A close relation, and one of the
few sonatas involving voices, is the Sonata sopra Sancta Maria from Monteverdis Vespers
(1610), in which pairs of violins and cornetts weave a lively commentary around the
sopranos repeated phrase Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis, supported by a quartet of bass and
tenor instruments. Corellis Ciacona (op.2, 1685) and Follia (op.5, 1700), as well the
virtuoso variations of Schmelzer, Biber and J.J. Walther, ultimately derive from the same
source.

Rossi also used sonata for several short binary pieces, which may have served as
introductions to larger compositions; among his contemporaries sinfonia was the more usual
name for such works. Their trio scoring arose naturally enough from an identical disposition
of voices and instruments in sacred and secular concerted music (e.g. Monteverdis Chioma
d'oro for two sopranos, two violins and continuo). Often the two solo instruments move in
parallel 3rds, supported by a simpler bass; in some works such trios are juxtaposed with a
larger force, as in Bernardis Sonata in sinfonia 4 (1613). Sonatas a due (for two solo
instruments and basso continuo) and a tre (for three soloists and basso continuo) make up
most of the sonata literature for a century after 1620, although the earlier variety among solo
instruments (ss, sb, bb, ssb, sss) was reduced after 1660 to a focus on the type for two trebles
and continuo, and strings increasingly displaced other instruments (cornett, bassoon,
trombone) found in the earliest sonatas. Compare Brossards recognition of the variety of
sonata scorings in 1703 (We have Sonatas from one to seven or eight parts; but usually they
are performed by a single Violin, or with two Violins and a thorough Bass for the
Harpsichord, and frequently a more figured Bass for the Bass Violin) with Rousseaus focus
on the soloist (Dictionnaire, 1768: The Sonata is ordinarily made for a single instrument
which recites, accompanied by a thorough bass). Solos, more demanding than most duos and
trios, were included in several early published volumes (by Castello, Farina, Biagio Marini
and Montalbano), but by 1652 only Bertoli, Uccellini and G.A. Leoni had devoted entire
collections to solo sonatas.
The foregoing discussion has concentrated on developments in Italy for good reason:
while sonatas were composed before 1650 north of the Alps, it was Italian immigrants who
were in the main responsible. Buonamente worked in Vienna for a time, as did Valentini and
Bertali for much of their careers; Bernardi went to Salzburg; Marini left Venice for Parma and
Neuburg, returning only late in his career; and Farina carried the Italian sonata and a virtuoso
approach to violin playing to Dresden. These Italian immigrants far outnumbered the few
native composers of sonatas (Kindermann, Johann Staden, Vierdanck); only after 1650 did
many non-Italian composers begin to interest themselves in the genre, but those who did made
technical demands equal to or greater than those in the Italian repertory.
Sonata, 1: Baroque
(iii) Development 16501750.

Riemann argued that what he somewhat pejoratively called the patchwork canzona
(Flickwerk) of the early 17th century evolved into the sonata as the individual sections grew
in length and were reduced in number, until by Corellis time they had achieved the status of
separate movements. That much repeated view ignores the persistence of multi-sectional
alongside multi-movement designs (e.g. in the sonatas of Uccellini, G.B. Vitali, Biber, J.J.
Walther, Buxtehude), yet the observation is not unrelated to the mid-century repertory in
which many sonatas do consist primarily of tonally closed, if brief, movements. Merula (who
called his serious pieces canzone as late as 1651, reserving sonata for a few lighter works),
Cazzati and Legrenzi favoured such three- or four-movement structures, although they shared
no single pattern, and individual movements are not always tonally closed. Legrenzi left
three books devoted entirely to sonatas, and another that included sonatas and dances,
published between 1655 and 1673. (A further collection, op.18, published c1695, is lost.) A
clear division into separate movements (often including one in slow triple time), a focus on
duos and trios, and precise specification of instrumentation are all evident in these collections.
In some of the sonatas, the opening material returns at the end, as in the canzona; others differ
from the Corellian model only in their lack of an opening slow movement. In contrast to
these church sonatas, Legrenzis six chamber sonatas (op.4, 1656) are single movements in
simple binary form; G.M. Bononcini used sonata da camera similarly, for an abstract singlemovement work rather than a dance suite (op.3, 1669). Maurizio Cazzati, controversial
maestro di cappella in Bologna (165771), published eight collections that include sonatas for
duos, trios and larger ensembles; three from op.35 include trumpet, a hint of the later
association between S Petronio and that instrument. The sonatas in his widely disseminated
op.18 (1656) usually consist of four movements: duple-metre imitative, grave, fast triple
metre and quick imitative finale. Tarquinio Merula favoured a similar plan: fugal opening, fast
triple-time movement, slow movement and vigorous finale. Uccellini also moved away from
the simple canzona model towards longer and more virtuoso sonatas, usually divided into
three or four sections by changes of metre and tempo.
Cazzatis pupil G.B. Vitali, and Vitalis Modenese contemporaries Colombi and
Bononcini, continued to focus on duos and trios in some ten volumes of sonatas published
between 1666 and 1689. Already steeped in those traditions, Corelli had arrived by 1675 in
Rome, where Colista, Stradella and Lonati composed sonata-like sinfonias, usually for two
violins, lute and continuo. Since the Roman material circulated in manuscript, it has been
somewhat underemphasized in most histories of instrumental music, but Corelli surely

adopted the slow introductions (rare before the 1680s), strict fugal movements and triplemetre finales from his Roman colleagues. Despite the many references to Corellis sonatas
(published 16811700) as normative, the four-movement model usually attributed to him
(slowfastslowfast) is present in only half of his published sonatas.
North of the Alps, Bertalis ensemble sonatas, followed by the solo and ensemble
sonatas of Schmelzer, Biber, J.J. Walther and Buxtehude, recall the drama and virtuosity of
the Venetian stile moderno at a time when sonata composition in Italy had become more
standardized. Their virtuoso solos incorporated multiple stops and athletic string crossings;
moreover, they continuted to depend on sectional rather than multi-movement designs in
which successive events are on the whole less predictable than they are in Corellis sonatas.
They differ from the Italian models in other ways as well: virtuoso writing for the bass viol
(Johannes Schenck, Buxtehude), greater interest in scordatura tunings (Schmelzer, Biber), and
a continuing devotion to ensemble sonatas a 5 or more, reminiscent of Venetian polychoral
style, but with even more demanding treble parts for cornett, violin or trumpet. The legacy of
the ensemble sonata (and perhaps the continued cultivation of the viol) may help to explain
the more demanding bass parts: when Corelli and his north Italian contemporaries were
writing duos or trios in which the violone or cello was at best an optional inclusion,
Buxtehude composed sonatas for violin and bass viol in which the instruments have equally
virtuoso roles. (But it should be remembered that the solo cello sonata did emerge in Bologna
at about the same time, in works of Domenico Gabrielli and others.) In addition, the Austrian
and German composers devoted more energy than did the Italians to the sonata-suite, in which
an abstract introductory movement is followed by a fairly standard set of dances; more than
20 such collections appeared between 1658 and 1698. Rosenmllers Venetian publication of
such chamber sonatas (1667) had found no Italian imitators, despite a growing tendency to
group dances by key rather than type. In the northern prints sonata or sonatina was the term
most frequently attached to the non-dance preludial movement (Rosenmller used sinfonia);
especially well represented are Biber, Dietrich Becker, J.J. Walther and Schenck. A few native
English composers wrote sonatas at mid-century, influenced by the national devotion to the
viol and by their acquaintance with Italian and German sonatas. The latter they knew both at
home (Jenkins was associated with the family of Francis North, who owned copies of works
by Schmelzer, Colista, Cazzati, Stradella and Pietro Degli Antoni), and by virtue of their
foreign employment (William Young in Austria, and Henry Butler in Spain). Henry Purcells
two published sets of sonatas (1683, 1697), after the most famd Italian Masters, shared the

growing English market with sonatas by Italian and German immigrants (e.g. Matteis, Finger,
Pepusch).
After 1700, Italians continued to produce sonatas for both domestic and international
markets; Vivaldi, Albinoni and the Marcellos in Venice, F.M. Veracini in Florence, Somis in
Turin and Tartini in Padua were some of the main contributors. Moreover, such Italian
migrs as Locatelli in Amsterdam and Geminiani in London brought the latest sonata
fashions to northern Europe. That most were violinists is telling, although the oboe, flute,
cello and other instruments are also strongly represented in their collective output. In these
volumes the four-movement plan finally dominates (although the third movement may not be
tonally closed); the emphasis begins to turn towards the solo sonata (nearly three-quarters of
Vivaldis sonatas, and all of Veracinis are for one instrument and continuo); and the churchchamber distinction disappears. In Corellis church sonatas, the final two movements are
often dances (sarabanda, giga), but in many of Vivaldis sonatas the first two movements also
employ binary forms. The keyboard, relatively neglected by earlier sonata composers, begins
to receive some attention, especially from Domenico Scarlatti, who focussed on onemovement binary forms, some of which are paired in the sources. Other composers of
keyboard sonatas (most in two or three movements) include Benedetto Marcello, Giustini,
Durante and Platti.
According to Brossard, France was overrun with Italian sonatas early in the 18th
century, and French composers soon began to contribute. Most notably these include Leclair
lan, preceded by Dornel and Blavet, and even Couperin, who wrote at least three sonatas in
the 1690s (published much later as preludes to Les nations). Elisabeth Jacquet de La Guerre
left a dozen sonatas for one or two violins and bass; six were published in 1707, but Brossard
apparently copied two about 1695, making them among the earliest composed in France. Of
special note in France is the accompanied sonata (Mondonville, Rameau) in which the violin
or flute accompanies the keyboard. The sonata for unaccompanied solo instrument is
associated particularly with Austrian and German composers (Biber, Bach, Telemann),
although Tartini may have intended some of his sonatas, published with a bass part, for violin
alone (Brainard), and the Swedish composer Roman left about 20 multi-movement works of
that type, most called assaggi. Some programmatic or narrative sonatas are also associated
with composers in Austria or Germany (e.g. Bibers Mystery Sonatas and Kuhnaus Biblical

Sonatas), but Couperins grande sonade en trio Le Parnasse, ou Lapothose de Corelli might
also be mentioned.
18th-century Austro-German composers moved more and more towards the multimovement design already standard in Italy, and played a central role in the mixing and
merging of national styles that characterize the high Baroque sonata. Sonatas by Vivaldi,
Fasch, Zelenka, Quantz and Telemann placed galant idioms (the natural and immediately
appealing melody of the Adagio) side by side with more traditional sonata styles (the fugues,
whose value for Scheibe in the late 1730s lay chiefly in their contrast with the more
expressive movements featuring accompanied melodies). Especially interesting are the new
trios and quartets in which the basso continuo participates as a real part. Some, composed
auf Concertenart, borrow aspects of a typically Vivaldian concerto style; others borrow from
the operatic aria or recitative, French dance and overture. If J.S. Bachs sonatas
(unaccompanied solos, and several works for one or two instruments with obbligato
harpsichord or basso continuo) are better known today than are Telemanns over 200
ensemble sonatas and solos, the situation was reversed in the mid-18th century. Quantity
aside, there are parallels between the two composers: both juxtaposed and integrated national
styles, and experimented with formal design and scoring; neither abandoned the traditional
four movements for the newer three-movement fashion (as did Graun, Fasch, Tartini and
Somis). Telemann is often dismissed as over-prolific, but his greater success in the 18th
century may be attributable not only to his skill at marketing (he personally printed much of
his instrumental music in didactic or encyclopedic collections), but to his serious exploration
of the new trio and quartet in the mixed style (combining various national styles) for which
contemporaries praised him, and to his avoidance of the most old-fashioned elements of
sonata style.
Elsewhere in Europe, sonatas circulated widely in manuscript, as well as in prints both
imported and domestic; and musicians left home in search of a better living, taking their
music along. Handel was only one of the many foreign musicians whose careers blossomed in
London, where imitations of Corelli and the traditional trio sonata long remained fashionable.
Handels contribution to the sonata, like that of Bach, represents but a small portion of his
total output; however, it does include more keyboard sonatas (Bach preferred the keyboard
suite), as well as traditional solos and trios aimed equally at the large amateur market and

concert stage. A focus on Handels sonatas may have inhibited modern exploration of the
many English sonata composers of the time (Babell, Boyce, Arne).
Over the 150 years of sonata composition before 1750, several trends are evident: the
emphasis on counterpoint lessened; the texture became increasingly treble-dominated; multivoice and polychoral sonatas gave way to duos and trios, which in turn yielded ground to
solos and quartets; the early multi-sectional design grew to four or more separate movements,
and then fell back to three or fewer; what distinction existed between church and chamber
sonatas evaporated; instruments were more and more precisely specified and their parts
became increasingly idiomatic; a focus on the violin grew stronger, and then was tempered by
an interest in sonatas for a variety of other instruments; keyboard sonatas finally began to take
their place in the repertory. As the sonata gained popularity outside Italy, its Italian and
Austro-German elements were further enriched by a variety of national approaches to
instrumental music, from the English division (Henry Butler) to the French emphasis on
ornamental detail (Leclair). None of these changes occurred overnight, but they are evident
enough when one compares sonatas from 1630 or 1700 with those from 1750. Moreover, by
mid-century the function and aesthetic stature of the sonata had changed significantly.
Sonata, 1: Baroque
(iv) Socio-cultural context.
Brossard (1703) noted that, while there are many kinds of sonatas, the Italians reduce
them to two types. The first is the sonata da Chiesa, that is one proper for the Church, The
second type is the Sonata which they call da Camera, fit for the Chamber. These are actually
suites of several small pieces suitable for dancing, and all in the same scale or key. The
liturgical use of Baroque sonatas has been well documented (see Bonta, 1969): 17th-century
ensemble canzonas and sonatas replaced the organ solos formerly heard at Mass, and solo
violin sonatas were customary at the Elevation; from about 1690, concertos or orchestral
performance of trio sonatas might be heard instead. Moreover, 17th-century church musicians
may have adapted longer sonatas by performing isolated sections, a practice likely to have
encouraged composers to construct independent movements.
Early collections mixing vocal and instrumental music had no need of the chiesa and
camera labels; in sacred collections, sonatas and canzonas are usually found (Riccio), in the

secular ones, dances and variation sonatas (Marini, 1620; Turini, 1621). Even purely
instrumental collections were so clearly orientated that their uses would have been obvious to
the purchaser: in Buonamentes fifth and sixth books (1629 and 1636, cited above) both
content and scoring suggest strongly that the former is a secular, the latter a sacred collection
(Mangsen, 1990). Merulas per chiesa e camera (1637) was thus unusual both in its label and
in mixing serious and lighter instrumental music in one volume. Such mixed volumes, as well
as those dedicated to church or chamber, appeared throughout the century, usually without
labels indicating function. The editions of Corellis church sonatas (opp.1 and 3) are entitled
merely Sonate a tre, whereas most editions of the chamber sonatas are actually labelled da
camera. This in itself suggests what can be documented by other means, that serious
instrumental music, even if conceived primarily for a liturgical context, was regularly heard
elsewhere, possibly somewhat transformed: at meetings of the various academies, as domestic
chamber music, in concert, and even in the theatre (as overture or interval music). The
occasions for which such music was best suited (and where to store the parts) would have
been obvious to the musician of the time.
Until 1700, at least in Italy, a sonata was assumed to be serious, and therefore suitable
for church; da camera marked the special case. Brossard implied as much when, after
describing the sonata da chiesa, he noted that these are what they [the Italians] properly call
Sonatas. Chamber sonatas usually begin with a prelude or little Sonata, serving as an
introduction to all the rest. The long tradition of such sonata-suites in Germany, as well as the
growing use of binary movements in place of the more serious fugues (generally associated
with sacred music), may explain why Walther (1732) included a separate entry for the church
sonata (which merely gives the German equivalent), but not for the chamber variety; chiesa
was for him the special case, camera the norm. Beyond title-pages and dictionaries, the
dedicatees and collectors of printed volumes sometimes yield information about the musics
use: Telemann dedicated some of his printed volumes individually or collectively to amateurs,
but professional musicians are also heavily represented on his subscription lists. Corellis
church sonatas were dedicated to secular patrons, his chamber collections to clerics, perhaps
contrary to expectations. But those expectations are probably too narrow, since some of the
most significant collectors of sonatas for the chamber were members of the clergy (Franz
Rost, Edward Finch).
Sonata, 1: Baroque

(v) Performing practice and dissemination.

Although some Baroque sonatas may boast a continuous performing tradition, nearly
every aspect of their performance has changed since 1750, and even migration across borders
within the Baroque era was often attended by marked differences in performance due to local
practices. Thus performing practice of Baroque sonatas is intimately connected to matters of
dissemination. 20th-century instruments and playing techniques, as well as ideas about pitch,
tempo, ornamentation, continuo realization, dynamics and articulation all differ significantly
from their Baroque antecendents; even reading from the composers autograph is no guarantee
of a correct performance, since the interpretation of standard notational signs will also have
changed. Only a few of these matters can be taken up here.
Many modern editors of Baroque sonatas suggest substituting one instrument for
another, a practice with some historical foundation, but not sufficient to condone a completely
ad libitum approach. While instruments were specified more and more exactly between 1600
and 1750, many sources, some tied directly to the composer, did give the performer a good
deal of leeway. Leclair, for instance, indicated that some of his violin sonatas could be played
on (and may even have been conceived for) the transverse flute, and he even provided
alternate versions of some individual movements. Telemann offered several options for some
of his ensemble sonatas, as in the viol and cello parts for the Paris Quartets. Some of J.G.
Grauns trio sonatas exist also as works for obbligato harpsichord and one treble soloist; and
solo violin sonatas in score were no doubt played as keyboard solos. Italian prints from Rossi
and Castello to Vivaldi frequently mention alternative instruments (violin or cornett, theorbo
or violone) more or less equally suited to play a part. Even if no instruments were specified,
however, it is unlikely that composers were indifferent to questions of instrumentation, or that
no conventions operated among those who played such pieces.
Ornamentation was a concern even in the 18th century: an important selling-point for
Rogers edition of Corellis solo sonatas (1710) seems to have been the inclusion of the
ornaments as he played them. Baroque soloists ornamented sonatas according to their ability
and to such criteria as genre, national style, context and tempo. Some composers (Handel,
Babell, Telemann) supplied ornamented versions of simpler lines, using smaller note heads, or
additional staves, probably intended and still helpful as models. Some used particular phrases
(affetti, ad libitum) or signs to encourage departures from the notated pitches. Ornamentation

extended to improvisation in sections of sonatas by Colista, Guerrieri and others, who

provided only the bass part over which a soloist was to invent a melodic line. Quantz, who
included an ornamented Adagio in his flute tutor (1752), warned readers that both tempo and
ornamentation should be adapted to suit the context. Mattheson cautioned against performing
(and ornamenting) French pieces in the Italian style and vice versa; and Burney noted that (in
his day) Corellis sonatas were ornamented more lavishly on secular occasions, and given a
more restrained performance in church (General History, ii). The increasing density of the
ornamentation supplied for Corellis solo sonatas in printed and manuscript sources offers one
demonstration of the ways in which successive generations of performers embellished the
same piece, perhaps slowing the tempo in the process.
When a sonata moves across significant boundaries of time and place, more extensive
transformation may be expected. Thus, some English sources of Italian sonatas not only
misattribute individual works, but alter the musical content, creating chamber sonatas from
dances grouped loosely by key, or merging continuo and melodic bass parts. Spanish guitar
transcriptions of Corellis sonatas simply delete sections whose realization on the guitar was
impractical; sonatas in the Rost manuscript (F-Pn Rs.Vm7 653; see Rost, Franz) omit inner
parts to produce trios from quintets. Availability of printed and manuscript copies of sonatas
was ensured as agents in northern Europe imported Italian prints, visitors to the Continent
returned to England with much sought-after volumes, and sonata prints from northern presses
began to outnumber those from Italy. Sonatas remained throughout the period more likely to
achieve publication than operas or other large-scale music (among important publication
centres were Paris, London, Hamburg and Amsterdam), but manuscript dissemination was
significant as well, especially outside Italy. Manuscript copies, to the degree that they were
aimed at a smaller circle of players, yield information about local preferences in repertory and
performing practice, in contrast to the homogenizing influence exerted by publication.
Rousseaus quotation of Fontenelles remark Sonate, que me veux tu? (Dictionnaire,
1768) suggests that, at the end of the Baroque era, sonatas were still less highly regarded than
was texted music, at least in France. But by 1739 the ties of abstract instrumental music to
narrowly defined social function had already weakened sufficiently for Mattheson to offer a
new view of the sonata

whose aim is principally towards complaisance or kindness, since a certain

Complaisance must predominate in sonatas, which is accommodating to everyone, and which
serves each listener. A melancholy person will find something pitiful and compassionate, a
senuous person something pretty, an angry person something violent, and so on, in different
varieties of sonatas. (Der vollkommene Capellmeister, trans. Harriss, 466)
This picture of the sonata as personal and domestic, intended more for the individual
player and a few listeners than for public ceremony or concert stage, is one associated more
with the Classical period than with the Baroque. In fact Matthesons response to the modern
sonatas of the 1730s, combined with the long shadow cast by Corelli, suggest a good deal of
continuity in the 18th-century approach to the genre.
Sonata
2. Classical.
Because of the impossibility of establishing clear stylistic divisions between Baroque
and Classical sonatas in the 18th century, and between Classical and Romantic sonatas in
the 19th century, the period covered in this section extends from about 1735 to about 1820,
leading to some overlap between the three style periods.
(i) Contemporary definitions.
(ii) Instrumental forces.
(iii) Functions.
(iv) Styles.
Sonata, 2: Classical
(i) Contemporary definitions.
Numerous definitions of the sonata, in generic, aesthetic and formal terms, were
attempted during the Classical period. Earlier definitions such as Rousseaus (Dictionnaire de
musique, 1768) had described the sonata as consisting of three or four movements in

contrasting characters to instruments roughly what the cantata is to voices, mentioning

also the respective roles of the soloist and accompaniment, as discussed above (I, 1). Such
definitions perpetuated the older, Baroque, concept of the sonatas da camera and da chiesa,
although in Rousseaus article there is the hint of an emerging awareness of the solo sonata as
something distinct from the trio sonata.
J.A.P. Schulz, writing in 1775, defined the sonata as follows:
An instrumental piece [comprising] two, three or four successive movements in
contrasting characters in no form of instrumental music is there a better opportunity than in
the sonata to depict feelings without words [except for symphonies, concertos and dances]
there remains only the form of the sonata, which assumes all characters and all expressions
. For instrumentalists, sonatas are the most usual and useful exercises, besides which, there
are many examples, both easy and difficult for all kinds of instruments . Since they require
only one performer to a part, they can be played in even the smallest musical gatherings.
Schulzs article, originally printed in volume ii of Sulzers Allgemeine Theorie der
schnen Knste, was highly influential, being the basis of later definitions by Schubart (Ideen
zu einer sthetik der Tonkunst, written 17845; Vienna, 1806/R) and Koch (Versuch einer
Anleitung zur Composition, iii, Leipzig, 1793, and Musikalisches Lexikon, Frankfurt,
1802/R).
Some writers sought literary analogies for the sonata. D.G. Trks Clavierschule
(Leipzig, 1789) made a comparison between the sonata and the ode, specifically in so far as
both depend for their effect upon the regulation of structure by adherence to a well-defined
sequence of ideas. In this, Trk was perhaps influenced by Forkels likening of sonata form to
the rules of oratory, expressed in the Musikalischer Almanach fr Deutschland (Leipzig,
1784):
one of the foremost principles of musical rhetoric and aesthetics is the careful ordering
of musical figures and the progression of the ideas to be expressed through them, so that these
ideas are coherently set forth as in an oration according to logical principles still
preserved by skilled orators that is, exordium, propositio, refutatio, confirmatio, etc.

Forkels comments impinge specifically upon first-movement Sonata form, a tacit

acknowledgment that this movement was considered the most important within a sonata in the
later 18th century. Definitions of sonata form by Koch, Portmann, Kollmann, Galeazzi and
others differ in details and in terminology, but agree in the primacy accorded to tonal rather
than thematic contrast. (Thematic contrast, often of a dramatic nature, was to gain ground in
the sonata as developed by Beethoven, for example in the first movements of his opp.54 and
109.)
Clearly, the sonata signified many different things to 18th-century writers, varying
according to the particular standpoint taken formal, aesthetic or even national. In summary,
a definition of the sonata genre as understood and practised in the Classical period might be a
work in three (or, less commonly, four) movements, most often for piano solo or else for duo
(violin and piano being numerically the most significant type), whose first movement was
almost invariably cast in sonata form, perhaps preceded by a slow introduction (Beethoven,
opp.13, 27 no.1 and 81a; Clementi, op.32 no.2), followed by a contrasting slow middle
movement in a related key (often on the flat side of the home tonic), episodic form and
cantabile idiom, and a finale (most frequently a rondo too frequently, according to Charles
Burney or sonata-rondo; see Rondo) that rounded off the work in a lighter vein. Minuet (or
scherzo) and trio movements are sometimes found sandwiched between the slow movement
and finale (as in many of Beethovens sonatas up to op.31). Frequently, mid-18th-century
sonatas had featured a minuet as finale (Wagenseil, tpn, Haydn). In general, use of dance
metres such as the allemande steadily declined in the Classical sonata, being mostly restricted
to brief topical allusions (to the minuet, for instance, at the opening of Mozarts k570),
although at times Beethoven openly specifies a dance topic (op.54, first movement).
Within such generalized schemes were myriad possible variations, as may be
demonstrated by contrasting Haydns and Mozarts attitudes to the sequence and number of
movements in their sonatas. From his earliest efforts Mozarts was a three-movement plan,
most frequently fastslowfast, a procedure Koch regarded as standard in the final volume of
his Versuch (1793). Such a succession was never so sacred to Haydn, however: the fifth of the
Esterhzy sonatas, hXVI:25, is in two movements; hXVI:30 (1776) has no clearly separated
slow movement, merely a link between the Allegro and the concluding Minuet. Of continuing
significance throughout Haydns keyboard sonatas is the presence of the minuet, found in
only two of Mozarts sonatas (k282/189g and k331/300i). Two-movement sonatas (for

instance, Haydn,hXVI:4042, hXVI:52; Beethoven, opp.54, 78, 90, 111) were by no means
uncommon. Neither were first movements in sonata form the infallible rule. In Haydns
hXVI:4042 (1784) only hXVI:41 conforms to that norm; hXVI:49 (178990) begins with a
set of double variations, alternating major and minor modes, and marked Andante con
espressione; Mozarts k331/300i in A and Beethovens op.26 likewise begin with a set of
variations; Rutinis op.7 sonatas all begin with preludes, allowing the player to feel his or her
way into the Affekt of the piece (or perhaps to become familiar with the instrument) before
launching into the main business. Sonata form itself, as practised by pre-Classical and
Classical sonata composers, was capable of infinite variety. All of Mozarts first-movement
expositions in the early set k27983/189dh and k284/205b (1775) are richly polythematic
(particularly in the second-subject group), whereas Haydns roughly contemporary hXVI:21
and 26 are, by contrast, monothematic in the sense that the first and second subjects begin
almost identically, although additional melodic material is always introduced during the
course of second-subject groups (hXVI:25 is an exception, containing at least nine distinct
themes).
Sonatas were typically issued in printed sets of two, three or six works (e.g. Haydns
hXVI:216 and 359 and 20; Mozarts k3016, 30911 and 33032; Beethovens opp.2, 10,
12, 27 and 102; and many of Clementis). As the Classical period wore on, however, the scale
was expanding such that a single sonata could justify an opus number of its own, such as
Mozarts k533 or Beethovens opp.7, 22, 57, 96 and 106. Frequently dedicated to a prominent
member of the aristocracy, the published sonata, whether singly or in a group, could secure
widespread attention for the composer, as Leopold Mozart no doubt realized when arranging
for some of his sons early sonatas to be printed.
Sonata, 2: Classical
(ii) Instrumental forces.
Sonatas for solo keyboard were to become the most significant type during the
Classical period, although, in numerical terms, the sonata with violin accompaniment (see
below) was predominant. In 1821 Castil-Blaze noted that the sonata suits the piano best of
all, on which one can play three or four distinct voices at the same time It is also on this
instrument that it has gone furthest in its astonishing progress (NewmanSCE, 3/1983, p.94).
Sonatas were also composed for violin (obbligato), cello (whose role as continuo bass was

liberated by Boccherini and extended by Beethoven), flute (Sjan), clarinet (Vanhal), guitar
(Sor), baryton (Haydn), horn (Beethoven) and organ (C.P.E. Bach). Duet sonatas were popular
for domestic amusement, principally for four hands at one piano, such as those of J.C. Bach,
Mozart and Seydelmann; other pairings included two violins (Pleyel), violin and viola (M.
Haydn; Mozart) and bassoon and cello (Mozart). It is worth remarking also that sonatas
originally conceived for one medium were transferable to others: Beethovens E major Sonata
op.14 no.1 exists in a version in F for string quartet (Schwager, SM, xvi, 1987, pp.15769).
The earliest extant collection of sonatas for piano (i.e. fortepiano) solo is Giustini's 12
Sonate da cimbalo di piano e forte detto volgarmente di martelletti (1732), although early
examples of the instrument had been developed by Bartolomeo Cristofori by 1709. From the
1760s sonatas for keyboard began to appear in increasing number, among them examples
published by Eckard in Paris in 1763 and 1764. The intended instrument is frequently
ambiguous in mid-century sonatas. Often the designation is simply clavier, although internal
evidence sometimes betrays the need for a touch-sensitive instrument: while the fortepiano is
not specified on the title-page of J.C. Bachs op.5, certain effects contained in that set are
impossible to realize satisfactorily on the harpsichord (but performance on the clavichord
remains a possibility). During the 1770s the alternative cembalo o pianoforte was
commonplace on title-pages; by the end of the century clavecin, clavier and cembalo are
only rarely encountered.
During much of the Classical period the genre known as accompanied sonata was
very much in vogue. Early forerunners include J.S. Bachs sonatas bwv101419, for violin
with written-out keyboard parts (rather than realized figured basses), and Mondonvilles
Pices de clavecin en sonates avec accompagnement de violon, op.3 (1734), the latter almost
exclusively in three movements but featuring fugal allegros and binary dance structures
typical of the Baroque. The accompanied sonata was specially prevalent in France. In addition
to Mondonvilles op.3 such sets as Rameaus Pices de clavecin en concerts avec un violon ou
une flute et une viole ou un 2e violon were published (1741), soon followed by Guillemains
Pices de clavecin en sonates avec accompagnement de violon (1745), which includes in its
preface the following remark:
my first thought had been to compose these works for keyboard alone, without any
accompaniment but, in order to satisfy the present taste, I felt unable to dispense with [the

violin] part, which must be performed very softly so that the keyboard part may be easily
heard. If desired, these sonatas may be played either with or without the [violin]
accompaniment.
This vogue reached its height in Paris during the 1760s and 70s in the published
sonatas of Schobert, Honauer, H.F. Raupach, J.F. Edelmann and Hllmandel. Mozart was
acquainted with the work of the first three (arranging their music in the pasticcio keyboard
concertos k37, 39, 40 and 41) and his own early efforts in the genre (k6, 7, 8 and 9) may have
been influenced by his discovery of Schobert and his Parisian contemporaries while touring in
17634. Schoberts work was especially popular, it seems: a dozen sets of sonatas were
published in Paris before his death in 1767. His Six sonates pour le clavecin oeuvre XIV
les parties daccompagnements sonts [sic] ad libitum, originally printed in Paris, appeared
again in Amsterdam, published by Hummel, as Six sonates pour le clavecin, avec
accompagnement dun violon oeuvre quatrime. In this latter form they were advertised in
the 1770 fifth supplement to Breitkopfs thematic catalogue (Trii di Schobert a Cemb[alo] e
Viol op.IV Amsterd[am]). In all such works the keyboard part was almost entirely selfsufficient, the accompanimental role of the violin being restricted to thematic doubling in 3rds
and 6ths, or the provision of anodyne background figuration derived from Alberti bass
patterns transferred to the middle of the texture, or else harmonic filling in the form of long,
held notes, similar in function to those often assigned, orchestrally, to the natural horn. This
practice may have had something to do with the gradual disappearance of the cello as a
supporting continuo instrument from the mid-century, combined with weakness of tone in
early fortepianos. Occasionally, as in some of Hllmandels op.6 sonatas or Clementis op.27
(1791), the violin part acquired greater individuality, even parity with the keyboard. Solo
keyboard sonatas (for example, Haydns hXVI:37 in D or Mozarts k570 in B) were
sometimes reissued, without the authority of the composer, as sonatas with accompaniment
for a violin, particularly in England (with violin parts devised by Burney), where the
fortepiano rather than the originally non-committal clavecin is often specified.
The violin became an equal partner in the ensemble in Mozarts duo sonatas from at
least the late 1770s. k454 in B, published in 1784 alongside two solo sonatas, k333/315c and
k284/205b, is one such example, opening with an affective slow introduction. The subsequent
Allegro contains many moments of dialogue between the violin and the pianos right hand, a
texture that was to become so important a trait in the later Classical duo sonata, a memorable

illustration being the opening of Beethovens Spring Sonata in F op.24. Parity between the
instruments is taken a step further in Beethovens op.30 set: in the G major Sonata op.30 no.1
the slow movements main theme is shared phrase for phrase between the piano and violin
towards the end of the movement. Nevertheless, the accompanimental perception of the
violin in such sonatas persisted into the early 19th century, long after it had attained equal
status with the piano: Beethovens Kreutzer Sonata op.47 (18023) bears the designation per
il pian-forte ed un violino obligato on its title-page.
Sonata, 2: Classical
(iii) Functions.
Classical sonatas were known by a variety of generic titles. In England the term
lesson was commonplace (Samuel Arnold, op.7); elsewhere solo in Italy (Giardini, op.16),
pices de clavecin in France (Mondonville, op.3), divertimento in Austria (Wagenseil, op.1,
several of Haydns early sets) were common. The diminutive sonatina was particularly
associated with keyboard pedagogy and is most obviously linked with the name of Clementi
(specifically the op.36 Sonatinas of 1797).
An awareness of the pedagogical connection is fundamental to a proper understanding
of the Classical sonata. In 1789 Trks Clavierschule included a list of keyboard composers
arranged according to the difficulty of their sonatas. Haydn recalled at the end of his life that
he had once earned his living giving keyboard lessons, and his early sonatas arose for use in
such a setting. Mozarts letters from Mannheim in late 1777 indicate that the C major Sonata
k309/284b was composed for Rosa Cannabich, whom he was teaching at the time. Its slow
movement (Andante) calls for the utmost sensitivity to dynamic contrast, and a letter to his
father of 14 November is valuable in linking the movement with specific pedagogic issues:
The Andante will give us the most trouble, for it is full of expression and must be
played accurately and with the exact shades of forte and piano, precisely as they are marked.
[Rosa] is smart and learns very easily. Her right hand is very good, but her left, unfortunately,
is completely ruined I have told her too that if I were her regular teacher, I would lock up
all her music, cover the keys with a handkerchief and make her practise, first with the right
hand and then with the left, nothing but passages, trills, mordents and so forth, very slowly at
first, until each hand should be thoroughly trained.

Wagenseil, who was tutor to the imperial archduchesses in Vienna under Maria
Theresa, probably designed his solo sonata sets specifically for the instruction of his royal
pupils; in general, these are straightforward, technically undemanding pieces. The op.5
sonatas of J.C. Bach (1766) were certainly composed with a pedagogical end in view (the
title-page trumpets the fact that Bach was Music Master to Her Majesty and the Royal
Family), and it is instructive to approach a work such as the third sonata in the set from this
perspective, the successive variations of its finale clearly being intended primarily for the
demonstration, and eventual mastery, of different technical problems at the keyboard.
The English Bachs elder brother, Carl Philipp Emanuel, must be regarded as one of
the most significant composers of pedagogic sonatas (nearly all in three movements). He
issued a number of sets, including the Prussian (1742), Wrttemberg (1744), six sets fr
Kenner und Liebhaber (177987), and two sets of sonatas mit vernderten Reprisen (1760,
1761) whose primary purpose was that of teaching material. Bachs reputation covered most
of Europe, and it has been suggested that the taste of his public played a significant role in
the design of his later sets (G. Wagner, Mf, xli, 1988, pp.33148). His sonatas were frequently
included in the keyboard anthology publications (Oeuvres mles) of Johann Ulrich Haffner
during the 1750s and 60s. Haffners anthologies (12 volumes, each containing 6 sonatas)
offered a wide selection of works by composers from every corner of musical Europe, and
were hugely important in the formation of mid-18th-century galant taste. Among the
composers represented are, besides C.P.E. Bach (particularly works in the empfindsamer Stil
replete with impassioned melodic and rhythmic gestures, recitativo declamation and recherch
harmonies), Scheibe, Schobert, Benda, Eberlin, Adlgasser, Leopold Mozart (three of whose
solo sonatas were published in this collection) and less well-known men such as Bernhard
Hupfeld, Rachmann, J.F. Kleinknecht and Jan Zach. Haffner drew attention to each
composers court appointment at the head of each sonata, such as the Sonata Vta Composta
dal Signor Henrico Filippo Johnsen, Organista della Corte, Direttore di Musica, ed Organista
alla Chiesa di Santa Chiara, a Stoccolma, found in volume iii of Oeuvres mles. Although
Haffner was not the only publisher to issue such keyboard anthologies (see NewmanSCE,
3/1983, chap.4) he dominated the market that was opening up for sonatas that varied in their
technical demands from the easy to the moderately challenging. Anyone owning a complete
set of all 12 volumes about 1770 would have had access to a richly varied and comprehensive
record of the early Classical sonata.

For the most part, the domestic and pedagogic market for Classical sonatas was
female (C.P.E. Bach issued a set of sonatas specifically lusage des dames in 1770).
Talented female keyboard players were relatively plentiful in the second half of the 18th
century; they included Katharina and Marianna Auenbrugger, to whom Haydn dedicated his
six sonatas hXVI:359 and 20 in 1780. Indeed, the social etiquette of the age virtually
dictated a certain degree of keyboard proficiency for ladies: among aristocratic families, for
instance, ability in that direction could be important in attracting an acceptable husband.
During the 1780s several of Mozarts Viennese pupils were ladies from the higher echelons of
society (Countess Thun, Countess Rumbecke). Somewhat lower down the scale were Theresia
von Trattner (wife of the prominent bookseller and publisher, and dedicatee of the Fantasia
and Sonata in C minor k475 and 457, published by Artaria in 1785), Barbara von Ployer and
Josepha Barbara von Auernhammer; the last two carved out successful careers as performers.
Therese Jansen (later Mrs Bartolozzi), a pupil of Clementi, was yet another, to whom Haydn
dedicated his famous E sonata hXVI:52 (and perhaps also hXVI:50 and 51) in 1794.
Besides its function as teaching material, the Classical sonata found a place within the
aristocratic salon, a forum that became increasingly popular during the second half of the 18th
century, especially in France and Austria. Such salons, at which only the upper classes were
normally present, were private affairs usually given in the homes of counts and countesses,
less frequently in the homes of court officials such as LAugier, the Viennese court physician,
one of whose meetings was attended by Charles Burney in 1772. It is only ocasionally
possible to recover any programme details of such private gatherings, such as that at HohenAltheim, the country residence of Prince Kraft Ernst von Oettingen-Wallerstein (17481802),
on 26 October 1777, when Mozart performed his sonatas in B k281/189f and D k284/205b.
The most famous of Viennese salons was that of Countess Wilhelmine Thun, a staunch patron
of Mozarts during his early years in the capital, who lent her fortepiano for the famous
contest with Clementi before Emperor Joseph II on 24 December 1781. Clementi later noted
that on this occasion he himself had played his Sonata in B op.24 no.2. Mozart's record of the
meeting describes Clementi in less than flattering terms, noting that he was a mere technician,
whose star passages were 3rds and 6ths. The association of Clementis sonatas with empty
technical brilliance (as in the op.2 set of 1779, for instance) highlights a weakness that
Clementi himself freely acknowledged, and it is noteworthy that Rochlitz, reviewing
Clementis sonatas opp.33 and 37 in the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung in 17989, praised

Clementis avoidance of exactly such passages, something that was evidently regarded as a
fingerprint of his earlier style. According to Schindler, Beethoven owned almost all of
Clementis works (he had little by Mozart and nothing by Haydn), which he valued for their
lovely, pleasing, fresh melodies [as well as] the well-constructed fluent forms.
Throughout much of the Classical period the solo sonata remained a domestic genre.
Only towards the end of the 18th century and in the early 19th did it become a concert piece,
typically issued with the title Grande Sonate, and that trend was inextricably linked with the
rise at the time of such virtuoso performers as Beethoven, Hummel and Dussek. Mozart
scarcely ever played his own sonatas in public performances, preferring the concerto and
variation genres as vehicles for exhibiting his keyboard prowess. The rise of the concert
sonata is to some degree linked with increasing length and advancing technical difficulty.
Beethovens sonatas, which cover virtually the whole of his career, tread a steady path away
from the kind of piece that could have been played by talented amateurs. Works such as the
Waldstein, Appassionata and Hammerklavier sonatas were only ever attainable by
professional players, and also demanded a new kind of listener, familiar with the intellectual
demands of the other public genres of symphony and concerto and featuring juxapositions of
contrasting themes and textures that demanded the listeners active, rather than passive,
attention. In those respects, Beethovens middle- and late-period sonatas (whether for solo
piano or duo, such as the cello sonatas op.102) go far beyond anything that had formerly been
the preserve of the aristocratic salon. Also notable in the later concert sonata is a tendency
towards more expansive, at times dramatic gestures in such turbulent movements as the first
movement of Beethovens sonatas op.31 no.2 (sometimes associated with Shakespeares
Tempest: see Albrecht, 1988) and op.57. A parallel strand is the studied introspection of
op.101 or the finale of op.111, an idiom that was to influence Schubert (in the slow movement
of the late B Sonata d960, for example).
Sonata, 2: Classical
(iv) Styles.
During the mid-18th century the sonata was an important laboratory for stylistic
change, from the late Baroque to the galant. The characteristics of the former may be
summarized as including a continuously spun-out melody, featuring sequential writing and
general avoidance of contrasting melodies, a tendency towards polyphony (whether real or

implied, as in some of J.S. Bachs violin sonatas), and a relatively uniform harmonic
rhythm. Some of these elements begin to break down in the sonatas of, for example,
Domenico Scarlatti (especially as regards melodic and textural contrast). Scarlattis singlemovement sonatas are closely related in outline to the familiar binary structure of the Baroque
dance suite and are notable for a steady movement away from the patterned uniformity of
Baroque rhetoric towards the more dynamic interplay of galant-style phrase articulation.
The galant idiom, which reached its peak during the 1750s and 60s, favoured a wholly
different approach towards melody, which proceeded in short phrases of two or four bars,
arranged in symmetrical patterns and closing with balancing imperfect and perfect (half and
full) cadences along with a use of the 6-4 chord so extensive as to be almost a clich.
Characteristic of galant melody was its tuneful, lyrical quality, dotted rhythms (sometimes
inverted as the Scotch snap), interruption of the prevailing flow by triplet quavers, affective
use of rests and long appoggiaturas, contrast of dynamic and articulation. Textural
characteristics include a marked absence of polyphony and especially of fugal imitation,
tending instead towards a simplicity and transparency of presentation, generally confined to
two strands, one for each hand. Variety of harmonic rhythm (a reaction against turgid and
artificial late Baroque practice as identified by Scheibe in his critique of J.S. Bachs music)
was a fingerprint of the galant style, made all the more prominent by recourse to such
accompaniment patterns as the Alberti bass. All in all, the emerging galant idiom, found in the
work of J.C. Bach, Boccherini, Galuppi, Rutini, Sammartini and Schobert, and in early Haydn
and early Mozart, captured a deliberately cultivated superficiality of utterance.
The high Classical style has been described by William Newman as the peak at
which the ideal and most purposeful co-ordination of Classic style traits obtained
(NewmanSCE, 3/1983, p.124). Among its features are a clearer sense of individuality and
originality in the handling of the elements of the Classical language than in the galant idiom.
This expresses itself most obviously in thematic terms a striking opening such as that of
Haydns hXVI:52 or Mozarts k457 although such opening gambits as the opposition of a
forte unison statement (often triadic) and a piano chordal answer (Mozarts k309/284b and
k576, for instance) is not infrequent. Other fingerprints of the high Classical style include the
reintegration of counterpoint with periodic phrasing (Haydn, hXVI:47; Mozart, k533, k570);
audacious form schemes (as in Mozarts k311/284c, whose exposition themes are reversed in
the recapitulation); wide-ranging tonal schemes, leading to expansion of movement length

(Haydn, hXVI:50 in C, hXVI:52; Mozart, k570; Beethoven, op.2 no.3); use of harmonic
colour (especially chromaticism) for effect (Haydn, hXVI:20 in C minor, hXVI:52 in E;
Mozart, k333/315c; Beethoven, op.27 no.2 one of a pair of sonatas entitled quasi una
fantasia, partly on the grounds that the movements are designed as sections which follow on
in sequence with scarcely any break, but partly also because of recourse to keyboard textures
and idioms more closely associated with the fantasia genre than with a sonata) and use of
irregular phrase-lengths (Haydn, hXVI:45 in E; Mozart, k309/284b opening themes).
Texturally, the high Classical sonata typically returns to a more fully polyphonic norm in
which counterpoint plays an increasingly significant thematic role (Haydn,hXVI:52;
Clementi, op.40 no.1, op.50 no.1; Beethoven, op.2 no.2, op.54); elsewhere the texture is
enlivened by more confident use of a wider keyboard range than was normal in the earlier
galant style, sometimes stressing textural variety so prominently as to make it a defining force
within the movement structure (Haydn, hXVI:49; Mozart, k457; Beethoven, op.10 no.3,
op.13).
At the end of the Classical period the sonata, as hinted earlier, launched itself out of
the drawing-room and on to the concert platform. The middle-period sonatas of Clementi and,
especially, Beethoven secured the place of the sonata as a public statement in which the
composer as individual genius chose to express some of his innermost thoughts. From the
early 19th century the sonata trod the parallel paths of grand virtuosity and inward
contemplation. Occasionally, as in Beethovens op.106 (the Hammerklavier), both types meet
on a grand scale, leading to the sublime juxtaposition of extreme sound worlds. Both
Clementi and Beethoven tend in their sonatas to devote considerable effort to the working out
of motifs. (That much is well-known in Beethovens case from examination of his sketches.)
Clementis op.50 set (published in 1821), including the programmatic Didone abbandonata
(no.3 in G minor), is notable for its concentration of motivic usage, frequently over protracted
time-spans, as also for complexity of tonal and phrase-structure. A tendency towards the
incorporation of quasi-orchestral sonorities at the keyboard is evident in Beethovens later
sonatas (opp.81a, 109, 111), although it is only one trait among several that emerge at this
stage: others include a renewed interest in fugue (opp.101, 110, 111) and variation chains
(opp.109, 111), along with idiosyncratic keyboard patterns such as high-pitched trills as a
tonally stabilizing background to culminating thematic statements (as in the finales of opp.109
and 111). At this late stage in the Classical sonata's evolution the centre of gravity no longer
necessarily resides in the first movement, as was generally the case in Haydns and Mozarts

sonatas. This trend is especially notable in Beethovens work. From the earliest set, op.2, the
slow movements clearly function as highly expressive individual statements, rather than mere
contrast to the quicker outer movements (those of op.10 no.3 and op.57 are particularly
outstanding examples). In Beethovens later sonatas the work becomes a journey, no single
movement making sense outside the whole context (op.90, for instance, in two movements of
contrasting dark and light character; also opp.106, 109 and 110). In opp.109 and 111 the
variation finales (containing, perhaps, a wider range of expression than any previous sonataform first movement in the Classical sonata literature) truly become the emotional heart of
their respective works.
Sonata
3. 19th century after Beethoven.
(i) Historical overview.
(ii) Genre versus form.
(iii) Compositional practice.
(iv) Publishing.
(v) Performance.
Sonata, 3: 19th century after Beethoven
(i) Historical overview.
Beethoven's sonatas wielded enormous influence on compositional, pedagogical and
performing practices throughout the 19th century. His towering achievements in the solo and
duo sonata, as well as the string quartet and the symphony, set a standard that few composers
could hope to meet. Sonatas in imitation of Beethoven's nevertheless abound, along with
analytical and pedagogical publications on Beethoven's own sonatas. His sonatas featured
prominently in the piano recitals that developed as a genre from the late 1830s, with a canon
of favourites established early on (although occasionally subject to the virtuoso

embellishments that were popular before 1850). By 1861, pianists were performing
Beethoven sonatas in complete cycles, a practice that of course survives to this day.
Austria and Germany remained especially important centres of sonata production in
the wake of Beethoven, although French and British composers also produced large numbers.
Beethoven's influence encouraged a new appreciation of the sonata as one of the most
distinguished forms (Schumann); it thus became a staple of piano solo and ensemble recitals
alike, its increasing significance reflecting the collective predilections of performers,
publishers, students and amateur groups, as well as their often sophisticated audiences. In The
Sonata since Beethoven (1969, 3/1983), William S. Newman claimed that the main
cornerstones of the Romantic sonata were Schubert, Schumann, Chopin and Brahms, the last
of these being the most important and central contributor to the sonata since Beethoven. All
told, he identified some 625 European and American composers who produced sonatas, in
three overlapping phases: 180050 (during which Dussek, Weber, Schubert and Mendelssohn
were the key practitioners); 184085, which started with an alleged decline in the quality and
quantity of sonata production, followed after a decade by a revival of interest (a period
dominated by Schumann, Chopin, Liszt and Brahms); and finally about 18751914 (when the
later Brahms, Reger, Franck, Faur, Saint-Sans, d'Indy, Grieg, Medtner, Rachmaninoff and
MacDowell were pre-eminent).
While Newman regarded 19th-century sonatas as a conservative facet of Romantic
music history, Charles Rosen (1980) asserted that compositional styles after 1830 were not
especially suitable for dealing with sonata form, which is largely irrelevant to the history of
19th- and 20th-century styles, neither generating nor being altered by them. (Richard Strauss
for one complained in 1888 of a gradually ever increasing contradiction between the musicalpoetic content that I want to convey [and] the ternary sonata form that has come down to us
from the classical composers, a form in his opinion no longer capable of conveying the
highest, most glorious content found in Beethoven's sonatas.) Conversely, Anatole Leikin
(1986) identified a dissolution of normative sonata structure in the music of Schubert,
Schumann and Chopin, among others, where the elements of the sonata archetype blend
together, the borders between them blurring or disappearing altogether partly because of the
influence of other formal paradigms.
Sonata, 3: 19th century after Beethoven

(ii) Genre versus form.

The sonata as genre must be distinguished from the sonata as form. Arguably, any
work bearing the title sonata belongs to the sonata genre, as indeed did such disparate works
as the symphony, fantasy and concerto, according to early 19th-century parlance. As generic
categories hardened, however, composers and writers alike employed more precise
terminology, while descriptive labels such as brillante, dramatique and even rotique
were appended to the titles of published sonatas by composers or (more often) publishers,
either to denote character or simply to enhance appeal.
Sonata-derived procedures and formal properties influenced a vast number of pieces
not explicitly designated sonatas for instance, Chopin's four ballades, which demonstrate a
unique application and understanding of the sonata principle as inherited from 18th-century
masters. The essence of such a sonata principle was a (usually harmonic) opposition or
polarity set up early in a work, which, after a heightening of resultant tensions, experienced
eventual resolution and reconciliation in the last third or so of the piece, principally through
tonal adjustments. Key 19th-century specimens, as well as 18th-century sonatas, depend on
that fundamental dialectic, notwithstanding the increasingly schematic formulae developed by
theorists from the 1790s onwards and applied by composers with growing frequency, often at
the expense of the music's life.
Francesco Galeazzi (1796) was one of the first to adumbrate a standard sonata form
(not referred to as such, however; see Churgin, 1968), while Reicha's grande coupe binaire
(Trait de haute composition musicale, 18246) anticipates many of the features in the most
important 19th-century definition of sonata form, that proposed in Czerny's School of
Practical Composition op.600 (published in German in 1849 and in English translation in
1848, several years after the third volume of A.B. Marx's seminal treatise Die Lehre von der
musikalischen Komposition, which explicitly addresses Sonatenform). Outlining the basic
requirements of a sonata form, Czerny advanced a prescriptive model based less on harmonic
relationships than on thematic ones, and although many of the terms in current usage (e.g.
exposition, recapitulation and even sonata form itself) did not feature in the English
translation of Czerny's op.600, its influence on subsequent theoretical thought and actual
compositional practice can hardly be overstated. (According to Rosen, sonata form was fixed

once and for all after Czerny: even Brahms could not change the form as Haydn or C.P.E.
Bach had.)
It is fascinating to trace the process by which textbook sonata form came to challenge
or replace the supple sonata principle in the hands of composers. Although contemporary
dictionaries and other publications paid little heed to sonata design (George Macfarren's On
the Structure of a Sonata, 1871, is a rare exception), there was (in Newman's words) an
increasing recognition and description of an explicit sonata form by theorists and other
writers which had the levelling effect, at least among the weaker, less imaginative
composers, of rigidifying the once fluid form and making it into a stereotype. One of the
great paradoxes of music history is that this new model dominated the vast and highly
conventionalized output of most mid- to late 19th-century sonata composers, while the older,
even atavistic sonata principle remained potent in the music of their (relatively few)
progressive counterparts.
Sonata, 3: 19th century after Beethoven
(iii) Compositional practice.
This domination of the conventional caused despairing critics to predict the sonata's
demise. Schumann for one noted in 1839 that most sonatas by younger composers were little
more than a study in form hardly born out of a strong inner compulsion [It] seems that
the form has run its course. Typical sonatas reveal a slavish adherence to a predetermined,
formulaic and essentially static tonal architecture, as well as an emphasis, sometimes
excessive, on melodic and thematic material generally lacking the potential for truly dramatic
development. Often the music seems stillborn and predictable, falling short of the ideals
associated with this noble musical form (Schumann) a form which, according to Rosen,
was the vehicle of the sublime after Beethoven, indeed the principal means by which the
highest musical ambitions could be realized.
Nevertheless, the best 19th-century sonatas contain many novel features as well as
variants on compositional procedures found in Classical works. Such innovations include a
fluid, expansive melodic handling in which symmetrical periodicity is often sacrificed to
broader gestures at various hierarchical levels; a richer harmonic and tonal palette, as well as
rapid and extreme shifts between harmonic regions; a pervasive exploitation of motif at the

same time as an eclectic blend of disparate materials (a technique possibly deriving from
improvisatory practices, which certainly influenced Beethoven's middle-period and late
sonatas); overarching cyclical tendencies, whereby reminiscences occur, as in the Rckblick
from Brahms's op.5, or such that each movement is based on a transformation of the themes
of the others (Rosen); and a fusion of the typical four-movement structure into one amalgam,
most notably in Liszt's B minor Sonata, which is often referred to as a double-function form.
Although (as Newman observed) no front-rank Romantic sonata was identified with a
programme, even a vague one, by its composer, a greater range of characterization was
achieved through operatic, folk-derived, hymn-like and highly chromatic idioms lavishly and
imaginatively used in altogether new contexts.
Most 19th-century sonatas have four movements, the first of which typically
subscribes to the sonata-form model, at least in more conventional repertory. But in
progressive sonatas, especially Brahms's, the blurring between sectional divisions noted
above often occurs, with considerable development outside the formal development section,
and an influx of expositional traits into the recapitulation (Leikin). As for the exposition
itself, the opposition or polarity so vital to the 18th-century sonata principle is often replaced
(in Rosen's words) by only a sense of distance, possibly being further weakened by a
chromatic blurring of the approach to the second tonality (usually the dominant in major-key
movements, often the relative major in minor-key ones). Rosen maintained that, in many
Romantic sonatas, exposition as opposition and recapitulation as resolution have almost
disappeared, because the end-weighted structural thrust of the prevalent plot archetype
overshadows and even obliterates the climax point at the close of the development section as
found in most Classical sonatas. The internal compositional dynamic is additionally altered by
the virtual elimination of full-fledged themes as tonal and melodic landmarks, explained by
Newman as an extreme consequence of continuous motivic writing.
Whereas the expectations for first movements proved constraining to many
composers, not least Brahms, second movements offered a broad spectrum of formal and
expressive possibilities. Typical designs included binary or ternary forms, a compact rondo
form (ABABA) and a theme-and-variations format, taken at a moderate tempo more
often than a slow one. Third movements were usually lively scherzos, whether or not they
bore that title, while finales tended to have a rondo construction, although other formal
templates were also used. Newman remarked that the finale posed the chief structural

problem, one main reason apparently being a felt need to alter, intensify, and, unfortunately,
overcomplicate the traditionally light, gay rondo sufficiently for it to carry more weight. In
Brahms's case, the tempo, drive, and melodic intensity of the finale are sufficient to achieve a
clear peak in the over-all profile, despite the greater weight given to the slow and scherzo
movements in his piano and duo sonatas.
Practical considerations often inspired the composition of sonatas, whether particular
performance opportunities, the invitation of a publisher or performer, or the desire to write for
students. For younger composers, the sonata offered a perfect first work to launch a career in
print: hence Schumann's comments above. Sonatas also appealed to many women composers
(perhaps because of a generic respectability), among them Louise Farrenc, Fanny
Mendelssohn, Clara Schumann, Luise Adolpha Le Beau, Ccile Chaminade and Ethel Smyth.
As already suggested, sonatas were often written as teaching-pieces, perhaps in an oldfashioned pedagogic style or a somewhat reduced format for instance, a petite sonatine as
opposed to the grande sonate played in public by a virtuoso pianist.
Newman's analysis of the 19th-century sonata settings identified in Hofmeister's
Musikalisch-literarischer Monatsbericht neuer Musikalien reveals that 41% were for solo
piano, 21% for piano and violin, 11% for piano duet, 6% for piano and flute, and 5% for piano
and cello, with other combinations occurring less frequently. That the largest group was for
solo piano is hardly surprising, given the instrument's central importance throughout the era.
But all told, so-called accompanied sonatas for piano plus one other instrument (which
accompanied the piano) form a considerable corpus. In general, the piano part retained the
prominence it enjoyed in early duo sonatas, to the point that the titles to Brahms's sonatas
continued to list the piano first. Composers of violinpiano sonatas include Schumann, Franck
and Faur, while Hummel, Onslow and Rubinstein wrote works for viola and piano. Sonatas
for cello and piano were composed by Mendelssohn, Chopin, Brahms, Saint-Sans, Hiller,
Reger, Vierne and Faur; for clarinet and piano by Brahms, Draeseke and Stanford; and for
flute and piano by Kuhlau, Reinecke and Piern. Other sonata settings exist for horn and
piano, oboe and piano, bassoon and piano, unaccompanied violin, organ and two pianos.
Arrangements or transcriptions of solo sonatas for two or more instruments were also
concocted, both to expand ensemble possibilities and to increase the market for new scores.
For instance, the Marche funbre from Chopin's op.35 appeared in well over 100 different

formats, including settings for two pianos eight hands, salon orchestra, and a trio comprising
harmonium, violin and cello.
Sonata, 3: 19th century after Beethoven
(iv) Publishing.
Leipzig, Paris and London were the main publication centres for 19th-century sonatas,
which tended to be produced in very small print runs (as was also the case with other genres)
and occasionally on a subscription basis. The parts in duo sonatas were published separately
until fairly late in the century, the piano part having at most a short cue from the other
instrument. Newman observed that the sonata has always been one of the easier genres to
print because so few instruments have been involved, but he quoted Gottfried Fink's
complaint from 1839 that only the smallest number of new sonatas find a publisher
nowadays an odd remark, which does not square with the evidence. Not only were
arrangements devised to appeal to wider audiences, but publishers resorted to elaborate covers
and fancy titles to promote sales, in addition to publishing individual sonata movements
separately. Guides on performance also appeared in profusion, of which perhaps the most
notable is Czerny's ber den richtigen Vortrag der smtlichen Beethoven'schen Klavierwerke,
which discusses articulation, tempo and additional matters with reference to Beethoven's
piano sonatas, among other works.
Sonata, 3: 19th century after Beethoven
(v) Performance.
As already noted, sonatas featured prominently in piano recitals in the late 1830s and
beyond, such as those of Liszt, Clara Wieck and Moscheles in the early part of the era;
Rubinstein and Blow in the mid- to late 19th century; and Paderewski, Rachmaninoff and
Hofmann at the end of the century. Sonatas were played by such violinists as Joachim, Ysae
and Kreisler (Paganini performed only his own highly idiosyncratic examples) and by the
cellist Piatti. Public performances of ensemble sonatas took place in all the leading centres,
particularly Paris and London, promoted by concert series, music societies, educational
establishments and even the musical press. Amateurs also performed sonatas in more private
settings, although many preferred the lightest, frothiest examples (Newman) rather than the
relatively serious and technically difficult works more typical of the genre. The supremely

challenging sonatas of Beethoven were frequently played by serious students and

professionals alike (for instance in all-Beethoven recitals), thus indicating his seminal
influence up to the end of the 19th century and beyond.
Sonata
4. 20th century.
The distinctiveness of the sonata as a genre had, by the end of the 20th century, all but
disappeared. The title had lost its traditional implication of a work in several movements for
piano alone or with another instrument. A great many neo-classical sonatas follow these
conventions, but, as the term neo-classical itself implies, continuity of sonata writing was
lost, and perhaps only in Soviet Russia was any new tradition established. It is true that
Beethoven has often been cited in connection with piano sonatas by Tippett (no.3, 19723),
Boulez (no.2, 19478) and Barraqu (195052), but that means only that those composers
approached the solo piano medium with something of the strength and seriousness of
Beethoven; the references in the Boulez piece to the Hammerklavier form relationships with a
specific model rather than with a tradition. Paradoxically, the three masters of the Second
Viennese School, for whom sonata form was a constant guide, left only one sonata among
them: Bergs op.1 for piano (19078).
At the beginning of the century, however, the Brahmsian sonata tradition was being
perpetuated in the work of Reger. His later compositions include several sonatas for string
instrument and piano in which allusion to Bach, formally and contrapuntally, increased, and
that tendency is certainly no less obvious in the seven sonatas for violin alone, op.91 (1905),
the first significant sonatas for solo melody instrument since the 18th century. Thus Regers
sonatas were not only a culmination of the 19th-century tradition: they looked forward to the
classicism, eventually neo-classicism, which was to play an important part in sonata writing
for the next 50 years. A similar place, though in a different tradition, might be ascribed to the
three late, finely and sparely wrought sonatas of Faur: the Violin Sonata no.2 op.108 (1916
17), the Cello Sonata no.1 op.109 (1917), and the Cello Sonata no.2 op.117 (1921).
Debussys three late sonatas (191517) also show a purification of style, but here there
is little reference to formal archetypes. What is involved is rather a clarification of Debussys
own, individual technique, removing from it any literary or pictorial association (although he

gave the unofficial subtitle Pierrot angry with the moon to the Cello Sonata). In the second
piece he abandoned conventional sonata scoring, writing the work for flute, viola and harp;
that innovation opened the way for such unusually scored sonatas as Ravels for violin and
cello (192022) and Poulencs for two clarinets (1918), clarinet and bassoon (1922) and brass
trio (1922).
If Debussys sonatas refer much more to his own earlier work than to any tradition,
those of Skryabin and Ives are equally personal. The late piano sonatas of Skryabin (the last,
no.10, dates from 1913) are single-movement structures in which tonal modulation has almost
no functional part; in expressive terms they relate to a never completed cataclysmic mystery.
Ives, who left four numbered sonatas for violin and piano and two for piano, used the sonata
as a container for reminiscences of popular music, responses to literature and nature, and so
on. The movements cannot normally be related to traditional formal models, although the total
form may be: the four movements of the Piano Sonata no.2 Concord (c191419), for
example, include a scherzo as the second and a slow movement as the third.
The various sonatas produced by Debussy, Skryabin and Ives in the decade 191020
had already broken almost completely with 19th-century standards of sonata writing. In the
next decade there was a widespread attempt to recover tradition, but not directly; instead of
following Brahms and Reger, composers looked back to Beethoven and, more commonly, still
further. Stravinsky claimed that, in his Piano Sonata 1924, he used the term sonata in its
original meaning therefore, I did not regard myself as restricted by any predetermined
form; nevertheless, he admitted to having made a study of Beethovens sonatas prior to the
composition, and there are distinct traces of Beethoven as well as the Baroque in the work. By
the time of the brief Sonata for Two Pianos (19434) Stravinsky was even able to use sonata
and variation forms.
Bartk also made a return to Baroque counterpoint in his Piano Sonata (1926), where
again the shadow of Beethoven can be felt; but the musics rhythmic and harmonic
aggressiveness are quite new. The two sonatas for violin and piano (1921, 1922) are more
spontaneous in form and feeling, and remarkable for the independence of their instrumental
parts. All three of Bartks sonatas of the 1920s open with movements in sonata form, as do
the Sonata for Two Pianos and Percussion (1937), and the Solo Violin Sonata (1944), where
the influence of the Bachian sonata is strongest. Other composers who could be said, like

Stravinsky and Bartk, to have looked back a century or more in writing sonatas included
Poulenc, Martin and Hindemith. Hindemith, most of whose works in the genre are in the
smoothed neo-classical style of his later years, left sonatas for most of the instruments in
current use, including harp, english horn and tuba.
What might be called the neo-classical sonata was also widely practised in the USA
after 1930, for example Sessionss Piano Sonata no.1 (192730). In Sessionss later sonatas,
however, the neo-classical frame became hidden in an increasingly complex and individual
style; and a similar development in Carters music took place most swiftly at the time of his
three sonatas: for piano (19456), for cello and piano (1948) and for flute, oboe, cello and
harpsichord (1952). The sonata movements of Cages Sonatas and Interludes for prepared
piano (19468) are in a two-part, pseudo-Baroque form, yet the oriental modality and
character of the music make the description neo-classical less than helpful. Some of
Prokofievs sonatas might with more justice be given that appellation, but those he wrote in
Soviet Russia (Piano Sonatas nos.69, 193947; Violin Sonata no.1, 193846; Flute Sonata,
1943; Cello Sonata, 1949) lack the conscious archaism or irony of neo-classicism, perhaps
because the model they seem to suppose a 19th-century Russian sonata tradition never
existed.
Instead they established a tradition of their own, and led towards Shostakovich, whose
Viola Sonata (1975) is among those late works in which a sense of the ageing of the musical
tradition has a personal reality. Being at once weighty with history and individual in
presentation (as the testament of a soloist), the sonata was a natural form for composers who,
for whatever reason, felt kinship with the past in terms both of its achievements and of its
philosophy of personal expression. Not only Shostakovichs sonatas can be understood in this
light, but also Barraqus Piano Sonata.
Other composers aligned their works rather with earlier traditions: Ferneyhoughs
plurally titled Sonatas for string quartet (1967) is partly a response to Purcell, and Daviess St
Michael Sonata for wind (1957), a sonata of a Gabrielian sort (although later sonatas by this
composer are aesthetically more on the Shostakovich model). Or the title may be used simply
to indicate that the work concerned is for a soloist, abstract and serious, without any
implications for its form. Boulezs three piano sonatas (1946, 19478 and 19557) show a
progression from traditional patterns (of two movements in no.1, of four in the post-

Hammerklavier no.2) to one determinedly new. Ligetis Viola Sonata (19914), as a set of
inventions for unaccompanied soloist, as assertive statement, as virtuoso showpiece and as a
sequence of forms not beholden to the past, fits into many of the sonatas histories.
Sonata
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. Faisst: Beitrge zur Geschichte der Claviersonate von ihrem ersten Auftreten bis
auf C.P. Emanuel Bach, Caecilia, [Mainz] xxv (1846) 12958, 20131; xxvi (1847), 128,
7383; repr. in NBeJb 1924, 785
J.W. von Wasielewski: Die Violine im XVII. Jahrhundert und die Anfnge der
Instrumentalcomposition (Bonn, 1874/R)
R. Eitner: Die Sonate: Vorstudien zur Entstehung der Form, MMg, xx (1888), 163
70, 17985
A. Heuss: Ein Beitrag zur Klrung der Kanzonen- und Sonaten-Form,SIMG, iv
(19023), 21417 [part of Die Instrumentalstcke des Orfeo, 175224]
A. Einstein: Zur deutschen Literatur fr Viola da Gamba im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert
(Leipzig, 1905/R)
A. Schering: Zur Geschichte der Solosonate in der ersten Hlfte des 17.
Jahrhunderts, Riemann-Festschrift (Leipzig, 1909/R), 30925
G. Beckmann: Das Violinspiel in Deutschland vor 1700 (Leipzig, 1918, music suppl.
1921)
W. Fischer: Instrumentalmusik von 16001750, AdlerHM, 54073
J. Subir: La msica en la Casa de Alba (Madrid, 1927)
F. Vatielli: Arte e vita musicale a Bologna (Bologna, 1927/R)
A. Schlossberg: Die italienische Sonata fr mehrere Instrumente im 17. Jahrhundert
(Paris, 1935)
E.C. Crocker: An Introductory Study of the Italian Canzona for Instrumental
Ensembles and its Influence upon the Baroque Sonata (diss., Radcliffe College, Cambridge,
MA, 1943)
H.G. Mishkin: The Solo Violin Sonata of the Bologna School, MQ, xxix (1943), 92
112
W.C. Gates: The Literature for Unaccompanied Solo Violin (diss., U. of North
Carolina, 1949)

W.S. Newman: A Checklist of the Earliest Keyboard Sonatas (16411738), Notes,

xi (19534), 20112; xii (19545), 57
P. Evans: Seventeenth-Century Chamber Music Manuscripts at Durham, ML, xxxvi
(1955), 20523
E. Schenk, ed.: Die italienische Triosonate, Mw, vii (1955; Eng. trans., 1955)
S.J. Sadie: British Chamber Music, 17201790 (diss., U. of Cambridge, 1958)
F. Giegling, ed.: Die Solosonate, Mw, xv (1959; Eng. trans., 1960)
S. Sadie: The Chamber Music of Boyce and Arne, MQ, xlvi (1960), 42536
P. Brainard: Tartini and the Sonata for Unaccompanied Violin, JAMS, xiv (1961),
38393
B.K. Klitz: Solo Sonatas, Trio Sonatas, and Duos for Bassoon before 1750 (diss., U. of
North Carolina, 1961)
R. Allorto: La sonata a uno e pi strumenti in Italia, Musiche italiane rare e vive da
Giovanni Gabrieli a Giuseppe Verdi, Chigiana, xix (1962), 457
A. Biales: Sonatas and Canzonas for Larger Ensembles in Seventeenth-Century
Austria (diss., UCLA, 1962)
W. Klenz: Giovanni Maria Bononcini of Modena: a Chapter in Baroque Instrumental
Music (Durham, NC, 1962)
E. Apfel: Zur Vorgeschichte der Triosonate, Mf, xviii (1965), 336
G.A. Henrotte: The Ensemble Divertimento in Pre-Classic Vienna (diss., U. of North
Carolina, 1967)
U. Zingler: Studien zur Entwicklung der italienischen Violoncellsonate von den
Anfngen bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts (diss., U. of Frankfurt,1967)
C.V. Palisca: Baroque Music (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1968, 3/1991)
S. Bonta: The Uses of the sonata da chiesa, JAMS, xxii (1969), 5484
M.R. Maniates: Sonate, que me veux tu?: the Enigma of French Musical Aesthetics
in the 18th Century, CMc, no.9 (1969), 11740
E. Schenk, ed.: Die ausseritalienische Triosonate, Mw, xxxv (1970; Eng. trans., 1970)
B. Schwendowius: Die solistische Gambenmusik in Frankreich von 1650 bis 1740
(Regensburg, 1970)
N. Zaslaw: Materials for the Life and Works of Jean-Marie Leclair lan (diss.,
Columbia U., 1970)
J.M. Bowers: The French Flute School from 1700 to 1760 (diss., U. of California,
Berkeley, 1971)

J. Sehnal: Zur Differenzierung der sonata da chiesa und sonata da camera in der
zweiten Hlfte des 17. Jahrhunderts, Musica cameralis: Brno VI 1971, 30310
D. Sheldon: The Transition from Trio to Cembalo Obbligato Sonata in the Works of
J.S. and C.H. Graun, JAMS, xxiv (1971), 395413
N.M. Jensen: Solo Sonata, Duo Sonata and Trio Sonata: some Problems of
Terminology and Genre in Seventeenth-Century Italian Instrumental Music, Festskrift Jens
Peter Larsen, ed. N. Schirring, H. Glahn and C.E. Hatting (Copenhagen, 1972), 73101
G. Beckman: Die franzsische Violinsonate mit Basso Continuo von Jean-Marie
Leclair bis Pierre Gavinis (diss., U. of Hamburg, 1973)
D.L. Smithers: The Music and History of the Baroque Trumpet before 1721 (London,
1973, 2/1988), chap.4
E. Cowling: The Cello (London, 1975, 2/1983)
E. Selfridge-Field: Venetian Instrumental Music from Gabrieli to Vivaldi
(Oxford,1975, 3/1994)
O. Edwards: The Response to Corellis Music in Eighteenth-Century England, SMN,
ii (1976), 5196
P. Allsop: Secular Influences on the Bolognese sonata da chiesa, PRMA, civ (1977
8), 89100
E. Selfridge-Field: Canzona and Sonata: some Differences in Social Identity,
IRASM, ix (1978), 11119
C. Hogwood: The Trio Sonata (London, 1979)
N.M. Jensen: The Performance of Corellis Chamber Music Reconsidered,
Nuovissimi studi corelliani: Fusignano 1980, 2419
C. Rosen: Sonata Forms (New York, 1980, 2/1988)
C.H. Russell: An Investigation into Arcangelo Corellis Influence in EighteenthCentury Spain, CMc, no.34 (1982), 4252
W. Apel: Die Italienische Violinmusik im 17. Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden, 1983; Eng.
trans., enlarged 1990 by T. Binkley)
J. Daverio: Formal Design and Terminology in the Pre-Corellian Sonata and Related
Instrumental Forms in the Printed Sources (diss., Boston U., 1983)
J. Daverio: In Search of the Sonata da Camera before Corelli, AcM, lvii (1985), 195
214
K. Winkler: Selbststndige Instrumentalwerke mit Posaune in Oberitalien von 1590
bis 1650: ein Beitrag zur Frhgeschichte der Instrumentalsonate (Tutzing, 1985)

G. Abraham, ed.: Concert Music 16301750, NOHM, vi (London, 1986)

M.A. Eddy: The Rost Manuscript of Seventeenth-Century Chamber Music: a Thematic
Catalog (Warren, MI, 1989)
S. Mangsen: Instrumental Duos and Trios in Printed Italian Sources, 16001675 (diss.,
Cornell U., 1989)
G. Zink: The Large-Ensemble Sonatas of Antonio Bertali and their Relationship to the
Ensemble Sonata Traditions of the Seventeenth Century (diss., Washington U., 1989)
S. Mangsen: The Trio Sonata in Pre-Corellian Prints: When Does 3=4?,Performance
Practice Review, iii (1990), 13864
A. DellAntonio: Syntax, Form and Genre in Sonatas and Canzonas, 16211635 (diss.,
U. of California, Berkeley, 1991)
S. Mangsen: Ad libitum Procedures in Instrumental Duos and Trios, EMc, xix
(1991), 2840
E. Selfridge-Field: Instrumentation and Genre in Italian Music, 16001670, EMc,
xix (1991), 617
P. Allsop: The Italian Trio Sonata (Oxford, 1992)
J.R. Swack: On the Origins of the Sonate auf Concertenart, JAMS, xlvi (1993), 369
414
F. Hammond: Domenico Scarlatti, Eighteenth-Century Keyboard Music, ed. R.
Marshall (New York, 1994), 15490
J. Lester: Reading and Misreading: Schumanns Accompaniments to Bachs Sonatas
and Partitas for Solo Violin, CMc, no.56 (1994), 2453
S. Mangsen: The Dissemination of Pre-Corellian Duo and Trio Sonatas in Manuscript
and Printed Sources: a Preliminary Report, The Dissemination of Music, ed. H. Lenneberg
(New York, 1994), 71105
S. Mangsen: The Sonata da Camera before Corelli: a Renewed Search, ML, lx
(1995), 1931
classical
FrotscherG
La LaurencieEF
MoserGV
NewmanSCE

F. Galeazzi: Elementi teorico-pratici di musica con un saggio sopra l'arte di suonare il

violino analizzata, ed a dimostrabili principi ridotta, i (Rome, 1791, enlarged 2/1817; Eng.
trans., 1968); ii (Rome, 1796; Eng. trans. of pt 4, section 2, 1980)
C.F. Becker: Die Klaviersonate in Deutschland, NZM, vii (1837), 256, 2930, 33
4; repr. in Hausmusik in Deutschland in dem 16., 17., und 18. Jahrhundert (Leipzig, 1840),
339
I. Faisst: Beitrge zur Geschichte der Claviersonate von ihrem ersten Auftreten bis
auf C.P. Emanuel Bach, Caecilia, [Mainz] xxv (1846) 12958, 20131; xxvi (1847), 128,
7383; repr. in NBeJb 1924, 785
J.S. Shedlock: The Pianoforte Sonata (London, 1895/R)
O. Klauwell: Geschichte der Sonate (Cologne and Leipzig, 1899)
H. Michel: La sonate pour clavier avant Beethoven (Amiens, 1907)
O.G. Sonneck: Early Concert-Life in America (Leipzig, 1907/R, 3/1959)
B. Studeny: Beitrge zur Geschichte der Violinsonate im 18. Jahrhundert (Munich,
1911)
G. Cucuel: La Pouplinire et la musique de chambre au XVIIIe sicle (Paris, 1913/R)
B. Selva: La sonate (Paris, 1913)
B. Selva: Quelques mots sur la sonate (Paris, 1914)
W. Fischer: Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Wiener klassischen Stils, SMw, iii
(1915), 2484
G. de Saint-Foix: Les premiers pianistes parisiens, ReM, iii/910 (19212), 12136
[Schobert]; iv/46 (19223), 1938[N.-J. Hllmandel]; v/78 (19234), 18791 [J.-F.
Edelmann]; 1928 [H.-J. Rigel]; vi/911 (19245), 1059 [Jadin brothers]; vii/12 (19256),
426 [Mhul]; vii/35 (19256), 10210 [Boieldieu]
R. Refout: La sonate de piano (Paris, 1922)
W. Fischer: Instrumentalmusik von 17501828, AdlerHM, 795833
H.J.K. Hoffmann: Die norddeutsche Triosonate des Kreises um Johann Gottlieb Graun
und Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (Kiel, 1927)
M. Lange: Beitrge zur Entstehung der sdwestdeutschen Klaviersonate im 18.
Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1930)
E. Stilz: Die Berliner Klaviersonate zur Zeit Friedrichs des Grossen (Saarbrcken,
1930)
F. Oberdrffer: Der Generalbass in der Instrumentalmusik des ausgehenden 18.
Jahrhunderts (Kassel, 1939)

E. Reeser: De klaviersonate met vioolbegeleiding in het Parijsche muziekleven ten

tijde van Mozart (Rotterdam, 1939) [with scores of 12 sonatas]
W.S. Newman: Concerning the Accompanied Clavier Sonata, MQ, xxxiii (1947),
32749
W.S. Newman: The Keyboard Sonatas of Bachs Sons and their Relation to the
Classic Concept, Music Teachers National Association: Proceedings, xliii (1949), 23648
G. Hausswald: Zur Sonatenkunst der Bachzeit, Wissenschaftliche Bachtagung:
Leipzig 1950, 34048
E. Borrel: La sonate (Paris, 1951)
D. Stone: The Italian Sonata for Harpsichord and Pianoforte in the Eighteenth Century
(173090) (diss., Harvard U., 1952) [incl. scores]
G. Favre: La musique franaise de piano avant 1830 (Paris, 1953/R)
L. Hoffmann-Erbrecht: Deutsche und italienische Klaviermusik der Bachzeit
(Leipzig,1954)
W.W. Abbott: Certain Aspects of the Sonata-Allegro Form in Piano Sonatas of the 18th
and 19th Centuries (diss., Indiana U., 1956)
R. Englnder: Die Dresdner Instrumentalmusik in der Zeit der Wiener Klassik
(Uppsala, 1956)
S.J. Sadie: British Chamber Music, 17201790 (diss., U. of Cambridge, 1958)
S. Sadie: The Chamber Music of Boyce and Arne, MQ, xlvi (1960), 42536
R. Benton: Nicolas Joseph Hllmandel and French Instrumental Music in the Second
Half of the Eighteenth Century (diss., U. of Iowa, 1961)
W.S. Newman: Kirnbergers Method for Tossing off Sonatas, MQ, xlvii (1961), 517
25
R. Allorto: La sonata a uno e pi strumenti in Italia,Musiche italiane rare e vive da
Giovanni Gabrieli a Giuseppe Verdi, Chigiana, xix (1962), 457
G.J. Shaw: The Violoncello Sonata Literature in France during the Eighteenth Century
(diss., Catholic U. of America, Washington DC, 1963)
R.G. Pauly: Music in the Classic Period (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1965, 3/1988)
R.R. Kidd: The Sonata for Keyboard with Violin Accompaniment in England (1750
1790)(diss., Yale U., 1967)
B. Churgin: Francesco Galeazzi's Description (1796) of Sonata Form, JAMS, xxi
(1968), 18199

F. Ritzel: Die Entwicklung der Sonatenform im musiktheoretischen Schriftum des

18. und 19. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden, 1968)
A. Whittall: The Sonata Crisis: Schubert in 1828, MR, xxx (1969), 12430
J.C. Graue: Muzio Clementi and the Development of Pianoforte Music in Industrial
England (diss., U. of Illinois, 1971)
C. Rosen: The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven (New York,1971, enlarged
3/1997) [incl. CD]
R.R. Kidd: The Emergence of Chamber Music with Obbligato Keyboard in England,
AcM, xliv (1972), 12244
G. Beckman: Die franzsische Violinsonate mit Basso Continuo von Jean-Marie
Leclair bis Pierre Gavinis (diss., U. of Hamburg, 1973)
D. Fuller: Accompanied Keyboard Music, MQ, lx (1974), 22245
J. Webster: Towards a History of Viennese Chamber Music in the Early Classical
Period, JAMS, xxvii (1974), 21247
D.A. Sheldon: The Galant Style Revisited and Re-Evaluated, AcM, xlvii (1975),
24070
D.A. Lee: Some Embellished Versions of Sonatas by Franz Benda, MQ, lxii (1976),
5871
C. Rosen: Sonata Forms (New York, 1980, 2/1988)
M. Broyles: The Two Instrumental Styles of Classicism, JAMS, xxxvi (1983), 210
42
G.J. McPhail: The Accompanied Keyboard Sonata in France, 17341778 (diss., U. of
Wellington, 1984)
H. Irving: Haydns deutscher tanz Finales: Style versus Form in Eighteenth-Century
Music, SMA, xx (1986), 1226
L. Lockwood: Beethovens Early Works for Violoncello and Pianoforte: Innovation in
Context, Beethoven Newsletter, i (1986), 1721
K. Komls: The Viennese Keyboard Trio in the 1780s: Sociological Background and
Contemporary Reception, ML, lxviii (1987), 22234
T. Albrecht: Beethoven and Shakespeares Tempest: New Light on an Old Allusion,
Dika Caecilia: Essays for Dika Newlin (Kansas City, MO, 1988), 1743
P. Barcaba: Domenico Scarlatti oder die Geburtsstunde der klassischen Sonate, Mz,
xlv (1990), 38290

M.E. Bonds: Wordless Rhetoric: Musical Form and the Metaphor of the Oration
(Cambridge, MA, 1991)
J.P. Montagnier: From the Aria-da-capo to a French Embryo of the Sonata Form,
RdM, lxxix (1993), 30818
K. Komls: Viennese Fortepianos and their Music: Germany, Austria and England,
17601800 (Oxford, 1995)
romantic and 20th century
NewmanSSB
A. Reicha: Trait de haute composition musicale (Paris, 18246)
A.B. Marx: Die Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition, praktisch-theoretisch
(Leipzig, 183747)
C. Czerny: School of Practical Composition, op.600 (London, 1848/R; Ger. orig.,
c184950)
G. Macfarren: On the Structure of a Sonata (London, 1871)
O. Mayer-Serra: Die romantische Klaviersonate (diss., U. of Greifswald, 1929)
F. Torrefranca: Le origini italiane del Romanticismo musicale: i primitivi della sonata
moderna (Turin, 1930/R)
P. Egert: Die Klaviersonate im Zeitalter der Romantik, i (Berlin, 1934)
K. Westphal: Die romantische Sonate als Formproblem, SMz, lxxiv (1934), 459,
11722, 18992
D.A. Shand: The Sonata for Violin and Piano from Schumann to Debussy (1851
1917) (diss., Boston U., 1948)
K. Dale: Nineteenth-Century Piano Music (London, 1954/R)
W.W. Abbott: Certain Aspects of the Sonata-Allegro Form in Piano Sonatas of the 18th
and 19th Centuries (diss., Indiana U., 1956)
H.S. Wolf: The Twentieth-Century Piano Sonata (diss., Boston U., 1957)
R.J. Kremer: The Organ Sonata since 1845 (diss., U. of Washington, 1963)
O. Schulte-Bunnert: Die deutsche Klaviersonate des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts (1963)
J. Bittner: Die Klaviersonaten Eduard Francks (18171893) und anderer Kleinmeister
seiner Zeit (diss., U. of Hamburg, 1968)
F. Ritzel: Die Entwicklung der Sonatenform im musiktheoretischen Schriftum des
18. und 19. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden, 1968)
J.U. Evenson: Macroform in American Piano Sonatas, 19011965: a Comparison with
Piano Sonatas of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven (diss., U. of Rochester, 1969)

W.S. Newman: Some 19th-Century Consequences of Beethovens Hammerklavier

Sonata, opus 106, Piano Quarterly no.67, (1969), 1218; no.68 (1969), 1217
M. Weyer: Die deutsche Orgelsonate von Mendelssohn bis Reger (Regensburg, 1969)
S. Martinotti: Ottocento strumentale italiano (Bologna, 1972)
A. Leikin: The Dissolution of Sonata Structure in Romantic Piano Music, 18201850
(diss., UCLA, 1986)