Talk:Cyclic form

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is currently the subject of an educational assignment.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Cyclic form be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

Beethoven's fifth ais a controversial case. It might be worth discussing and then changing on Beethoven page as well Stirling Newberry 17:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's been argued both ways. I think the term is sufficiently fuzzy to allow both interpretations, and making that controversy clear is probably the best way to go. Personally I don't see the Beethoven 5th as showing "cyclic" form any more than the reminiscences of previous movements in the finale of the Ninth Symphony are an example of "cyclic" form--I prefer to use the term "cyclic" for when material from a previous movement returns as a summation (for example the last movement of the Mahler 5th, or the Elgar 1st, or of course the Franck). Interesting stuff at any rate. Antandrus 17:24, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion is to expand the article then, talking about the difference between works which reference previous themes etc. Stirling Newberry 12:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One way to do it would be to categorize the different usages of cyclic form. I'm not aware of any books/articles that attempt to do this, but it would be an interesting exercise. Perhaps the categories could be:

1) where the thematic returns are structural, complete, obvious, and serve as summations for the subsections (example: Sibelius 7th)

2) idee fixe type: there is an obsessive return of material (Symphonie Fantastique, Harold in Italy, Ein Heldenleben, ...)

3) where there is a preliminary statement, incomplete and unsatisfying, followed by a completed return at end of piece (Mahler 5th, Elgar 1st, oh what else... Copland 3rd, think of some others)

4) underlying motivic relationship, not immediately obvious without analysis (to most) (Beethoven op. 131, well, heck, dozens of pieces by Beethoven)

5) reminiscence/recollection type (Beethoven 5th and 9th, etc.)

And all with a historical overview explaining the significance of the idea (as I stated in my first draft, I think as multiple-movement forms attain a certain length and mass, they start to require thematic, not merely tonal unification). Ideas? Antandrus 04:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I very much liked your original point that there is a difference between reuse of the theme, and structural use of themes in a manner that is similar to long term harmonic structure. The difference between "using the theme because people remember it" and "using the theme because it is woven into the structure of the piece". Consider the tonal structure of the fugato section of Symphonie Fantastique as an example. Stirling Newberry 14:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that this article would benefit greatly from a cursory discussion of at least one work from each composer. It seems wrong to list composers without any indication of pieces that fit the mold of cyclic form. I will add a short contribution for Liszt, but it would be nice if others could have similar consideration. Drpainosaurus 9:05, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

How is it possible that Mahler's symphonies aren't listed? Titan (n1), the Resurrection (n2) and the Fifth are as cyclic as many others in the list. Also Rimsky Korsakov's Scherezade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.231.36.215 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]