1.

List the defining characteristics of the canzona and sonata outlined in the second
paragraph of the article. Is this consistent with what we discussed in class? Why or why
not?

Canzonas don’t have much sectional contrast. They often employ a recurring rhythm
and have a dance-like, lively quality. Sonatas are segmented in distinctive sections.
Often showed more intricate melody and harmony. I missed the first class, so I cannot
say how that relates to what was discussed in class.

2. What does the author say most canzona composers have in common? What was
your reaction to reading this?

Almost all the canzona composers were organists who were trained in music theory and
the art of counterpoint. Canzonas were therefore expected to have a strong theoretical
foundation and satisfy even the most rigorous analytic criteria. I don’t think it is
surprising, since keyboard players, who play polyphonic instruments, seem to have a
training more similar to that of a composer than those who play a single-line instrument.

3. What does the author say most sonata composers have in common? Do you agree
that performers are usually more interested in sound than theory?

Most sonata composers were players that performed in ensembles, and being son, they
focused more on the performance aspects of the pieces and how it sounded to a live
audience. They were not so strict when it came to technical perfection. As a performer,
my utmost interest is in bringing the music to life with good sound and with the correct
“affects”, effects and emotions. I think it’s fair to associate performers with being more
interested in sound. Nobody seems to “feel” or be blown away by the beauty of theory
as they are for the emotions and intentions. The latter is what an artist should strive for.

4. Think about the standard repertoire (solo or chamber) for your instrument. What
observations can you make about the composers of these works?

It’s very hard to make such a generalization. But, because the cello is a highly
expressive instrument with great cantabile potential, I think the most successful
composers were those that understood how to take advantage of that. It’s hard for a
composer who is primarily a keyboard player to do a great work at it, since their
instrument cannot sustain notes (exception of the organ, but it cannot have expressive
control over the note while held), but it’s still possible. I think of Bach (cello suites) as an
exception but he was also versed on string instruments, voice and overall a genius.
Brahms and Beethoven also wrote great works for the cello while being primarily
keyboards, but once again, geniuses and the exception proves the rule. Schumann,
who was a keyboardist, wrote great music for the cello but especially when it comes to
his concerto and the chamber music for cello, it’s by far not the most idiomatic. Dvorak
wrote what’s often considered the greatest masterpiece in cello literature while being a
viola player. Haydn wrote his cello concerto with masterful ability but he was well versed
in the violin. The concertos had assistance from the cellist Anton Kraft too, who was a
composer and cello virtuoso and first performer of the Haydn Concertos, so he could
also have lent a hand.

5 . What was your overall impression of this article? Was there anything that surprised
you?

It's interesting to see how the background and social context of the organists vs other
instrumentalists reflected their compositions. It’s always funny to read that organists
received more money and were highly regarded in the music scene, even though I can
understand it given the context. The association of strings with the soul, etc reveal how
close to emotional (“affects”) aspects people were back then.