Classical Music Mayhem!!

What is it that characterizes music of a similar kind, to the ear?

Are form and style one in the same, in that they both affect how music sounds, or are they distinct notions; e.g., are idioms formal, stylistic, or both (or neither)? How about themes?

I am suspecting this topic has been induced by an intake of 'wacky baccy'?

Well, no but I can see how it could come across that way; fair enough. I suppose the fuzziness of musical terminology was drug induced from the point of inception then.

You might have a point there! Either way if nothing else it creates work for the academics.

I'm not a person trained in music, so I wonder: are there standard definitions of what "form" and "style" in this context??

I've heard, for example, about "sonata form". I gather this has something to do with the structure of a piece or movement, variously explained in the "sonata" case as consisting of Introduction, Exposition, Development, Recapitulation, Coda. Is this what you mean by form?

Is style somewhat defined along the lines of musical era, i.e. Baroque, Classical, Romantic? Or does it mean something else in case of your question?

I'm not sure what I mean by form.

I have a pocket manual of musical terms, which says that its "a concept or organization governing the order, character, meter, and key of a composition…". However, when I read about a composer's "development of the form", or certain "limitations of the form", or even the "traditional classical form", I get the impression that it is a discussion of style.

I'm also wondering if musical idioms and themes are aspects of form or style. Is that trill I often hear in baroque and classical pieces an idiom? Does variations on a theme mean variations in the style of, or is that variations in the form of...?

What makes forms a challenge to define - I think a simple definition of form is, it is a shell to pour a composition into - is, once musicians establish a form, they begin to break it down. As Charles Rosen says, "All art is subversive."

I think style is what an individual or a group of musicians in a particular era does to established forms. For example, John Field brought out (but didn't necessarily invent) the nocturne form, but Chopin developed it within his own style.

But the terms are vague; Charles Rosen's book on classicism is titled The Classical Style. Erik Satie felt this frustration. When Debussy said his pieces were without form, he responded by writing Three Pieces in the Form of a Pear.

Some things are idiomatic, like a piece in the bel canto style requires a different interpretive technique than something by Schoenberg. I have a recording of a Haydn concerto where the soloist plays the cadenza in a jazz style - that's technically a no-no. Of course, a trill is always a trill, something decorative, unless it's by Beethoven; then it becomes, as T.S. Eliot said, "the point, the still point."

Variations on a theme is, anything you can think of, you do it to a theme, whether it's decorating/deforming a theme or writing variations on the chord progression. I have heard variations on a style, i.e., playing the same theme in a Baroque, then Romantic, style. You can take a theme and subject it to different forms, like a waltz, then a march. You can even vary a theme by altering the color of its orchestration (like Ravel's Bolero). By definition, that's the essence of variation, and I don't think there are hard and fast rules on how to write them.

I've seen idiom used to denote a composer's particular style, as well as a regional one, like a Hungarian or Folk idiom. I've also come across references of "folk themes" in instrumental music. In your description, it seems as though theme is indepenent of form and style.

It can be. That's what got composers like Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff in trouble; they had these beautiful themes that wouldn't fit properly into the forms. Purists call that second rate; the rest of us say, "So what?"