Talk:Sonata theory

Establishing Notability

I haven't worked everything into the article yet, but here's some evidence for the theory's notability: its founding publication (the Elements of Sonata Theory) won SMT's Wallace Berry Award, which is probably the most prestigious award that a book on music theory can win in the US. It has published reviews in peer-edited journals (see, eg., Arnold Whittall's review in Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 2008 133(2):318-333), and it has been the subject of numerous conference papers. (If you look at the program from the 2008 meeting of Music Theory Midwest[1], for example, you'll see that there was a whole session devoted to it. Likewise the program from the 2008 AMS-SMT meeting, downloadable from [2], included several papers principally concerned with Sonata Theory.) Does that pass muster? Masily box (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

One sided view

This is just one interpretation of Sonata Theory. It would be wise for future edits to include the perception of sonata theory over time. Including sources from Caplin, Tovey, Schenker, and others will really help make this a very quality article. Until then, it's biased to one interpretation (albeit, a very good one...hence their tome on the subject) but we'd be doing a disservice by ignoring all other possible interpretations. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that, at least within the American discipline of music theory, "Sonata Theory" is a proper name for Hepokoski and Darcy's particular take on the subject of sonata form. A discussion of, e.g., Caplin's views is very much desirable in the article on sonata form, but not in the article on Sonata Theory. (One wouldn't say, for example, that the article on psychoanalysis provides a biased take on human psychology because it doesn't elaborate the views of Skinner or Chomsky.) Some engagement with the scholarly response to the theory would be an excellent addition to the article--but clearly framed as a response to the discourse of Elements of Sonata Theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.182.149.82 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As a fellow member of said discipline, I respectfully disagree. Elements of Sonata Theory is a proper name; it refers to a 2006 book by Hepokoski and Darcy. But "sonata theory" is a common name; it refers to a branch of discourse that reaches back some two centuries, through Marx's 1824 baptism of "Sonaten-form" to Koch's 1793 conception of the symphony's "Theile" and "Hauptperioden"--as the second chapter of Elements of Sonata Theory itself notes.

This Wikipedia article as it currently stands is about that book, not that centuries-old discursive tradition, and it should say so explicitly, as Devin advises. Asserting without qualification that Hepokoski and Darcy "developed" sonata theory is like claiming that I simply "developed" this talk page--potentially defensible as an atomistic proposition, but outright deceptive in the context of a discussion meant and understood to be a synopsis of its subject matter's development.

Application and Critique

If this article were to be expanded to include critiques and applications of Sonata Theory, here are some sources to consider. For application, Hepokoski has written an article concerning the Tempest sonata in [http://www.amazon.com/Beethovens-Tempest-Sonata-Perspectives-Performance/dp/9042922893 Beethoven's Tempest Sonata: Perspectives of Analysis and Performance], edited by Pieter Berge. For a critique of Sonata Theory (as well as Sonata Theory's critique of other system) the work [http://www.amazon.com/Musical-Form-Forms-Formenlehre-Methodological/dp/9058678229/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1 Musical Form, Forms, and Formenlehre: Three Methodogical Reflections] contains explanations of basic tenants of theories by Caplin, Hepokoski, and Webster, as well as a critique of each theory by the other authors, and a chance for the original author to respond to these critiques. --12.202.74.88 (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)