Ways to study Form

I want to study Form more detailed. Especially the balance within a movement, preferably with the main attention to 20th century music. I know how a Sonata is made, so I do not need that. ;)

What I am interested in is how to divide a piece so that it feels right. I know Form is rather subjective, but I am curious if there is a more methodical way to approach this. I know Debussy and Bartok have made use of the golden ratio. Something like that...

So, what books do you recommend me, or what (20th cent) composers do you think have written structures that just work.

I think the best way is to listen with a score and try and figure it out for yourself. Some pieces are more free-form, others have "form" with textures and ideas, and some are very rigid in their structure. As far as articles or books on it, I don't know of any, so that's the best advice I can give. In fact, for learning anything about composition, probably the best way to do it is by listening to and studying compositions ;)

Structure and Style by Leo Stein with his Anthology of Musical Forms.

Very to the point and though some aspects he leaves a bit open - eg what makes a figure he can only define by examples, I think it is valuable - especially the discussion between what is the difference between a figure and a motive.

Learn about sonata principle then study Beethoven's chamber works, making note of the key areas he explores and how he returns to the original key (and how long it takes him to do so). If you have a decent amount of theory behind you (and money, if you don't have access to a music library), then read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Composition-Chromaticism-Developmental-Process-Tonality/dp/0754651622/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305688628&sr=8-1

I know you said you know how a sonata works, but this is still an awesome study in form. The book still applies even if you don't care for sonata principle.

Fascinating preface BO.

What is strange is in doing my long analysis of a progression, I came to realize that composition ally you can come to more interesting solutions and problems if you consider a compass of x pitches as unique. So you could set a "range" or boundary of 13 or 14 pitches where the min 10th is covered ( certain tones could be adjusted or you don't have to, just thru careful treatment) and those pitches considered unique.

let me know if I am understanding the authors' premise correctly. Seems fascinating.

I think the absolute best way to learn different forms is to research the mechanics of them first and then begin working on exercises. A lot of forms are sectional in nature - which may sound easy to write BUT you're left with choices such: whether to cadence or utilize a transitional passages sans cadence. The harmonic progressions in a lot of the classical and romantic periods -which became integral in binary, ternary, rondo, and sonata- also aren't really utilized these days, even if you are tonal. You no longer have to go from I to V then back to I. Again, practice and find what works for you. Form is a large umbrella - it's best to find what works for you.

I always found listening to be the best call. Sit down with a timed recording and mark the time and a letter/letter-prime notation. Then compare to a score. Look for both heard and masked form markers, like melodic, harmonic, or timbral changes.

Basically what Dirk said.

What is strange is in doing my long analysis of a progression, I came to realize that composition ally you can come to more interesting solutions and problems if you consider a compass of x pitches as unique. So you could set a "range" or boundary of 13 or 14 pitches where the min 10th is covered ( certain tones could be adjusted or you don't have to, just thru careful treatment) and those pitches considered unique.

let me know if I am understanding the authors' premise correctly. Seems fascinating.

I'm not completely sure about what you're saying, but the book talks about the rotation of 11-pitch-class fields and observes how the introduction of a so-called "missing pitch" (the 12th pitch of the diatonic scale) forces a shift out of the prevailing pitch field. These "system-shift motivators" tend to appear at structurally significant moments in a piece. The author also traces a "primary chromatic array" (each new ascending chromatic pitch tends to enter at a structurally significant moment in a composition) and a harder to observe descending diatonic array. It's pretty fascinating and tries to get at what a piece is about. For instance, the author might say that the first movement of Schubert's Octet in F (Op. 166) can be understood as the working out of two dyad conflicts (A/Ab and D/Db) and these conflicts arise more from parallel systems (related 11-pitch-class fields) than from parallel major and minor harmonic areas.

Well yes I meant along those lines. But extend the 11 note pitch field beyond the octave (you could also add in additional notes to create a larger pitch field). So you have a scale composed of one dim7chord say b-d-f-aflat, and a five note "chord" say a dom 7 with an added #9th. C-e-g-bflat-d#, You'd have a pitch field of b-c-d-e-f-g-aflat-bflat-c-d-d#, wherein you do not consider some notes octave displacement as equivalent. THis could be done by microtonal inflection, in my example, flatten the C and D or in your ordering of the pitches establish ways motivically to avoid the c-c and d-d octave sounding. Another possible way is you could observe octave equivalence and work with a 9 note pitch field, but you could have overlap by say by having a similar 9 note pitch field starting on C. I think this is some of what the theorists meant?

http://www.amazon.com/Form-Music-William-Cole/dp/1860960278/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1308156395&sr=8-1

i have this book, i think its fantastic. covers pretty much everything from binary, fugue, concerto, complete sonata, old sonata. its great