Talk:Rondo

Subordinate theme

I don't know if this "subordinate theme" terminology comes from the same places as were cited to me at Talk:Sonata form, but it really isn't usual - the contrasting themes in rondos are almost always called "episodes", so I've changed that back. Similarly, although some people like to talk about sonata-allegro form, plain old sonata form is more common and less misleading (as sonata form movements are not necessarily allegro - many slow movements are in sonata form). --Camembert

"episode" or "theme"?

Camembert wrote: "the contrasting themes in rondos are almost always called "episodes."

But Pauly calls them "couplets" Caplin & Stein call them "subordinate themes" Green calls them "episodes or couplets" Berry calls them "digbullshit bullshit bullshitepisode, etc. In view of the fact that the contrasting "episodes" in a rondo are thematic (that is, they present new themes), the form warrants a higher status than "episode."

I still think that most writers simply call them "episodes", but maybe I underestimated the range and commonness of alternatives. Thanks very much for putting them in the article. --Camembert

abacada

ABACADA is specifically the baroque manifestation of the rondo. I believe ABACA and ABACABA are not only more archetypal, but said aloud, they roll off the tongue so nicely. Love, bobby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.54.191 (talk) 09:06, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Kia rondo?

err, why is this under See Also? shouldn't it be at the top where the "this is about X, for the Y see (link)" is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.90.5 (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

is molly any good at rondo?

please reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.122.97 (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh?? Who's "molly"? —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 03:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If Mahler was meant, the answer is emphatically yes... Schissel | Sound the Note! 12:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thematic development does not necessarily... etc.

I'm glad Mozart, though aware of at least some of these rules from his time in Italy I expect, paid attention to so few of them... Schissel | Sound the Note! 12:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ABA

@Jerome Kohl: I'd like to see a source for your claim, as it is not mentioned in the article on ternary form. I believe that either way, that needs to be explained, or it would just cause needless confusion for our readers. I have never ever encountered a ternary piece that was considered to be in "rondo form".--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You might try a basic reference source, such as the Harvard Dictionary of Music (fourth edition, 2003). In Eugene K. Wolf's article "Rondo" (on page 742), you will find: "Some writers also consider ABA (ternary) forms to be rondos (the 'first rondo form' of 19th-century theory; see also Binary and ternary form)."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Then it's a pity that we aren't putting this fact in the article. Our poor readers need to know this!--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find that I did put the reference, at least, into the article. Do you think a more ample quotation or paraphrase from Wolf's article would be better?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think I have not attended to this issue. What do you think?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is fine. It clearly explains that ABA can sometimes be considered a rondo form, and also makes clear how ABA-rondo can be distinguished from ABA-ternary. Double sharp (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

French page link

IMO, it is essential to keep the previous link to the article on "rondeau" from the French wikipédia, since the argument regards exactly the French use of that term. So, the link should be restored, unless there is a convincingly argued opposition. Particularly, I am against these types of unilateral changes without asking others, specially for an article that has been around for so long, with so many people participating. --Clovis de Andre (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi™

📝 66.50.50.241 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Mention of Purcell?

> Examples of rondo form

Shouldn't Purcell's rondo be there? Etomcat (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Factual errors

There are quite a number of inaccuracies in this article. For one, Grove makes no claim that rondo form is limited to instrumental music, and it also is clear that the rondo form emerged in the Baroque period, not the Classical period. In fact, the very first early example of rondo form given in the Grove article is a vocal work; two choral works from Peri’s Euridice (1600). Clearly there needs to be some fact checking with an eye towards removing WP:OR and WP:POV issues.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Update, I have completely re-written the lead and origin sections. There is so much more on the history of this topic in Grove which has a very lengthy article. I have at least removed the many factual errors in the original presentation which made some very odd claims; particularly since the references cited didn't actually support the content. Claiming rondo form was limited to instrumental music was very odd, particularly when the majority of the early examples of the form were pretty much all within vocal works in Italian and French opera (although they had orchestra accompaniments). Also claiming it was a classical era form was very strange as again Grove has two whole subsections devoted to the development of rondo form in the Baroque period, first in Italian opera, and then in France where Lully and Rameau are highlighted as central composers in the early development of the form. I am not really sure how the article could cite Grove but then ignore it and write entirely inaccurate content that contradicts the cited material. Whoever worked on this earlier needs a dressing down...4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)