It was quite inadvertent. but by bar 16, i had realized it.
It's a departure for me. I don't often use fancy "classical" forms. The basic stuff, binary, ternary, bar, through...that's what i usually stick with. It's not a hatred of the classical forms, or anything silly like that. It's just...
The forms mean certain things have to happen. Let's say i'm writing a sonata. Ok, i've got 5 parts with which to work. They happen in this order: intro, exposition, development, recap, coda. On the surface, that's fine. Write an intro, a couple interesting themes, work with them a bit, play them again, and then end it.
But there's all these little bits that come along with it...those are the things that kill me. Links to tonality...Like, theme 1 should be in tonic, theme 2 should be in the dominant. at the recap, both should appear in the tonic. if you happen to do theme 2 in a minor mode, say, the supertonic, then it needs to appear in major at the end.
it's like a fugue...sonata says more than just the order...it's all the other bits and pieces that make me a bit crazy.
so, i'm writing a passacaglia. it's relatively open ended really. All i need, technically, is that repeated bass ostinato. check. now it's about the orchestration, and the variations of the "melodic" line that is created. It'll serve well for this, as it is a piece for HS band.
certainly a teaching moment. "hey guys, let's talk about form for a second. anyone notice something peculiar about mvt. 2?" "yeah, there's a repeated figure."
Pedagogically, it's sound. As far as the character of the piece, it's sound. But as a tool i like working with its too...predictable? the interest has to come from the orchestration. Time to pass that little guy around...