Ed, Where have you been? Missed you. >When one looks at the description on the back of a symphonic CD, >one is likely to find each movement characterized by the tempos to >be employed-allegro, moderato, presto, etc. Yet in an opera, sections >tend to be designated by their form-aria, cavatina, duetto, etc. I've >concluded that this is because most orchestral movements are composed >of some version of sonata form. I have noticed that sometimes other >forms are identified (and, in these cases the tempo is omitted) as with >menuetto and trio, rondo, theme and variations, etc. > >Am I on the right track? Is this a convention with a rationale or is >it simply tradition? I haven't the slightest idea. I can speculate only. I don't think most symphonic movements are necessarily variations of sonata form. The first movement usually is, and I think that's the one that's most often named after a tempo. I wouldn't say that other movements necessarily have much to do with sonata form. I would guess that a composer names a movement in a way that best describes its character or structure, the latter when it also describes the character. Beyond that, I know bupkus. Roger Hecht