Mikael Rasmusson asks:

>But if you have'nt hard the earlier movements, the last one doesn't make
>sense.  Could that be a pragmatic definition of cyclic?

Interesting thought, but consider the Rachmaninov 1st.  The last movement
makes perfect sense if heard by itself; it just makes more (or a different
kind of?) sense if you recognize the thematic material as the same as that
which provided the basis for the previous three movements.

len.