Matiegka’s Op. 16 and Op. 17 were both
published in 1807. Stanley Yates described Matiegka as adopting sonata forms
for all three movements in this work. I disagree. Think the closing rondo should be interpreted
as being a rondo (even though I understand why Yates concluded the third
movement is best explained as a sonata form) for reasons I will get to later.
Yates has pointed
out that “progressive” in the case of Op. 17 refers to a work that is more
advanced than usual amateur works for guitarists but not as advanced as
full-blown concert works such as Matiegka’s Grand Sonatas I and II. (Yates’
edition, page 12). The score you can find on IMSLP.org does not actually have
metronome indications but does have the differentiated characters, which would
implicitly include different tempi. Yates supplies the metronome markings he
regards as most plausible for Matiegka’s indications.
However, Giulio
Tampalini’s recording of Op. 17 has a basically steady, unvarying tempo
throughout. For this reason I have included reference to Massimo Agostinelli’s
recording of Op. 17 which I encourage you to listen to. Agostinelli does not
observe the repeat signs in Matiegka’s score; Agostinelli’s tempo choices are
significantly different from Yates’ suggestions but we’ll get to that later.
I mention it now
because deciding what tempi the three themes in the first movement should have
is important for performing the opening sonata form. There are a series of Haydnesque jokes
running through this sonata that, I intend to argue, depend on observing the
contrasting tempi and character Matiegka indicates through the admittedly
schematic notes on his themes. I think Agostinelli’s interpretation brings
those jokes out more clearly than Tampalini’s does, though I like plenty of
things about both interpretations. For reference purposes I am, however,
sticking with Tampalini’s recording on Brilliant Classics, as I will throughout
my discussion of Matiegka’s sonatas.
Sonate
progressive, Op. 17: I. Cantabile
Giulio Tampalini’s performance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmTBiuTsaw
00:00 to 09:12
Matiegka specifies “cantabile”, “marcia” and “Allegro assai” for the three
themes that appear in his exposition. Stanley Yates recommends the following tempi:
Theme 1 q=100
Theme 2 q-104
Theme 3 q.=112
respectively.
Tampalini’s performance is a spritely
roughly q=136 throughout.
Guitarists,
particularly, who are unfamiliar with sonata forms will benefit from studying
this work, which could not more literally label each theme when it appears in
the score! I also like the piece as
music or I wouldn’t be writing so much about it but as a primer in sonata forms
in the guitar literature Op. 17 deserves some attention, which I’m naturally
going to give to it.
Exposition (first
pass): (00:00 to 02:50)
Theme 1 in G major (00:00
to 00:35)
Theme 1 is twenty measures long and is
divided into two ten-measure phrases that have subdivisions of two
three-measure phrases followed by two two-measure phrases. These two
ten-measure phrases create a perfectly conventional parallel period with phrase
1 ending on a half cadence and phrase two ending on an authentic cadence. The
first theme is labeled “cantabile”, which tells us it should be played with a
smooth, singing style. It would go without saying an Italian operatic style is required
if we know how regularly interpretative instructions in scores defaulted to
Italian in 18th and early 19thcentury scores. The way Giulio
Tampalini creates a smooth, singing style is to use portamento, hammer-ons and
pull-offs to glide from note to note where ever slurs appear in the score.
The initial lyric
idea can be described, using Robert Gjerdingen’s work on galant schemas, as a compound “sol-fa-mi” gesture. We hear
the melody start on D and it falls through C to B natural (thus the sol-fa-mi)
within the first two measures. At a large scale this gesture is reflected in
the first phrase of the theme. After the
staccatissimo chords we see the B natural rise of to C and this three-measure
phrase is given a sequential response in which the D-C-B Is answered by C-B-A.
across measures 1 through 6—this is the broader sol-fa-mi sequence.
Not unlike the
opening theme in Matiegka’s Op. 16 he uses three-measure phrases in sequence
that are answered by two-measure phrases. His sequence of gently descending
slurred thirds is eventually answered by a short two-measure “three blind mind”
gesture (B, A, G) that is sequenced up to D, C, B before a flourish of eighth
note dyads descends from a high tonic passage at the third fret of the first
string (with E below) to a preparation for a half-cadence at measure 10.
The second phrase
starts like the first but in a higher register and in sixths. It is, otherwise, in many respects a
conventional “answer” to the half-cadential call of Phrase 1.
The length of
this theme and its parallel period nature are going to be important to keep in
mind as we work through this sonata. In A Sonata Theory Handbook James Hepokoski points out that the
expositional presentation of themes sets up an expectation for how and where
and what the sequence of themes will be in the rest of the sonata movement. Any
deviations in the form of, for instance, Theme 1 either in the development or
the recapitulation will prove important in interpreting what a composer does
with the norms and possibilities of a sonata form. Here we’ve got a
twenty-measure Theme 1 in G major that has a lyric, operatic theme and a
parallel period.
Transition (00:36 to 01:00)
Matiegka’s transitions tend to be predictable guitarist-composer transitions.
He starts with a four-measure lyric idea but after the initial transitional
phrase he shifts to two or three four-measure energy-gain passages that use
sixteenth note perpetual motion arpeggios to destabilize the tonic key and
prepare the half cadence (what Hepokoski and Darcy have called “the medial
caesura”) that sets the stage for the arrival of Theme 2 in the new key.
The first four
measures of this transition have a lyric idea that is decorated by a sextuplet
passage scale run.
It may sound like
a mere flourish this early in the work but it establishes a pivot from duple
meter to triplets early in the transition for a reason, Theme 3 (when it
appears) will be in compound meter. A transition in a sonata exposition doesn’t
just set up a harmonic or melodic transition, it can also be used to set up
subtle (or not subtle!) rhythmic/metric foreshadowing, which is what I propose
Matiegka has done early in his first transition (which tells you there’s going
to be a second transition leading to a Theme 3).
The second and
third phrases in the first transition rely on sixteenth note arpeggios and a
jump bass pattern. Measures 25-27 have a bass line running through D, E minor
in first inversion, E minor becoming E major and predictably arriving at A
major. The third phrase begins with the arrival at A major—from there Matiegka
oscillates between A and D major or D minor before firmly landing on A at
measure 33.
Theme 2 in D
major (01:01 to 01:47)
Theme 2 is labeled “marcia” and arrives at measure 34. Yates lists the tempo as
quarter note gets 104 beats per minute for this theme, which is as boisterous
as Theme 1 was cantabile. Each phrase in this new theme in D major is four
measures long. If we map it out it would read as aa1ba2ba3.but
if we reduced it to eight-measure level phrasing this theme could be described
as an ABB’ structure. What is obvious at first hearing is that this contrasts
at every possible level with the lyric two-phrase “cantabile” theme. As L
Poundie Burstein put it in Journeys Through Galant Expositions in many sonatas the contrast between a first
and second theme is not necessarily a contrast between “characters” but a
contrast in musical punctuation or, if you will, sentence structure.
This drastic
contrast between Theme 1 and Theme 2 is going to be important to keep in mind
when we get to the recapitulation but here we can settle for a relatively
simple description of how the theme is structured. What is worth pointing out
is that Theme 2 does not have a firm cadential arrival because …
Transition 2 (01:49
to 02:20)
Literally the moment the perfect authentic cadence “should” be reached Matiegka
does two things. First, from the forte of the final phrase of Theme 2 he drops
to piano. Second, he kicks off the arrival point of a perfect authentic cadence
with sixteenth note arpeggiation, a second transition that adds rhythmic energy
but saps the volume out of the arrival point. A point Jason Yust makes in Organized Time: Rhythm, Tonality and Form is that melody,
harmony and rhythm can all occupy their own musical space-times and that
resolution in one dimension of musical time can be subverted by a continuation
in another. In this case the harmonic
and melodic resolutions are thwarted by an abrupt drop in dynamics and an
abrupt increase in rhythmic activity. It’s the kind of rug-pull moment that
suggests Matiegka absorbed a lot of influence from Joseph Haydn (we’ll get to just
how extravagantly Matiegka drew upon Haydn’s music when discussing his Grand
Sonata II and Op. 23).
During this
perpetual motion Transition 2 Matiegka introduces a C, B, C#, D gesture amidst
the sixteenth notes that is a schema Robert Gjerdingen has called the
Quiescenza (it is the subject of chapter 13 in Music in the Galant Style). Conventionally this gesture appears twice
and consolidates a cadence In a secondary or closing gesture. Here Matiegka
follows up the double Quiescenza with an Aprile (discussed in the chapter on
The Meyer in Gjerdingen).
Long ago one of
my music theory professors said “the beautiful thing about music theory is you
can disagree with me and we `could’ both still be right”. I mention that
because I’m about to propose something that is easily debatable—Gjerdingen has
pointed out that while the Quiescenza tends to end phrases and theme variations
of the Meyer tend to start them but what Matiegka has done is jam his double Quiescenza
and Aprile neither in any of his exposition theme beginnings or ends, instead
he’s shoved them ostentatiously into the middle of his second transition.
Gjerdingen has said that galant style music makes knowing use of schemas and
musical tropes and that the game of composing and listening in galant
aesthetics is where and how the tropes get used. Haydn was known to use
familiar musical tropes in “wrong” places and I think that is what Matiegka
tried to do in this second transition.
Matiegka’s Op. 17
is full of musical jokes that depend on some familiarity with a mixture of
galant and proto-Romantic gestures, most of which can’t possibly land if
listeners and performers aren’t conversant enough in the late 18th
century conventions he learned that would allow for composer, performers and
listeners to be in on the jokes. Using obvious ending and starting tropes in
the middle of a secondary transition is an example of a musical joke that will
mean nothing to us, but which could have been a joke his performer and audience
would have been able to share with him. At any rate, it seems a plausible
interpretation of Matiegka’s compositional decisions throughout Op. 17. And
what do these misplaced musical tropes lead to?
Theme 3 in D
major (02:21 to
02:50)
This new theme is
marked “Allegro assai” and is in 6/8. We get another dramatic contrast between
themes. The lilting compound meter of Theme 3 contrasts with the marching Theme
2 and still more with the languid Theme 1. The bouncy third theme opens with
call and response writing where the melody is taken up in thirds on the treble
strings and is answered by a single voice in the bass strings in paired
phrases. It’s as though we’re hearing a
soprano and mezzo-soprano issue a call to which a bass responds throughout this
theme. Matiegka was particularly fond of antiphonal effects in his solo guitar
music and this third exposition theme is a pretty good example. There are four
phrases that can be grouped as eight measures, ten measures, and nine measures
in length.
Phrase 1
(measures 75-82 in Yates) is eight measures that subdivide into two
four-measure call-and-response passages. If we “reduce” out the eighth notes
the melodic core is an F#-G-E gesture in thirds that is answered by the bass
rising up from 5 through to 1. After two cycles of this all the voices join for
a IV-I-V passage with a melodic descent of B, A, G, F#, E. The V-I harmonic
resolution withstanding, Robert Gjerdingen would likely point out that Theme 3
features a classic Prinner gesture (parallel motion evoking a IV-I movement and
in pop music in Anglo-American contexts probably the most famous Prinner is in
“Let it Be” by the Beatles and the next most famous Prinner would be at the end
of each turnaround in the verses for Aretha Franklin’s rendition of “Natural
Woman”).
Phrase 2 brings
back the antiphonal gesture followed by the prinner but delays the resolution
to the authentic cadence by a blink-and-you-missed-it deceptive resolution to B
minor at measure 91 that becomes a full subdominant harmony that
course-corrects to a V-I resolution by measure 92.
Phrase 3 is the
closing passage featuring a lot of I-V alternation above a D pedal point while
the melodic line evokes a set of plagal cadences (aka “Amen” cadences in the
melody despite the fact that harmonically Matiegka is giving us a parade of
authentic cadential turns).
Across this
exposition Matiegka has given us a 20-measure Theme 1, a 20-measure Theme 2,
and a 27-measure Theme 3. The
“punctuation” of the themes are parallel period, ABB, and AA’B respectively. The
homophonic Themes 1 and 2 contrast with each other significantly in character
and tempo, while Theme 2 and Theme 3 contrast by way of homophonic and
antiphonal textures.
The fact that
there are three drastically different themes here should be a warning against a
schematic “sonatas have two themes in contrasting keys” proverb you may have
read or heard in music theory courses. I know I got the “sonatas have two
themes” story. Having studied almost two dozen solo guitar sonatas from the
early 19th century I would say that three-themed expositions
are more normative than two-themed expositions. Guitar sonatas composed and published in
Vienna between 1808 and 1820 suggest that the guitarist composers in that time
and place had no interest in hewing to the kind of masculine/feminine thematic
contrast that would later be made famous by A. B. Marx. That is yet another reason I find it useful
to go through each of Matiegka’s guitar sonatas. He wrote more sonata forms
than several of his guitarist contemporaries put together and this lets us see
how varied and flexible approaches to sonata forms could be in a period before
the big-name 19th century theorists had codified “sonata form” in
contrast to what was, in the 18th century, often still identified as
“grand binary form”. So we’ve established, easily, that this sonata exposition
has three themes. The composer left us no room to doubt.
What we can
doubt, though, is how well these three themes hold together. Maybe we’re
supposed to get contrasting themes in a sonata exposition but it can seem as
though Matiegka has overdone thematic contrast. Certainly it would sound
to later 19th century theorists that Matiegka got the placement of
this themes wrong. The bromide was to start with the masculine assertive theme
and follow it up with a gentler feminine theme. Yet Matiegka’s first theme is
gentle and lyric and 19th century pedagogues might also say there’s
another problem, that Theme 2 and 3 seem to not cohere with the ideals of
organicism that would dominate 19th century formal analytical norms
that were yet to come. I’ve been slowly (too slowly?) making a case that these
moments of thematic/transitional whiplash form the core of Matiegka’s “topic”
for this sonata. He knows these themes don’t actually “fit” and he’s going to
set them against each other.
Exposition (second pass) (02:51 to
05:42)
This is reinforced by playing through the entire exposition as Matiegka
requires. It is in the mandatory repeat that the whiplash effect should be most
apparent.
James Hepokoski
has written that the exposition tells us what themes appear in what order and
that this creates an expectation of what will come. Development sections tend
to revisit themes in order of appearance but with this sonata, with this
exposition, the contrast between themes seems too severe to sustain across an
entire development, however long or short it may be. Is Matiegka really going
to attempt to develop each of these three themes? Can he do it? Will he bother?
If he decides to develop two themes which will he choose? What about the
drastic contrast between tempi in his themes? How will he navigate that? We
know enough about sonata expositions and recapitulations to know all three
themes are going to come back somehow but there’s some mystery as to what’s
going to happen in the development.
Development (05:42 to 07:11)
It’s conventional
for a development to start off with a return of Theme 1. Hepokoski and Darcy would call this a “first
order default” in Elements of Sonata Theory. And Matiegka goes with convention. The
“cantabile” theme appears in D major at measure 102 and proceeds on a fairly
normal path up to measure 115. At measure 116 (06:08), however, Theme 1 shows
up in a new form, in G minor, and this minor subdominant mood prevails through
pretty much the rest of the development; Matiegka fairly swiftly abandons the
idea of developing any ideas from anywhere in his exposition at measure 122
(06:20). James Hepokoski would say, perhaps,
that this development is not even “half rotational” (which is to say half of
the rotation connects in some way to the exposition order of themes 1 through
3); this would be a non-rotational development since after Theme 1 gets a
pittance of development everything from the exposition is basically abandoned
in favor of new material from measures 122 to the end of the development at
measure 150.
Now, while I like
this sonata I have a small complaint to make about it. If Matiegka wanted the
rug-pull moment of a minor-key development to hit his audience more forcefully,
he could have launched the development in D minor and, furthermore, if he
wanted to commit to developing the “cantabile” Theme 1 in minor he could have
easily done something like the following:
As you can see,
his Theme 1 inverts beautifully and easily allows for contrapuntal development.
I’ve presented an alternate ten-measure passage to show what he could have done
with his Theme 1 in D minor at the start of his development before he shifted
to the G minor form of the “cantabile” material. Since I’m including an
annotated score of Matiegka’s published work you can compare and contrast what
he did to what I’ve proposed. Now with that small complaint and musical
suggestion out of the way, I’ll get back to the start of the development
Matiegka actually wrote.
What Hepokoski
advised about the expositional rotation is important here, Matiegka set up an
expectation in a repeating exposition that Themes 1, 2 and 3 would appear in
their order. We get a development that has started with Theme 1 but we’ll see
he abandoned Themes 2 and 3 and devoted the second half of the developing to
entirely new material. From measure 133 (06:40) Matiegka develops ideas that
evoke the 6/8 of Theme 3 but all the ideas are new and have nothing to do with
the exposition. What’s going to happen in the recapitulation?
Recapitulation (07:12 to 09:12)
Theme 1 in G major (07:12 to
07:27)
We find out at measure 151. Matiegka brings back Theme 1 and instead of
bringing back the staccatissimo four-chord gesture he introduces a half-note E
major that disrupts the rhythmic flow of the first phrase in Theme 1. Theme 1 has come back as we’d expect it to in
a recapitulation but something is a bit harmonically and melodically “off”.
Matiegka will complete Theme 1, won’t he? Maybe not. We should remember that in
his Op. 16 Sonate facile Matiegka had no problem slicing Theme 1 in half
in the recapitulation of his first movement; dropping his transition, and
jumping straight to Theme 2. He does the
same thing here, only this time he’s shown us that his Themes 1 and 2 are not
even in the same tempo. Just as Theme 1 seems ready to at least finish its
first phrase at measures 159 and 160
Now before I move
on to Theme 2 I have to mention something Stanley Yates points in his Matiegka
edition (page 14) and which is in Matiegka’s original edition, the G on the
sixth string at measure 151 is to be played by the thumb of the left hand and
no barre technique is asked for. Yates has pointed out that early 19th
century guitarists often preferred to take single notes on the sixth string
with the left hand thumb. It’s not unheard of to use the thumb to even take a
fretted note on the fifth string. So if your guitar teachers have ever told you
to “never” use the left hand thumb to get certain pesky notes you now know that
Matiegka actually tells you to use your left hand thumb at measure 151 of Op.
17. It’s physically impossible to play the first two beats of measure 151 as
written if you try to use a barre chord here. Anyway, now Theme 2 is going to
burst in with a new topic.
Theme 2 in G
major (07:28 to 08:09)
Theme 2 bursts in where Theme 1 was about to reach an authentic cadence.
Tampalini’s consistency of tempo means this moment doesn’t come across as
weirdly as it should if he had observed the tempo distinctions in the score the
way Agostinelli did. This is a moment where you’ll want to hear Massimo
Agostinelli’s interpretation to appreciate how differently they interpret this
work and how abrupt and weird Theme 2’s return before Theme 1 can finish
actually sounds.
Depending on how
you hear and read the score here we can play with the idea that Theme 2, having
been cast aside in the development, gets its revenge on Theme 1 in the
recapitulation by showing up before Theme 1 can even reach its half-way point.
Reinforcing the plausibility of this interpretation is that “Marcia” as a tempo
or character indication never appears in the development but does appear with
Theme 2 in the exposition and recapitulation.
Transition 2 (08:10 to 08:39)
Theme 3 in G major (08:40 to
09:09)
Transition 2 and Theme 3 come back more or less as we’d expect them to and it
is at this point that we can recall that Theme 3 got a proverbial “nod” in the
development with the tuplet passages from measures 133 to 147. It wasn’t as
left out and so doesn’t have any grudge, and gets to run its course as we’d
expect it to in a sonata movement.
Matiegka has
given us an opening sonata form in which his Theme 1 is long but subjected to
increasingly drastic cuts as the movement proceeds. This kind of “deformation”
(as Hepokoski would call it) signals that this abrupt, comic excision is a
motif that runs throughout the rest of the sonata.
I’ve mentioned
this earlier, but where Giulio Tampalini takes movement 1 of Op. 17 at a steady
tempo from start to finish (quarter note getting 130 beats per minute), Massimo
Agostinelli’s performance, by contrast, treats the “cantabile”, “marcia” and
“allegro assai” materials as having actually different tempi. Agostinelli’s
“cantabile” gives the quarter note 100 beats per minute; the “marcia” 138 beats
per minute; and the “allegro assai” gets a dotted quarter with 120 beats per
minute.
To hear how Theme
2 cuts off Theme 1 listen to Agostinelli from 05:33 to 06:40 in his
interpretation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J88QG5uzVsU
00:00 to 7:52
Exposition (00:00 to 03:15)
Theme 1 (00:00 to 00:55)
Transition (00:53 to 01:28)
Theme 2 (01:29 to 02:13)
Transition 2 (02:14 to 02:45)
Theme 3 (02:46 to 03:15)
Development (03:16 to 05:32)
Recapitulation (05:33 to 07:52)
Theme 1 (05:33 to 05:58)
Theme 2 (05:59 to 06:40)
Transition 2 (06:41 to 07:11)
Theme 3 (07:12
to 07:52)
I like how
Agostinelli highlights the contrast between the tempi of the three themes and,
crucially, reflects these contrasting tempi in each subsequent transition. He
also applies these contrasts in the development and recapitulation, which means
the development begins with the slower “cantabile” tempi, which pervades the
entire development and highlights the character contrasts between and across
themes throughout the entire sonata form. In terms of who was most attentive to
Matiegka’s tempo/character instructions in the score and making those come
across in performance I prefer Agostinelli’s interpretation. What I regard as Matiegka’s musical humor
comes across more vividly in his version.
On the other
hand, I also wish he’d repeated the exposition as indicated in the score but
his performance is well worth your time if you want to hear a performance of
Matiegka’s Op. 17 and the freedom guitarists can take in interpreting the
contrasting tempi between the themes of the exposition for this first movement.
I realize there
are advocates of classical music out there who will still insist that the great
works in classical music are “timeless” and “universal” but I’ve written
extensively about Wenzel Thomas Matiegka’s solo guitar sonatas and have made a
case for how the first movement of Op. 17 should be understood as having a
series of musical jokes in the score. If
you’ve stuck with me this far you shouldn’t be surprised when I say that there
is nothing like musical joking to show how no music can plausibly be construed
as “timeless” or “universal”. If I hadn’t spent decades listening to and
studying the music of Haydn or spent the last ten years reading up on
contemporary theories of formal analysis of 18th century music
(witness the name-checking of books published by Oxford University Press), I
couldn’t have even begun to suggest that Matiegka’s Op. 17, I has any
musical jokes in it, let alone more than one musical stunt.
If you have no
expectations then those expectations cannot be subverted. On the other hand, if
you have been in some way misinformed as to what you should expect then when a
musical work fails to do what you’ve been told to expect you can decide the
music “failed”. It is to the credit of recent theorists like Hepokoski and
Darcy and others to point out that we’re past the point where we should only
appraise music in terms of the normative expectations of 19th
century theorists in the thrall of Beethoven.
Matiegka, I propose, has made a number of musical jokes throughout his
opening sonata movement in Op. 17 and if the jokes don’t “land” for us it’s
because we don’t know enough about the conventions of his era to understand
that there was even the possibility for musical joking.
What music
education can do is retrieve, where possible, the conventions and understanding
of conventions that let us in on musical jokes from an earlier era of music.
Music scholarship can retrieve the possibility of getting the jokes. We might
still not find those jokes funny but that can be a whole new realm of
conversation and study. If the jokes of comedians from half a century ago don’t
strike everyone as funny it’s hardly a surprise if what Matiegka may have
considered a good musical joke in 1808 in his Op. 17 Sonate progressive just
seems like “classical guitar” music to people in, say, 2023.
Even if none of
the would-be jokes land, this opening sonata movement has run its course and
given us ideas of what might come in the next movements. Disruption and
omission is the pattern we see in this first movement, which should make us
alert to the likelihood that themes will get presented later on in this sonata
that will be dramatically curtailed or omitted altogether.
Having told you
as much as I have about the sonata I should show you the score, too.
Now let’s look at
the second movement.
Sonate
progressive, Op. 17: II. Andante
Yates prescribes a tempo of the
quarter note getting fifty beats per minute. Conventionally “Andante” on many a
metronome would be in the range of 76 to 108 beats per minute. Tampalini takes
the faster standard while Agostinelli’s interpretation is significantly closer
to Yates’ prescribed tempo. You’ll hear this in the way Tampalini gets through
Theme 1 in slightly more than half a minute while Agostinelli plays the same
theme in slightly less than one minute.
Giulio
Tampalini’s performance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l9zF_i5KC8
00:00 to 04:31
Exposition (first pass) (00:00
to 01:01)
Theme 1 in G major (00:00 to 0:31)
Yates describes this slow movement as being “Mozart-like” (Yates, page
150). Matiegka presents us with a sixteen-measure theme in a parallel period.
With a gently falling and rising walk-through-the-scale pattern that gives us a
typical (but pleasing) half cadence/authentic cadence period. Matiegka was a
guitarist but also a pianist and singer and here, I propose, he evokes on the
guitar the mood of a singer accompanied by an instrument. What’s striking about
this theme, from a guitarist composer, is how smoothly he shifts back and forth
from chordal to single line and line-with-accompaniment textures. To change
metaphors, it’s as though Theme 1 has a chorale element to it that is
interrupted at key cadential moments by a solo voice. The second half of the
parallel period introduces sixteenth note triplet arpeggios to decorate the
core ideas from the first phrase. For
this movement I think Tampalini took things much too fast and Agostinelli’s
interpretation is preferable but I do like the way Tampalini deploys portamento
and glissando for expressive effect in this movement, particularly with the
opening theme.
Theme 2 in D
major (00:32 to 01:01)
This
sixteen-measure theme is similarly gentle and lyric as Theme 1 is. The rhythmic
profile of the initial three-measure phrase so closely resembles the first two
measures of the first transition from the opening sonata form I doubt it was
accidental, even if it may not have been a conscious decision.
I think it was
William Caplin who pointed out that in slow movements it was common for Haydn
to fuse the end of a theme with a transition into another theme and for Mozart
to abandon transitions altogether. In any event, Matiegka has no transition at
all between his Theme 1 in G major and Theme 2 in D major. The mood is still
lyric and gentle. Yet the phrases are grouped in three, four, three, two, two
and two measure bursts (or, going more broadly—three, seven and six measure
phrases if we bracket two-measure gestures as too short to count as phrases).
Just because
we’ve been given a second sixteen-measure theme doesn’t mean the phrases are
square and divisible by 2. In fact, as Hepokoski and Darcy have pointed out in Elements
of Sonata Theory, the secondary (“S”) theme in a sonata form is usually
more loosely organized than a first/primary theme. Matiegka absolutely composes
to the convention here. Especially in a slow movement a never-ending parade of
four-measure square phrases would become boring quickly. Even for a composer
generally regarded as conventional as Matiegka has been by musicologists and
guitarists, it’s worth pointing out this obvious observation, he may have
played it safe in a lot of ways but he knew to vary phrase lengths even when he
was giving his players and audience what is, on paper, a simple sixteen-measure
second theme.
While Yates
designates measures to 32 as “Coda” (00:51 to 1:01), and Hepokoski “might”
designate it as “C” material for the coda/closing zone of the exposition, I
hear those measures as so inextricably bound to Theme 2 that I group them all
together.
I understand the
temptation and appeal of deciding that anywhere Matiegka goes with sixteenth
note passages in fast movements or thirty-second note passages in slow
movements that we’re looking at transitional or coda material. It is typical of
Matiegka throughout his output but in this specific case I think it’s too clear
that the six-measure coda is best thought of as the concluding phrase of
another sixteen-measure theme. I base this not just on what I hear as the most
natural way to hear the phrases.
In this second,
slow sonata we get more evidence in favor of L Poundie Burstein’s axiom that
thematic contrast in galant style comes from contrasting musical “punctuation”.
Here the contrast is too obvious to ignore.
Matiegka has given us a Theme 2 with three phrases that are three, seven
and six measures long and the closing third phrase introduces thirty-second
note flourishes cementing D major as the new key. The contrast in phrase lengths becomes more
rather than less important in this slow sonata form where there are no
transitions.
While this work
was published in 1807 I think it makes more sense to examine Matiegka’s music
in light of galant conventions since the landmark 19th century
textbooks defining “sonata form” as distinct from what earlier theorists called
“grand binary form” had yet to be written. Few things signal a debt to the
norms of the galant era rather than the Romantic era that telling the guitar to
play the entire exposition a second time from the top as Matiegka does here.
That gets me, naturally, to
Exposition
(second pass) (01:02
to 2:03)
Tampalini took
this movement way too fast, but I love that he repeated the entire exposition
as the score indicates you should. We’re set up with a clear expectation that
we have two themes and can look forward to how they will get developed or “if”
they will get developed since in slow movements we could be dealing with what
Hepokoski has called a “Type 1” sonata that has an exposition and a
recapitulation but little or no development. Whether or not that’s the case we
know from the first movement Matiegka gave us two whole themes and two
transitions and abandoned all that material in his development. We might get a
development here that doesn’t even use material from the exposition of this
movement.
Development/Recapitulation
(first pass) (02:04 to 03:15)
Development (02:04
to 02:29)
What is a bit
jarring about this development is Matiegka starts us off with an E dominant
seventh chord, the V of A minor, to which he naturally goes (A minor, that is).
Okay, but starting with the dominant of A minor has nothing to do with the keys
we’ve been in so far. That, in itself, is not entirely strange. After all,
Matiegka used an E to A minor flourish at the start of his development in Op.
16 which was also published in 1807 like Op. 17.
What makes the
rhythmic gesture weird is it has nothing to do with Theme 1 or Theme 2. What it
clearly is a call-back to is the rhythmic pattern of the final measure
of Theme 1 from the opening sonata form. Is that “cantabile” theme from the
opening sonata form going to prevent Theme 1 and 2 from this sonata ever
getting a word in? Over the twelve measures of three four-measure phrases that
comprise the development of this sonata the answer is, well, yes. Neither of
the themes in this slow sonata show up in any way in the development, or what
passes for one.
Recapitulation (02:30 to 03:15)
Theme 1 (02:30 to 02:43)
Theme 2 (in G major) (02:44 to 03:02)
Coda (03:03 to 03:15)
Theme 1 comes
back with substantial ornamentation. What were eighth note and quarter note
values in the exposition are transformed into rippling arpeggios outlining the
melody in triplet sixteenth notes. Theme 1 traverses the eight measures of its
first phrase and ends on a half cadence that evokes the authentic cadence
gesture from the exposition but that’s it. Theme 1 leads by that half cadence
directly in to Theme 2, which now appears in the tonic key.
Like the first
sonata form before it, this slow sonata movement has given us a Theme 1 that is
only runs half its course before Theme 2 appears. In this case Theme 1 isn’t
cut short but flows elegantly into Theme 2. Whatever development these themes
receive is in the decorations they get in the recapitulation, not in the short
twelve-measure development section that took as back to a rhythmic gesture from
the preceding movement. In the norms of the 19th century this would
have been the place the slow movement ended but Matiegka is considered a bit of
a throwback. So he does something that would have been normal in 18th
century practice but was increasingly abnormal in the 19th century.
He calls for a complete repeat of the development and recapitulation.
Development/Recapitulation
(second pass) 03:16 to 04:27)
I think the work is more balanced when both repeats are observed as scored.
That said, Massimo Agostinelli sold me on the idea that you can perform this
slow movement with none of the observed repeats and preserve the proportional
relationships of the two halves.
Massimo Agostinelli’s performance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOy_RWcDZKc
00:00 to 03:53
Exposition (00:00 to 01:49)
Theme 1 (00:00 to 00:58)
Theme 2 (00:59 to 01:49)
Development (01:50 to 02:27)
Recapitulation (02:28 to 03:57)
Theme 1 (02:28 to 02:53)
Theme 2 (02:54 to 03:53)
Besides having pretty themes, the advantage of playing both the exposition and
development/recapitulation twice is to give the performer and audience a
mono-tempo space to reset after the abrupt tempo and character changes of the
first movement. There were a couple of moments pulling the rug out from under
the listener in the opening sonata and the slow movement is intended to give us
a steady, stable and beautiful middle movement. As was the case with many a
Haydn piano sonata, Matiegka has all three of his movements in a single
tonality.
While this sonata has a development and “could” be read as a Type 3 (“textbook”) according to Elements of Sonata Theory the lack of transitions and the fact that the brief development is 12 measures long suggests to me this is more plausibly read as a Type 1 or an expanded Type 1. Hepokoski and Darcy have described Type 1 as a sonata that has an exposition and a recapitulation but little or no development.
When we get to the third and final movement we’re going to
discover, by the end of this piece, that this slow central movement is an oasis
of balanced form where everything is in its place and no really weird things
happen and no comic omissions occur. I’ve kept coming back to that so you’ve
had plenty of time to guess that Matiegka’s finale for Op. 17 is going to have
a very big omission. It does and it’s signaled in the title.
Sonate
progressive, Op. 17: III. Rondò moderato
A rondo is a form in which a refrain
is juxtaposed with a variety of episodes and can be anywhere between five to
nine parts. The number is generally an odd number because however many episodes
you have the refrain comes back in the end.
A five-part rondo is usually ABACA (thought it can be ABABA). A
seven-part rondo is conventionally ABACABA.
These tend to be the most common rondos. We’ll see what kind of rondo
Matiegka gives us in this finale.
Giulio
Tampalini’s performance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUA_xUxxQZ8
00:00 to 04:56
A (Refrain, G
major)
Refrain part 1 (00:00
to 00:12 and 00:13 to 00:22)
Refrain part 2 (00:23 to 00:35 and 00:36 to 00:44)
This refrain is a
plucky sixteen-measure theme that has two repeating eight-measure phrases. They can be mapped out as a compound binary
form ab ab a’b a’b with all the repeat signs observed. The melody is simple and
folksy but the harmonies are not. Take
measures 3 and 4. We see eighth note block chords that move through G major to
E minor in 1st inversion to D major in 1st inversion to
C# diminished in 1st inversion (or A7 with the root omitted) leading
to an A major chord in measure four that resolves to D (major, but this is
implied as there is no third in the chord). Measure 5 has a melody in C above a
diminished chord on the leading tone and is followed in the second half of the
measure by a rolled F sharp half-diminished seventh chord (F#, A, C, E). You can hear this as either a leading tone
chord or, if in your listening you remember the D then this could be perceived
as a leading tone chord or as a D7+9 by the second half of measure 5 in which
the D is tacit in sound but persisting in memory.
Stanley Yates has
described this refrain as having “folk-like” material (Yates, page 150). I
agree but I add that the harmonies are not even remotely folksy. A “folksy”
harmony at measure 5 would most likely be a C major chord even though that
would be a hugely regressive harmony after the half-cadence at the end of
measure 4. What is a routine and fairly predictable harmonic move in North
American popular song for this melody is inconceivable for Matiegka in 1807 but
it’s worth highlighting how different eras give musicians different conceptual
options of what they “could” or “should” do with the harmony supporting a
melodic line. So this far we have our first eight-measure half of the Refrain.
The second half of
the refrain presents the initial four-measure phrase at the dominant instead of
the tonic and it is answered by a reprise of the materials from measures 5-8
with the modification of every so slightly expanded V harmonies and a rolled
chord at measure 15. Like the first half of the refrain this second half is
repeated. This is the first and only time the Refrain will be presented across
this finale.
Transition (00:45 to 01:02)
The first transition spans measures 17 to 32. The cadential arrival of the second half of the refrain on its second pass is simultaneously the start of the transition at measure 17. What you can see in the score is that all the phrases so far have been variations and derivations of tetrachords. G, A, B and C are the core tetrachord. B, C#, D and E in measure 3 are a derived tetrachord that include secondary dominant harmony but in terms of melodic cells we’re dealing with a refrain in which Matiegka wants to keep all his melodic lines close, tight and simple. The melodic sequencing at the end of Theme 1 gives us C, E, D, C, B and then B, D, C, B, A and this shows that even when a flowing melodic sequence occurs it’s still bound by cycling through tetrachords along the way. I mention all that because the transition opens with a chorale and the notes in the tune are G, B, C, C, B, A. Within the range of the Refrain and first transition Matiegka could positively be said to love the simple ideas he’s working with and a negative “positive” explanation is that he’s trying to get as much musical material as possible out of the simplest idea that he can before he gets to a new idea.
This transition has
a lot of melodic sequence, rhythmic drive and harmonic flexibility. Although I
like Matiegka’s solo guitar music overall many of his transitions tend to be
routine and uninspired, even hackneyed.
This opening transition from the Refrain to his first episode is one of
Matiegka’s most inspired and charming transitions across his entire output and
I want to highlight that before I get to the first episode. Transitional
passages from 19th century guitarist composers tend to be the least interesting
and inspired parts of their movements in general and sonata forms in particular
so when I find a transition I think is effective and inspired in this
literature I want to make sure I make my opinion known. You’re free to
disagree, of course.
B (Episode 1, D
major) (01:03 to 01:42)
The first episode
is in D major and spans measures 32 to 65. This quiet and gentle theme itself
can be said to range from measure 32 to 45 because everything from measures 46 to
65 functions as a retransition back into the refrain.
The Episode is
fourteen measures long and is a parallel period with two phrases that are eight
and six measures in length. This may
ruin the ability of North American readers to hear the theme for what it is but
Matiegka’s first episode reminds me a bit of “Frosty the Snowman” in measures
32 and 33. This simple two-phrase
parallel period couldn’t contrast more with the compound binary refrain at this
point. The refrain and episode have
parallel periods but the refrain is a compound theme while the episode is
simple. The other obvious contrast is that the two phrases in the episode are
eight and six measures in length. The end of the episode comes too soon for a
fully balanced sixteen-measure episode. The parallelism of themes has been kept
but the episode ends “too soon” and a retransition explodes on to the scene
before the second phrase of the episode would seem to have been able to run its
course with a full eight measures to make the period fully parallel in length
and not just melodic/harmonic function.
To keep coming
back to L Poundie Burstein’s axiom about contrasting punctuation, 18th
century composers put stock in contrasting phrase lengths, relationships and
points of arrival than they did in the later early-19th-century
contrast between “masculine” and “feminine” themes. We have never seen Matiegka
string one theme after another having the same bundle of four-measure phrases
and no theme has shared a structure with its neighbors. I know earlier
generations of music theorists have posited that in sonata forms tonal contrast
is the decisive factor but in the last thirty years theorists have moved away from
this view as being too schematic and not adequately explaining what we can find
in the actual music of the 18th and early 19th centuries.
From measure 46 through
to measure 65 Matiegka bustles away in sixteenth note passage work. Matiegka
gives as a tonic and dominant alternation in D major with busy harmonies that
will drop out at measure 60 (01:35). From measures 60 to 65 Matiegka has what
in rock guitar would probably be called a “circling ever circling” riff that
allows the tonicized D major of the episode to give way to a melodic line based
on the cell D,C#, E, C#, D. Without any
supporting harmony Matiegka can vamp away at this line and C# stops being the
leading tone of D major and becomes a secondary leading tone to the dominant
scale degree of G major that allows him to slide down a G major scale on his
way to the return of the Refrain.
A (Refrain, part
1 only) (01:42 to 01:52)
The refrain is
back at measure 66 and proceeds eight measures to measure 73. No parts repeat
and only the first half of the refrain returns. Synecdochical reprise, where a
mere fragment of the theme stands in for the whole, is something we’ve seen
Matiegka do quite a lot in just Op. 16 and Op. 17 in sonata movements and it’s
not a real surprise to see him do it with the return of the refrain in this
rondo. But even if we know that he has cut his refrain severely short we will
still want to know why he’s don this.
What’s coming next for which he’s willing to play just eight measures of
his refrain as a stand-in for what elapsed 32 measures of performance time in
the opening of the rondo?
C (Episode 2, E minor)
(01:53 to 03:37)
It turns out the
answer is his second episode, in E minor, which runs from measures 74 to 143.
This episode dwarves every other part of the rondo. Stanley Yates correctly
points out everything in this episode is a minor-key derivation of ideas from
the refrain. We differ on the matter of
whether this should be viewed as a development in a sonata form (he does) or as
simply an episode in a rondo that is so biggie-sized it does develop refrain
ideas but not in a sonata-consistent way (which is, of course, my position). I’m
going to come back to that difference of opinion later but for now I want to
describe what this big episode does.
Episode 2 opens
with an eleven-measure repeating compound phrase that is made up of two
two-measure phrases and a four-measure phrase, each answered by a
single-measure riposte in natural harmonics. The first two subsidiary phrases develop
E minor versions of the refrain’s core idea in the treble strings on e minor and
B respectively and the third subsidiary phrase presents a contrast phrase in
the lower register that builds up to a half cadence (02:05 and 02:22 for passes
1 and 2).
Now the entire
stretch from measures 85 to 97 can be heard as an extended half cadence
extending the melodic line of the lower register that rounded off the first
phrase of this episode (the half cadence is reached at measure 97 (02:38)).
Measures 98 (02:40) to 107 bring back a version of the initial idea of Episode
2 and bring it to a firm close (02:51). This is followed, from measures 108 to 138
by a varied repeat of the preceding material. If these musical ideas were in
triple meter instead of duple meter all of this could be heard as a big E minor
menuet and it is essentially structured like one. We can observe the aa ba’ba” pattern if we
look at the score. Here again we see
Burstein’s axiom demonstrated that each theme that appears is differentiated by
the punctuation used to delineate the phrases and larger formal units of a
theme.
This central
episode is the largest and most complex section of the rondo. The fact that it so readily maps out in a
single key and as a 2/4 variant of the form of a menuet is why I don’t think it
can be read as any kind of development section of the sort we’d see In a sonata
form. I have never seen a sonata
movement have a development that can be so fastidiously identified as a
self-contained menuet.
While the refrain
is folksy and jovial this E minor episode is bristling with uneven phrase
lengths and where simple phrases do appear they are regularly punctuated by
single-measure commentaries in natural harmonics. There’s an impudent mood to
this episode, accentuated by the appearance of F natural at measure 130 near
the end of the episode.
At measure 138
(03:30) Matiegka hits us with a G dominant seventh chord. The F natural clashes
with all the F sharp we’d been hearing in the E minor episode but it has been
partly anticipated by the phrygian turn at measure 130 in the second
episode. This prepares for a short
retransition back to the refrain that takes place from measures 138 to 143
(ending at 03:37). This retransition is
brief and more of the usual Matiegka kind, maybe even more perfunctory than
usual. In this work, though, I think the perfunctory has a point to it.
A (Refrain) (03:38 to 03:47)
Now at measure
144 (03:38) the refrain tune triumphantly returns with sixteenth note pulsating
Alberti bass style accompaniment. Once
again only the first half of the opening refrain comes back and it is not
repeated. But now that the refrain has come back it does lead, like it did in
its original appearance, seamlessly into other material we’ve heard before.
Transition (03:48 to 04:03)
The first
transition material comes back at measure 151 (03:48). Whereas when it first
appeared it modulated to D major now we wonder whether it will keep us in G
major since it would seem incompatible with 18th century or even
early 19th century conventions to end in a non-tonic key after all
this time. In this respect Matiegka does not break from convention. This
returning transition stays in G major and reaches a firm half cadence that
allows for whatever comes next to show up in the tonic key at measure164 (04:02).
B (Episode 1, G
major) (04:04 to 04:49)
Episode 2
returns! In G major. It’s on the basis of the non-modulating
return of Transition 1 and the fact that Episode 1 returns in the tonic that
persuaded Stanley Yates to describe this finale as a sonata rondo. I think the
return of the B material is effective and charming but the simple fact is that
Matiegka called this a rondo and yet by the end of this movement the refrain
doesn’t come back. So is this finale a sonata rondo or is it a rondo and if
it is a rondo why did Matiegka abandon the refrain and end with the reprise of
his B material?
First of all, I’m
going to expand my existing argument that this finale is not a sonata of any
kind. I’ve already pointed out how the central episode of the rondo has the
structure of a menuet and that such tight, obviously formulaic structuring
doesn’t appear in development sections of sonatas. Yates’ observation that the
refrain and second episode coming back in G major resembles a sonata
recapitulation is a very good one, yet I believe there is an argument to be
made against interpreting it as functioning as any kind of sonata
recapitulation.
Yoel Greenberg, in his book How Sonata Forms, proposed that sonata forms have three ingredients: 1) a medial caesura (a repeating (or repeatable) exposition); 2) a double return (conventionally known as a recapitulation of the opening theme in the tonic key; and 3) an end rhyme (Theme 2 and/or 3 come back in the tonic key that opened the sonata form. Greenberg points out that a sonata does not have to have all three of these to qualify as a sonata form but two or more versions of these ingredients are enough for a “bottom-up” way of categorizing a musical movement as a sonata. If we don’t have a repeating exposition but we have a “double return” and an “end rhyme” we have a sonata form. On the other hand, some sonatas don’t have that double return but have the “end rhyme” where secondary themes return in the tonic key while Theme 1 never comes back. Hepokoski and Darcy have called this kind of sonata Type 2 and it’s surprisingly common in early 19th century guitar sonatas.
Yoel
Greenberg’s three ingredients for what makes up a sonata can be used to look at
whether or not we see these ingredients in this finale. Crucial to Greenberg’s
thesis in How Sonata Forms in analytic application is his observation
that the presence of any one of the three ingredients in itself is not
sufficient evidence to say we’re dealing with a sonata form. We need at least
two of the three ingredients or some form of all three ingredients before we
can confidently identify a movement as being some kind of sonata form. So how does Matiegka’s finale stack up in
light of these three criteria Greenberg has given us?
We don’t have the
repeating exposition in this finale that we’ve seen in his two earlier sonata
forms in Op. 17. So we cross out one of the three ingredients in Yoel Greenberg’s
list as not being present. While there is a refrain and a secondary theme in
the dominant key the lack of the “medial caesura” gives us reason to doubt this
is a sonata. In the previous two movements when there was an exposition
Matiegka was insistent that the expositions be repeated in full. The fact that he did not do that here argues
that the “medial caesura” ingredient Yoel Greenberg says we can find in a
sonata is missing.
Even stronger
evidence against the “medial caesura” is the fact that the first episode in D
major leads back to the refrain in G major seriously mitigates the likelihood
that this is a sonata. In his two sonata forms Matiegka began his developments
in the key of his secondary themes. He didn’t return to the tonic key after a
retransition.
What this means
is that if there “is” a “double return” of the kind that appears in a sonata
rondo it would be at 66! In a finale
that is 204 measures long that double return comes before what Yates identifies
as the development material (what I call Episode, a.k.a C). Just because the
return of the Refrain at measure 144 is in about the place we’d expect a
conventional double return to happen in a sonata form doesn’t mean it functions
as the recapitulation of a sonata form in this case. By contrast, if we abandon the idea that
there is a double return and look at this as the rondo Matiegka told us it is,
everything makes sense. It’s perfectly normal in a rondo for the refrain to
come back every time in the key in which it originally appeared.
The case that
this finale is a sonata rondo depends, I think, entirely on the observation
that the AB block that closes the movement displays what Yoel Greenberg has described
as “end rhyme”. The case that this is a sonata rondo depends more on the “end
rhyme” of the first and second themes both ending the finale in the same
key. The finale ends with Episode 1 in
the tonic key and that amounts to the strongest case that this is a sonata
rondo. I don’t think that case is
particularly strong. There’s no
repeating exposition, the double return is attained too early in the form to
work as a sonata and is too easily explained by the refrain doing what we
expect it to do in a rondo, which is what Matiegka has told us this finale is.
The only thing that “might’ be mysterious is why Matiegka abandoned the refrain
after reprising Episode 1 in the tonic key.
That is, finally,
the big question about this finale. This
rondo is a rondo and not a sonata. I’ve made a case for why it isn’t a sonata
rondo but I am sympathetic to Yates’ observation that the end of this rondo
sure acts like a sonata recapitulation would. As I hear it, however, Matiegka
set up an expectation that this finale is going to be a jovial and grand seven
part rondo (ABACABA). Then when he’s finished the penultimate episode it’s …
just over. The finale and the sonata as
a whole are done just like that. Matiegka never developing Themes 2 and 3 in
his initial sonata movement turned out to be a clue, as did Theme 2 bursting in
on Theme 1 before it could finish in the recapitulation of the opening sonata
form. We know from his Op. 16 that his finale had a refrain that was clipped
more and more the closer he got to his final measure. Here in Op. 17 we see that he takes things a
step further and just abandons the refrain at precisely the point where he led
us to believe he’d finish his rondo.
It may not seem
funny to us in 2023 but I propose Matiegka decided on a failed rondo as his
finale to make a musical joke, and that his strategic refusal to develop themes
within the conventions of sonata forms in the first two movements gave us clues
that something about the finale was going to misfire. He chose to leave his Theme 2 and 3
undeveloped in his opening sonata. He brought back ideas in his slow movement
without developing either of his two themes in the slow central movement. All
along the way he chose to present themes and not develop them. In the finale he
develops ideas from the refrain at comic length in the central second episode
of the rondo and then “forgets” to bring the refrain back at the end of his
finale and has his refrain and episode presented as if they were recapitulation
materials in a sonata form … only he told us it’s a rondo.
Stanley Yates’
Matiegka edition is great, by the way. Just because I differ with him on
technical and formal issues in analyzing Matiegka’s approach to musical form
doesn’t mean his edition isn’t a goldmine for study. If you haven’t picked it
up and you want to study Matiegka’s music in more detail I enthusiastically
recommend it.
It’s in this
finale that Giulio Tampalin and Massimo Agostinelli’s interpretations overlap
most.
Massimo
Agostinelli’s performance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbRmA-wp6bU
00:00 to 05:16
A (Refrain) (00:00 to 00:40)
Transition (00:41 to 00:58)
B (episode
1) (00:59 to 01:39)
A returns (01:40 to 01:50)
C (Episode
2) (01:51 to 03:49)
A returns (03:50 to 03:59)
Transition (04:00 to 04:20)
B returns and
coda (04:21 to 05:16)
Now I’ve made my
case for why I think the finale is a rondo. Here’s the score so you can see for
yourself and you can decide whether or not you agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment