While there are by now quite a few recordings of Matiegka’s Grand Sonatas and more than one recording of his Op. 31 only Tampalini has, to my knowledge, recorded Op. 16. Tampalini also observes all of the repeat signs (and then some) in the composer’s work, which is another reason I find his recording a useful reference.
For measure numbers In the score, I’m making use of Stanley Yates’ Wenzeslaus Thomas Matiegka: Complete Solo Guitar Sonatas (ISBN-13: 978-15-4636-385 ISBN-10: 15-4636-385-8, Classical Guitar Study Editions CGSE-0050, published May 2017)
However, for the in-score analysis I am relying on the publicly available and public domain digital images of Sonata facile available at IMSLP.org.
A video of the complete Op. 16 can be found on YouTube here for however long it stays up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNLFoRPJpwI
Movement 1: 00:00 to 05:08
Movement 2: 05:11 to 09:12
Movement 3: 09:16 to 12:25
For sake of discussing each movement in turn I will make reference to performances from Tampalini’s recording that are on YouTube as separate tracks (with time-stamps that will correspond more or less to what you’ll hear if you have the album).
With all that established, here we go into the opening sonata form.
Sonate facile, Op. 16: I. Tempo giusto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObJt92iQQK4
Exposition, first presentation (00:00 to 01:23)
Theme 1 (C major, measures 1-14)
(00:00 to 00:27)
The first theme is fourteen measures long and divided into two seven-measure phrases that can be divided into three subsidiary phrases that are 2, 2 and 3 measures respectively. The first phrase opens with a simple mi-re-do descending line that has a gently syncopated continued descent down to the leading tone in measures 1 and 2. The idea gets sequenced in the second phrase, naturally measures 3 and 4, which presents the same idea transposed to F, E D and C. The first four measures make for a clean I-V and V-I oscillation.
The third subsidiary phrase (3 measures) continues the sequential rising of the
first phrase to the fifth scale degree (C major implied), giving us a G, F, E
and D descent that leaps up to the A before descending scale-wise down to a
half cadence that rounds off the opening seven-measure phrase with a half
cadence. Whereas the first and second subsidiary phrases of phrase 1 gave us a
tonic to dominant and dominant to tonic movement the third subsidiary phrase
provides a tonic to supertonic (rather than subdominant) progression that
prepares the way for a more robust half-cadence at measure 7.
In just a few seconds we have moved through the first half of Theme 1. In this
early 19th century style of sonata we would not be surprised to
learn this is preparing a parallel period in which the first phrase that has
ended with a half cadence will be answered by a second phrase that starts like
the first phrase but ends with a contrasting authentic cadence.
Matiegka’s second phrase (0:14) starts as the first did but with grace note
chordal embellishments in the opening of the second phrase. This is an
interesting and idiosyncratic choice because other guitarist composers might
have written out the entire C major chord in half note values and rolled the
chord (see Sor’s big opening flourish in Op. 22, I) Matiegka wants the effect
of the rolled chord but in a way where the lusher, larger harmony evaporates in
time for the two-voiced second phrase to begin. Why? My speculation is he knew
the guitar has a notoriously rapid decay rate, wanted this Sonate facile
to actually be easy, and decided to not have a big rolled chord held for a half
measure that didn’t need to be in this piece.
As with the opening phrase, this second phrase in Theme 1 subdivides into
gestures that are two, two and three measures. We do get the expected parallel period
and an authentic cadence, but it is weakened rhythmically by the appearance of tripleted
eighth note figures in the conventional V-I gesture that rounds of the theme.
The parallel period is what we’d expect melodically and harmonically but
there’s a rhythmic disruption that keeps the resolution from being too firm.
Additionally, the cadence on C is not on a downbeat but on beat 3, a
comparatively weak rhythmic placement for an authentic cadence.
In this second phrase of Theme 1 Matiegka also introduces more chromaticism.
Whereas his first half cadential gesture in measure 2 featured G dominant 7 the
half cadence in measure 9 has a fully diminished seventh chord decorated by C
natural as an upper neighbor note. In contrast to measures 3 and 4 where we got
a G to C movement, in measures 10 and 11 we get the dominant harmony resolving
not to the tonic but to a C sharp half diminished harmony missing the flat
fifth (i.e. C#, E and B flat) which serves as a secondary leading tone chord to
a supertonic harmony. Subdivisional phrases 1 and 2 of Phrase 2 thus establish
similarity and contrast and prepare for the third subdivisional phrase of
Phrase 2 to reach a theme-closing cadential point. But in order to do so
Matiegka wants to ramp up the harmonic and melodic tension by introducing more
harmonic and melodic activity. Given how deliberately simple his melodic
materials have been, increasing the tempo of harmonic rhythm is the, well,
simplest and most direct option he has.
So Matiegka uses a chordal chorale style at measure 11 to move through D minor
in first inversion, A in second inversion, D minor in root position, and then D
minor in first inversion, and I might add with tight voice-leading that
features some nice contrary motion.
After that short but harmonically lively phrase in measure 12 Matiegka ends
with a dominant to tonic authentic cadence full of the aforementioned triplet
eighth note figures.
Theme 1 is easy and many a music scholar would say it’s conventional and
pedestrian. The sonata is easy and intends to be but it is still well-made. The
little details cumulatively create a theme that is asymmetrical in yet balanced
in melodic and harmonic activity. If he had written a more four-on-the-floor
set of music sentences the theme would really be pedestrian rather than
conventional. In contrast to the ideologies of Romanticism in earlier epochs of
music-making convention was not seen as an enemy to be vanquished. Conventions
can be drawn upon and fiddled with. Just because the sonata is meant to be an
easy, recreational work doesn’t mean Matiegka has paid no attention to craft.
Theme 1 ends with measure 14 and in Giulio Tampalini’s performance elapses in just
27 seconds. We’re ready to get to the next part of the sonata exposition.
Modulating
Transition (from C major to G major, measures 15-22)
(00:28 to 00:41)
When I studied music theory and composition decades ago, as an undergraduate
student ,I was told that, in tonal sonata forms, when you want to create a
modulating transition to a new key you need to introduce two notes. The first
note is the leading tone to the tonic of your new key and the second note is
the leading tone to the dominant of that new key. What my instructors didn’t
clarify was whether the tones needed to have harmonic or melodic functions. I
have long since found out the reason there was no hard and fast rule about the
two modulatory tones is because the tones can appear in both forms. Of course I
mention this now precisely because Matiegka’s Sonata Facile provides a
case study of this modulatory paradigm
The modulating transition begins at measure 15. We hear a new melody. The
melodic line can be described as E, G, F natural, E and D but in measure 16 we
see and hear C sharp in a triplet as a chromatic neighbor note to the arrived-at
D natural. Here is the leading tone of the dominant of G major, which is what
we would expect a simple and easy sonata form to have as the key of a secondary
theme. Here the C sharp is an entirely melodic note and an ornamental one. It
serves here in the role of decoration that has harmonic foreshadowing. Measures
15 to 18 move along a pretty conventional chord progression of C to G to D to
G.
At measure 17 we get a scalar descent from C down to F sharp before rising up
to E natural to descend again through a C natural scale that leads to a half
cadence in C on G major, sort of. But
Matiegka has destabilized the key through melodic chromaticism to the point
that his second phrase effects the modulation to G major he’s been working
toward. C sharp as a leading tone to D
arrives on schedule at measure 19 above a G major harmony outlined by the
barest alternation between the root and third of the chord, a pattern Matiegka
has used throughout this transition. G
major leads to C major to A major and then D major. The chords in this modulation transition are
thus: C, G, D, G, G, C, A, D.
In a mere two phrases across eight measures Matiegka has wrapped up his
modulating transition. We can see that a simple chain of triads setting up
secondary dominant patterns via chromatic melodic embellishment followed by
harmonic use of the tones F sharp and C sharp has been simply, but
progressively and steadily, used in this short transition to end on a firm half
cadence in G major (good old D major (00:41 in Tampalini’s recording). Now is a
good moment to point out that this half cadence preparing the key of G major is
far stronger than the authentic cadence that ended Theme 1.
Theme
2 (G major, measures 23 to 34)
(00:42 to 01:03)
Where Theme 1 was obviously played in the upper register of the guitar, this new theme places melodic interest in the bass rather than the treble. As an early 19th century sonata we are not going through a work that has some Hegelian dialectic or grand contrast between a “masculine” first theme and a “feminine” second theme. There are many ways to delineate themes and thematic areas. L Poundie Burstein has pointed out that in galant practice it was more common to differentiate themes by way of contrasting musical punctuation, a gestalt of harmony, melody and rhythm, than to have dramatically contrasting theme types.
What Matiegka has opted to do is have a very busy Theme 2 as a contrast to
Theme 1. He has also assigned the melody to a contrasting register. You could
go for years in theory courses and never hear that it’s a legitimate option to
start with a lyric Theme 1 followed by a spritely Theme 2 but here we have just
such a sonata exposition. Besides the fact that I genuinely like Matiegka’s
music I have undertaken writing about his work to show that the practices of
guitar composers in the early 19th century show that sonata forms in
the guitar literature do not necessarily line up with what became the textbook
practices prescribed in later 19th century manuals. Thankfully the
revival of formal analysis in English language music theory affords us an
opportunity to revisit the early 19th century guitar sonatas and
engage them not on the basis of a post cult-of-Beethoven mindset but with a
range of theoretical and practical observations about how early 19th
century guitar sonatas may be more properly understood and appreciated in light
of continuity with galant theory and practice. Instead of finding the music
wanting for not being “Beethoven” we can come around to appreciating the music
for what it was and is.
Now, back to the second theme. It looks more complex on the page than it is if
you play through it or, better, hear it. The bustling sixteenth notes and
arpeggios may put off the untrained score reader from seeing how paradoxically
simple the theme is. Matiegka gives us a
twelve-measure theme that opens with two two-measure call-and-response
passages. The “call” comes from the
lowermost voice and the “response” comes from the uppermost voice. All the arpeggiation in the middle doesn’t
obscure the antiphonal effects in the outer voices where the bass calls and the
treble responds. G is answered by G
twice in measure 23. In measure 24 the bass outlines a simple gesture of F
sharp for a half-note value and two quarters on D and F sharp.
In guitar notation with fixed position chords there’s a sight-reading trap you
can fall into which is the opposite of the usual axiom about the decay rate of
the guitar—if you see an eighth note or a sixteenth note in a lower register in
a score and you play it, if you don’t deliberately mute the string, it will
keep sounding. This means that for any given fixed position chord the
lowermost note will keep sounding until natural decay sets in or you mute the
string.
So let’s apply this observation to Matiegka’s Theme 2. Take measure 23, that G
will sound for the length of a half note if you don’t mute it. The same goes for the F sharp that you take
on the D string in measure 24. It creates the effect of a half note F sharp
followed by quarter notes of D and F sharp in measure 24. For this theme 2, in this sonata, it means we
get a kind of jump bass call-and-response passage in four measures that will be
followed by eight measures of the two outer voices locking into parallel motion.
The parallel motion, however, is offset rhythmically by continuous
arpeggiation, it’s the performer’s and listener’s capacity to simplify the
heard sounds into a gestalt that makes the parallel runs in the upper and
lowermost voices heard as parallel.
For all that the melody is in the lowest sounding voice, which goes as
follows(commas separate notes within each measure and semicolons indicate new
measures:
G (half note), G (half note); F# (half note), D (quarter), F# (quarter);
G (half note), G (half note); F# (half note), D (quarter), F# (quarter);
All quarters B, A, G, A; B, A, G, A; B, A, G, F#;
E, D, C, B; E, D, C, B; A, G, F#, G; A, G C, C#; D (half note and half note);
Where Theme 1 had two seven-measure phrases that created a parallel period
Theme 2 opens with a jittery, bustling call and response that quickly evolves
into a virtuosic-sounding duet formed by the highest and lowest notes with all
the figuration in the middle fleshing out texture. The effect, if you play it
right, can be a kind if Italian operatic heroic duet or quasi-chorale that
leans into what is idiomatic to the instrument.
I’m including a simplified version of Theme 2 to show what Theme 2 should sound
like if you bring out the appropriate voices in the written score. This is one
of those cases where I can “tell” you all kinds of things but it is probably
best to also “show” you what the heard effect is.
Theme 2 ends with a strong, if also formulaic, cadential gesture, the second
inversion tonic followed by the root position dominant which resolves into a
perfect authentic cadence at measure 35 (01:03) on the downbeat. But … this measure immediately precludes any
idea that the exposition would or could end here by starting into a third theme
that begins on beat 3 of measure 35. that simultaneously becomes the starting point
of the next theme.
Theme
3 (G major, measures 35 (beats 3 and 4) to 45)
(01:03 to 01:23)
If you’re reading through the score you might be asking yourself why Theme 3
starts with an anacrusis to beat 3 of the measure. It does. Theme 3 is ten measures long with two very
straightforward four-measure phrases that form a parallel period with a two
measure appendix (see L Poundie Burstein’s Journeys Through Galant
Expositions
if you want to get way, way more detailed about what I’m merely alluding to).
Yet this new theme in G major that starts with the measure where we would’ve
thought Matiegka could’ve finished his exposition runs along in 4/4 as if 4/4
starts on the second half of the measure up through measure 45. What’s going
on?
Danuta Mirka pointed out in her book Metric Manipulations in Haydn and
Mozart: Chamber Music for Strings, 1787-1791 that in the 18th
century composers used strictly monometric scoring. If you started in 4/4 and,
at some point, shifted into triple meter or maybe even something weird like 5/8
you always scored out the music in the meter you started in. Sticking with one
meter made sightreading easier, after all. Matiegka is far more an early 19th
century than an 18th century composer in terms of his time but a few
scholars have pointed out that when it came to sonatas guitarists lagged a bit
behind their contemporaries. Whether that’s true or not I leave to the side. I
mention it to suggest that Matiegka’s off-kilter placement of Theme 3 should
not throw us off when reading through the score. I’ve included a version of
Theme 3 as it would appear if Matiegka had started his sonata exposition with
it rather than ended with it. See below.
While we’re clearly in G major with this theme note that in the second and
third set of two-bar riffs the melodic turns at measures 37 and 41 in Yates’
edition have G sharp rather than G natural. It’s as quick and subtle touch that
will escape you if you’re not looking out for it and it shows that through each
of the three themes in this exposition Matiegka starts with a bare bones
diatonic idea that gets more chromatically inflected the closer he gets to his
cadential arrival point.
Now here is where I feel obliged to make a comment that will contradict the
general observation Hepokoski and Darcy made in Elements of Sonata Theory
about expositional spaces. They explain, with cause, that what we usually see
in works by Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn Is a tightly constructed Theme 1 with
more loosely constructed Themes 2 or 3 (I’m not using their nomenclature for
sake of simplicity because, if you don’t already know it, you don’t need to
know it for this point I’m making). Now Elements is a set of heuristics,
shorthands, or rules of thumb. What you may discover, which we’ve discovered
here, is that precisely the opposite thing happens in Matiegka’s exposition
that would be expected on the basis of Elements—we have a set of themes
that get smaller and more tightly constructed the further along we get into the
exposition. The cadential sentences end with tighter and punchier conclusions,
too.
In contrast to the kind of sonata instruction I received decades ago in
college, I’ve found early 19th century guitar sonata expositions
very often have three themes rather than two and there is no clear pattern
about the nature of the relationship or contrast between themes in an
exposition. Anton Diabelli’s Op. 29, No. 3 F major sonata has a Theme 1 that is
completely dwarfed by Themes 2 and 3, so much so he doesn’t even bring Theme 1
back in his recapitulation. Matiegka’s Op. 16 is as opposite Diabelli’s Op. 29,
No. 3 as can be.
This exposition has something subtly off-kilter to it and we’ve seen that this
has to do with the length of the themes and oddities about the rhythmic
placement of the initial authentic cadence that ends Theme 1. Theme 1 has been
in the tonic key of C major while Themes 2 and 3 are played back-to-back in G
major with no intervention transition between them. The few reviews I’ve read
that discuss recordings of Matiegka’s music for guitar all talk about how
conventional it is, and predictable, though pleasant. My issue with that
generalization it’s an assertion that writers make who seem to have never
engaged the music with scores in hand. Matiegka’s music is pleasing by design
but that doesn’t mean it isn’t brimming with little details that make his music
less conventional than assumed.
I’ve kept coming back to Matiegka’s music for years in ways I haven’t with his
contemporaries Diabelli or Molitor. In fact I honestly like Matiegka’s handling
of sonata form more than the approaches of Giuliani or Sor, the two guitarist
composers generally regarded as the acme of early 19th century
guitar music. Why? Because Matiegka does the kinds of things I’ve been
discussing. He’s conventional and pretty, yes, but he more often than not
displays an aversion to convention worn on the sleeve. He tweaks with
conventions just enough that you can come back to Theme 1 in this sonata and
note the parallel period in Theme 1 is based on seven-measure phrases, for
example. Matiegka was familiar with the music of Mozart and Beethoven and made
liberal use of themes by Haydn.
This sonata exposition “sounds” cute, charming and pleasant (I use all those words in the most complementary way) but it, with Matiegka’s other solo guitar sonatas, provide an opportunity to explore how an early 19th century guitarist composer handled sonata form. While Sor is going to remain the “Beethoven of the guitar” I believe we have much to gain from studying Matiegka’s more flexible approach to sonata forms, and given his ostentatious use of Haydn’s themes I suggest that if we’re stuck with the Big Three looming over all others in the Classic and early Romantic period, that Matiegka has been overdue for an appraisal as the “Haydn of the guitar”. As I’ve hinted at earlier, we might also benefit from assessing Matiegka’s music on the basis of earlier galant approaches to theory and practice rather than the norms of 19th century pedagogy.
Exposition, second presentation, (01:24 to 02:46)
Something that shows us just how much Matiegka looked back to eighteenth century
approaches to sonata form is that he calls for a full repeat of the exposition.
During the early 19th century it was becoming normal to not repeat
expositions. That’s ill-advised for this sonata! This exposition isn’t even two
minutes long if you play it at tempo. Playing everything a second time helps
listeners savor (or simply perceive if they weren’t paying attention the first
time) what the themes are and how they’re structurally and aesthetically
significant within the exposition. If you just skip a repeating exposition
indication in a score and carry on with the rest of the piece then, sure, it
will seem even more slight and paltry than it might if you didn’t.
I don’t think this sonata is actually slight or paltry just because I’ve said it’s cute, charming and pleasant. Matiegka could know about the big names of The Classic Era but still write musical works to be played and heard for the pleasure of it. In 1807, after all, Romanticism had not quite dominated the musical scene of Vienna even if Beethoven was a very big deal.
I like hearing Matiegka’s expositions the second time around. The repeat adds a
balance within the expositional space that you wouldn’t get if you just played
it once. Asymmetry played twice gains a kind of symmetry simply on the basis of
repetition. We also get to hear the exposition and wonder how the asymmetries
in the exposition may or may not get dealt with in the recapitulation that’s
sure to come. We get a chance to hear all the themes again and wonder which of
them will get prominent treatment in the development.
Development,
A minor (measures 46 to 97)
(02:47 to 04:04)
Conventional
wisdom has it that in the development section of a sonata form you go through a
variety of non-tonic keys within which new derivations of your themes appear.
If your exposition featured the keys of C and G major then you might go to D
minor or A minor or E minor or F major but the convention is that you’d go
through a variety of keys. Matiegka did nothing of the kind in Sonate facile.
His entire development section is in A minor before it gets to a dominant pedal
passage that prepares the return of C major. For those of us who were given the
conventional idea about developments I outlined above this largely single-keyed
development section Matiegka wrote may sound conventional for its style and
time but it couldn’t be more subversive of the “textbook” prescription for a
development section. If you want to write a simple, recreational piece for
amateurs to play, however, keeping your development section in easy open-string
keys is absolutely the way you want to go. Had he gone for a development
section starting in F major or F sharp minor it would have stopped being Sonate
facile and turned into his Grand Sonata II and Op. 31 No. 3
respectively.
Matiegka chose to kick off his development with an extended half cadential
passage derived from Theme 3. The big dominant pedal passage on E ranges from
measures 46 to 56 and uses gestures from Theme 3 throughout to prepare the way
for the key of A minor. In “textbook”
explanations of sonata forms we can sometimes get told that the development of
a sonata generally starts with some variation of Theme 1 but that’s obviously
not the case here. Is Matiegka going to keep running with Theme 3 material or
will he give us Theme 1 in some form?
At measure 57 (03:09) we get Theme 1 in A minor, which is something we might
expect in a development—after all presenting expositional ideas in new keys and
tonalities is what you’re supposed to do. This is, by the way, another reason
to not skip the repeating exposition, Matiegka’s hat trick of presenting Theme
1 entirely in A minor in the development loses some of its force if you don’t
play the exposition twice like he asks.
Where in the exposition Theme 1 was asymmetrical here in the development we get
a succession of four-on-the-floor phrases. He might just go through Theme 1 in
the squarest way possible in the development.
In 2023 his deceptive resolution of Theme 1 to F major at measure 64
(03:23) is not going to seem very daring or adventurous to us but in 1807 it
could still be a gentle surprise. Another gentle surprise is that Theme 1 in A
minor in this development doesn’t get to resolve before its final authentic cadential
closure is seized as the starting point for Theme 2 to appear.
Theme 2 derived material takes up the rest of the development (03:30 to 04:04)
and there’s frankly not too much that needs to be said about that. Hepokoski
and Darcy have described an idea in Elements of Sonata Theory called
“rotation”. The order in which the themes appear in the exposition presents a
pattern that generally (though not always) provides a basis from which to
expect what themes will appear in what order through the rest of the sonata
form. If Themes 1, 2 and 3 appear in that order then we would expect them to
keep appearing in that order in the development and the recapitulation. We’ve
seen that Elements has a set of heuristics but that’s all they are. Here in Matiegka’s Op. 16 we get a
development that is based on deriving new episodes from Themes 3, 1 and 2
respectively but we’ve always stayed largely in the key of A minor. The A minor
Theme 2 material steadily transforms into music that prepares the return to C
major and as this is a simple sonata and says so I think at this point I can
let you see the score with notes that I’m going to provide if you want further
details. I’ve written quite a bit about what is in reality a fairly short
sonata form as it is. Let’s get to the recapitulation.
Recapitulation (measures 88 to 121)
(04:05 to 5:11)
Theme
1, measures 88-94 (04:05 to 04:17)
When we come to
his recapitulation (measure 88, 04:05) we can see how much Matiegka absorbed
the influence of Haydn. Scholars have noted the regularity with which Haydn
recomposed and altered his themes in recapitulations. Matiegka only brings back
half of Theme 1. Theme 1 returns but it returns with the opening measures of
Phrase 2 rather than the actual opening two measures. This two-measure “call”
gets a “response” that actually does come from the first phrase. The third
subsidiary phrase resolves with the triplet figuration we heard at the end of
Theme 1 but this new version of material from measures 5 and 6 has bigger
chords. Where the melody rose to A natural as a single-line in the expositional
Theme 1 in the recapitulation the high A is buttressed by an F sharp fully
diminished seventh harmony. This leading tone chord, of course, leads to a
cadential preparation and we get a return of measure 13 from the exposition.
This is still a seven-measure phrase and the material is basically Theme 1 but
it is significantly reshuffled and given newer, bigger harmonization. It’s a
synecdochical reprise of Theme 1, where a rewritten half of the theme stands in
for its entirety.
Theme 2, measures 94 to first half of 105 (04:18 to 04:36)
The single most striking thing about this recapitulation, however, is not that
Matiegka has a Haydnesque flair for reworking his themes, it’s that there are
no transitions. The authentic cadence resolution of Theme 1 is the beginning of
Theme 2 at measure 95 (04:18), which then races along from measures 95 to the
first half of 105. It’s a simple but obvious point to observe that what
Matiegka has achieved here is eliding a truncated Theme 1 into Theme 2. There’s
no mid-measure deliberately weak authentic cadence like the one he had in his
exposition. This means that Theme 2’s arrival as the resolution of Theme 1 in
the recapitulation has an “off to the
races” quality to it, as though this was what Matiegka’s intended effect was
throughout this sonata form.
Theme 3, measures 105 (second half) to 114 (04:37 to 04:53)
Theme 2’s half cadence is left as is and prepares the arrival of Theme 3 in the middle of measure 95 (04:36). We don’t get Theme 3 “as is”. Matiegka introduces a new call-and-response by having Theme 3’s melodic material change octaves every other measure. This not only brings back the antiphonal call-and-response element of Theme 2 but gives it a more extended development within the recapitulation as a way of recomposing Theme 3.
It is axiomatic in theoretical discussions of sonata forms that the composer is
not necessarily “done” developing material in the recapitulation but it helps
to have specific case studies like this sonata to show how Matiegka, in
particular, finds ways to develop his material even if he’s not necessarily
changing the notes-by-name as creating new antiphonal effects through registral
displacement.
Theme 3 has a different set of phrase-closing gestures. Whereas in the
exposition Matiegka rounded off his phrases on the third of his tonic chord he
opts to have a firm a firmer phrase ending using do, re, do, re, ti, do (C, D,
C, B, C). The phrases are given much firmer harmonic/melodic resolutions in the
recapitulation than they ever got in the exposition. He’s reinforcing the
harmonic and melodic resolution of his final theme in the exposition. The close
of Theme 3 introduces octave-doubling of the tonic triad at measures 113 and
114 (04:51 to 04:54) that lead to another half cadence and a slight pause. Matiegka
didn’t balance out his Theme 1 by completing the fourteen-measure pattern we
came to expect in the two presentations of the exposition. Will have address
that?
Yes, in a seven-measure coda running from measures 115 to the end of the
movement (04:55 to 05:07). The coda is new material and it’s a rush of tonic
and leading tone chords in sixteenth note arpeggios above a pulsating tonic
pedal tone on the A string. This seven-measure coda completes the missing
phrase that balanced Theme 1 in the exposition and rounds off the sonata form.
Stanley Yates described what I’ve called Theme 2 as sounding like transitional
material. It is true that, if you go through Matiegka’s work as a whole his
busiest sections tend to be his transitions and his formal themes tend to be
more lyrical than rhythmic. Nevertheless, I contend Theme 2 as I’ve identified
it really is Theme 2 throughout the sonata. When material appears after such a
firm half cadence as we saw at measure 22 that is one indication that we’re
really dealing with a formal Theme 2 but, even more pointedly, the fact that
Matiegka’s development features Theme 1 and Theme 2 in the exposition
reinforces my belief that I’ve identified the themes correctly. That Theme 1
runs so seamlessly into Theme 2 in the recapitulation reinforces this
observation even further. Knowing what Matiegka tended to do in his later works
may throw us off in assessing which themes are which in this sonata movement. I
think Yates correctly identified the materials, I just differ in how I
interpret them formally, it seems. Nevertheless, his edition of Matiegka’s sonatas
is a great edition and should be, if it isn’t already, your reference of choice
if you want the complete Op. 31, and because he provides a lot of useful
insights into Matiegka’s use of articulations and dynamics as well as
biographical information on the composer
In light of Hepokoski and Darcy’s Elements of Sonata Theory I think we
can call this sonata a triple rotational Type 3. Deformational elements (let
the reader understand) that stand out are the following:
1. The development begins with a continuation of Theme 3
2. The entire development section is in A minor,
3. Theme 1 is truncated in the recapitulation and there is no transition between Themes 1 and 2
4. Themes 1, 2 and 3 run together in a continuous flow in the recapitulation.
To review the salient elements of the exposition, Theme 1 is a lyric theme in C major, Theme 2 is a bustling theme with antiphonal elements whose melodic interest is in the bass register, and Theme 3 is another lyrical theme but with a bouncy rhythmic quality to it that is given an antiphonal reworking in the recapitulation zone.
I agree with Stanley Yates that we should not find Matiegka’s approach to sonata forms deficient or substandard based on “textbook” paradigms of sonata form. Thanks to the revival of formal analysis in English-language music theory in works like Caplin’s Classical Form and Hepokoski and Darcy’s Elements of Sonata Theory, as well as renewed interest in galant schemes and musical punctuation, we are in a better position than we may have ever been to assess Matiegka’s sonatas for what they are and not for what they “should” have been in light of peak Romanticist aesthetic dogmas. Yates has pointed out that Op. 16 is a recreational piece. Grand Sonatas I and II are concert pieces and we can get to those at some point but in assessing the success or failure of a work we should have an idea what kind of work we’re looking at.
If we look at Matiegka’s Op. 16 Sonate facile not as a full-blown
concert piece but as a recreational piece, probably in the hausmusik
style of the Vienna of his day, the piece is very successful. It shows us that
from his first published guitar sonata Wenzel Matiegka had a very flexible
approach to sonata forms. Every single one of his sonatas for solo guitar,
whether named as such or not, is worth study, particularly his sonata
movements.
Here's an annotated score of the first movement:
Now that I’ve discussed the first movement of his first sonata at some length, I turn to the other movements in Op. 16.
Sonate
facile, Op. 16: II. Menuetto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRn2VqXBlhc
Menuetto, C major, measures 1 to 63
(00:00 to 02:12)
Haydn scholars have pointed out across the last century that whenever Haydn had
an unusually complex opening sonata form he tended to follow it up with a
menuet. If you taxed your player and audience with a sonata that had many
unusual elements or unusual length you compensated for that initial demand with
a nice and easy dance movement. It’s no surprise, then, that Matiegka has
followed Haydn’s example by composing a menuet as his second movement.
A menuet, of course, is a dance movement in triple meter that can be described as having an aababa form. The initial gesture (a) is repeated and followed up by a continuation gesture (b) that usually leads to a half cadence that prepares the return of the initial idea as an intra-thematic reprise or a further development of the initial idea (thus ba) which is, in turn, repeated in full.
(00:00 to 00:25)
Here we’re given not one but three large phrases of 8, 8 and 7 measures before we get to the first repeat sign telling us to go back to the beginning. As is fairly typical of initial phrases in a menuet each phrase ends on a half cadence. This dance form relies on phrases that can be endlessly recursive if you want them to be. Each of the three half cadences is prepared by a secondary dominant harmony buttressing F sharp as a melodic leading tone to G. The first two eight-measure phrases are fairly typical menuet ideas but the third is a block chord chorale with a melody in whole notes that goes through E, G, F# and reaches the half note G before preparing the third half cadence. This third time around, however, F sharp is not a D7 leading to G but D sharp fully diminished seventh, a secondary leading tone chord to E minor. E minor drops quickly to C and G in second inversion and a brief D (secondary dominant) before getting us to the third and final half cadence in the opening gesture of the menuetto. Of course as with any menuet (menuetto) the initial gesture is repeated in full (00:26 to 00:49)
The continuation gesture and reprise, measures 24 to 63)
(00:50 to 01:30)
With menuets the half cadence conventionally leads to a continuation of the
dominant harmony that has been reached at the end of the initial gesture and
Matiegka is no exception. From measures 25 to 29 he presents a dominant harmony
extension of the half cadence that features imitative writing where the upper
voice descends from F down to B before the lower voices takes up the gesture as
soon as the upper voice has reached the leading tone. Matiegka favored this
kind of interlocking polyphonic embellishment in continuation gestures
throughout his work so it’s mighty convenient he drops this favorite musical
device of his in the dance movement of this sonata. This technique extends the
half cadence and builds momentum via counterpoint so that when the block chord
harmonies and doubled octave arpeggios on the dominant appear at measures 29
through 31 and 31 through 32 respectively the counterpoint paves the way for
the half cadence we’ve been sitting on for ten measures to finally resolve by
returning to the tonic and the initial dance gesture (measure 35, 01:02)
Trio, initial gesture (02:13 to 02:23 and 02:24 to 02:32)
As big as the menuetto is, the trio is but a whisp, but what a beautiful whisp it is. We’re given a simple dance with nearly Baroque elegance that continuously pivots between C major and E minor through chromatic inflections in each measure so that by the time we reach the concluding eighth measure of the Trio’s core idea we have A minor and not C major as are sturdy home key. A rapid chromatic mutation in this confirmational measure wings us back around to the return of the opening C major harmony (02:24) and the second time around we get an even firmer resolution on A minor (02:32). Given that Matiegka has affirmed that the initial C major was a feint we had better expect the continuation gesture of the trio to be a half cadence in A minor and, thus, expect E rather than G to be the dominant extension passage that is typical for menuets and trios.
Trio continuation gesture with reprise (02:33 to 02:43 and 02:44 to 02:54)
That is exactly what we get, a dominant pedal passage on E that resolves to A
minor (02:39). This concluding phrase starts in A minor but just as quickly as
Matiegka shifted from C to A minor in the start of the trio he shifts as
swiftly back to C major by the end of this final part o the continuation phrase
(see 02:43 in Tampalini’s recording). The trio, like the menuetto before it,
repeats the initial gesture and the continuation phrase in full before we’re
given instructions to go back to the beginning.
It’s customary that when we reach the da capo in a menuetto none of the
previously observed repeats apply and so …
This is a good example of a menuet (a.k.a. menuetto a.k.a. scherzo) in that you get to hear how this dance movement works. All of the constituent parts are supposed to be music you can play with repetitions but if you play through the entire thing in the da capo without them the music should still work. If you don’t enjoy playing a menuetto or a trio with and without the repeats then there may be, at least for you, an aesthetic shortcoming in the dance movement. A 19th century comparison in dance forms can, easily, be ragtime. A good ragtime will ideally observe all scored repeats but the strains, if they’re good, will survive being played without the repeats. If you ignore all the repeat signs in Scott Joplin’s “The Entertainer” it does lose something but all of the strains are still just as beautiful even if the repeats aren’t performed.
In the originally published version Matiegka’s Menuetto fits onto a single page, which makes it easy to present the entire thing for your perusal:
Sonate
facile, Op. 16: III. Rondò – Allegro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuwawAwiqx8
This brisk little rondo in a mere 3:13 in Giulio Tampalini’s recording but it is, for its brevity, a seven-part rondo (i.e. ABACABA). Here I differ with Stanley Yates’ saying this is a sonata rondo because while there is a B theme/Theme 2 which appears in the dominant key and returns in the tonic key this kind of tonal recapitulation can happen in rondos without there being any elements of sonata form. The most significant reason I think this is a seven-part rondo and not a sonata-rondo is the central C episode is not really a clear development of the refrain (usually called “A”) nor does it reflect any development of the second theme (B or C or D as rondo episodes that alternate with the refrain tend to go). There are sonata-like elements but in this case I’d say the finale is exactly what Matiegka told it us it is, a rondo, and just that.
As a matter of quick review, in rondos the “A” material in ABACABA is
conventionally called the refrain while the “B” and “C” materials are regarded
as episodes. Episodes may appear in any key and refrains are not necessarily
confined to the tonic key, although frequently the refrain appears in the
tonic.
Opening
Refrain, C major (measures 1 to 16)
(00:00
to 00:27)
In this case the refrain is a compound binary form with two eight-measure
parallel periods that collectively form a contrasting period. The first parallel
period takes place from measures 1 through 8 (00:00 to 00:07 and 00:07 to 00:13
respectively). The second parallel period takes place from measures 8 (second
half) through measure 16 (00:13 to 00:21 and 00:21 to 00:27) We can map it out
as aabb for short and this will be the default against which any return
of A is assessed.
The refrain is very lively and opens with a chromatically inflected proto-shuffle
riff that is reminiscent of Theme 3 from the opening sonata in terms of having
a tight, melodically narrow and rhythmically active principle gesture. This
chromatic serpentine riff in measures 1 and 2 is answered by a block chord “chorus”
response. The first half of the refrain thus has a kind of soprano solo call
answered by a chordal “choral” response. The second half of the refrain is more
of a “tutti” full-guitar continuation passage which can be heard as an extended
dominant pedal that delays the tonal resolution to C major until measure 16. In
a way you could say this refrain is a kind of proto-ragtime A and B strain
crammed into a single composite theme but that’s my personal take on the theme
as an admirer of both Matiegka’s guitar music and the music of Scott Joplin.
Your impression may differ.
Transition
(measures 17 to 30)
(00:28 to 00:39)
The next fourteen measures give us a burst of sixteenth note arpeggios on the
following chords, each chord rippling upward from a droning C pedal tone on the
A string. Each chord represents two arpeggios within each measure--C, F, G, C (measures
17 to 24 (00:28 to 00:35))., From measures 25 to 30 we see the arpeggios begin
to include changes in the pedal tone in the bass while keeping the bustling
arpeggios going. We go through the following chords in these measures--C, F, G
(C pedal), C, D7 (D pedal), G (D), A7 (root position), and D.
Notice that this transition races through fourteen measures in slightly under
ten seconds in Tampalini’s performance. This is such a brisk transition that,
yes, it does prepare a half cadence on D that should lead us to a new theme in
G major, and it will, but something seems forced about it.
My proposal is that Matiegka, who was steeped enough in Haydn’s music that his
Grand Sonata II bases Theme 2 from the first movement on a theme from one of
Haydn’s E flat major piano trios, and bases his entire finale for Grand Sonata
II on one of Haydn’s lieder, is taking a cue from one of music musical heroes.
I think this transition is something Matiegka intended as a musical joke. The
abruptness and forced nature of the transition from C major to G major is the
musical point.
Episode 1, G major (B material), measures 31 to 53
(00:40 to 00:53)
The first episode (B) takes place from measures 31 to 46. Here we have another
sixteen measure block of thematic material. Here we have a composite theme with
a parallel period of eight measures that is followed up by an eight-measure
contrasting period that provides the consequent to the initial antecedent. In
terms of harmony and melody the episode resembles the Refrain by being a
composite theme in sixteen measures but the musical “punctuation” here is
different. In stead of two back-to-back parallel periods we have a parallel
period followed by a contrasting period, where the two halves of the second
half start different and resolve differently even if they outline a fairly
straightforward V and I trajectory overall. As Poundie Burstein has noted about
galant music, the contrast in musical punctuation is more important than overt
contrasts in thematic “character” and Matiegka’s rondo can be taken as a case
in point.
The refrain and the first episode do have a kind of contrast but they retain a
common mood or “vibe”. This episode, even more than the refrain, evokes Theme 3
from the initial sonata movement with its chains of thirds outlining simple
triads. The call-back is oblique and you may disagree with me but I think
Matiegka deliberately included small gestural call-backs in this closing rondo
to his earlier sonata movement. Matiegka did, after all, live in the wake of
Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn. It may be his style is conservative and
conventional but it’s a conservative and conventional style that is not unaware
of the taste-makers of his own time.
Retransition, measures 46 to 53 (00:53 to 01:01)
This little eight-measure retransition shows how you can repeat F# to G as
a melodic gesture across a passage and let accompaniment voices chromatically
pivot so that your G tonic in G major becomes a G7 that prepares the return of
your Refrain in C major. It’s pretty
straightforward in the score and when you hear it but it’s cute enough to
deserve at least a paragraph.
Refrain returns, C major, measures 54 to 69)
(01:03 to 01:16)
The refrain comes back in the expected key of C major but, unlike its first
presentation at the start of the rondo, there are no repeats. Here the
resolution to C major lets C transform from the tonic of the Refrain into a
dominant tone that leads to the second Episode.
Episode 2 (C material), F major, measures 70-99)
(01:17 to 02:09)
The second episode, in F major, is ironically the single biggest section in
this rondo. We’re given a big theme that has a menuet’s form but is in duple
rather than triple meter and is bracked out into a repeating eight-measure idea
that is answered by a fourteen-measure continuation passage that is resolved by
a return of the eight-measure idea. This creates what we could describe as an aaba’ba’
pattern.
That there is nothing in this central episode that calls back to any material
that has shown up before is why, as I mentioned earlier, I think this rondo is
just a rondo. Now F major would seem like the last key a guitarist would put
into the finale of a work called Sonate facile. There are two things to
note about this theme that offset the difficulty of its key. The first is we
see Matiegka is meticulous about having rests at the end of each of the hard
arpeggios. You never have to hold an F longer than a single beat and there’s a
conspicuous rest in the second half of each measure in which tough chords like
F major appear. The second thing to notice are the slurs at the end of the
arpeggios. Tampalini plays these as portamenti. This is a case where though it’s
not explicit in the score defaulting to as staccato a style as possible can be
inferred from the key signature. This is
where you let the rapid decay rate of the instrument work in your favor by
releasing any strings where you don’t need sounds from them, more or less in
direct contrast to Theme 2 from the opening sonata form in which letting all
the notes sound as long as they would without muting lets the real nature of
Theme 2 come forward.
Retransition 2, measures 100 to 105)
(02:09 to 02:15)
This six-measure retransition keeps running with the gliding arpeggio motif from
the second episode, guiding us through the following chords back to the key of
C major: F, C in first inversion, G major in first inversion, C major, D7 in second
inversion, and G major in root position. We get bass line that goes as follows:
F, E, B natural, C, A and G. All the while Matiegka is slowing down until he
gets to his closing G major chord that prepares us for the return to C major.
This is a weirdly short and perfunctory retransition and I propose that part of
playing this piece effectively lays in understanding that his initial modulating
transition to episode 1 and this modulating retransition from episode 2 back
into the refrain is, if you will, bad on purpose. By way of contrast, I’ve
never seen any comparably brusque transitions and retransitions in Matiegka’s Grand
Sonata I or Grand Sonata II. Calling passages musical jokes may be a
fraught enterprise but I think it’s the best way to make sense of Matiegka’s
transition and retransition material here. The refrain and episodes seem sufficiently
upbeat and comic that interpreting the transitions, however abrupt or even
unconvincing they may seem harmonically, seems of a piece with the core
thematic modules.
Refrain gets a synechodical return, C major, measures 106 to 112)
(02:16 to 02:22)
We are once again back to the Refrain but now it’s sliced down to just the
opening eight measures. The second parallel period isn’t even here. Each time
the refrain has come back it has gotten shorter and shorter and the moment the
Refrain resolves its eight-measure idea it leads immediately to another
retransition.
Retransition 3. Measures 113 to 127)
(02:23 to 02:35)
We get a return of the first transition material only this time it is not going
to modulate to a new key but return us to the old one, C major. This time
around the retransition does not seem to end on a forced note by way of getting
to its arrival point too swiftly or by too abrupt a series of chord changes.
Matiegka has saved his most convincing retransition for the end of the rondo.
What has he prepared us for? The return of the first episode in the key of C
major.
Episode 3 (B material), measures 128 to 135)
(02:37 to 02:42)
We get a mere eight measures from the B material of Episode 1, but we got them.
Refrain material returns (secondary A material), measures 136-141
(02:43 to 02:49)
As we can see and hear Matiegka keeps slicing down more and more from his material
as he brings it back further along in this rondo. This is another, even terser
synecdochical reprise. At one level this is a lot of rug-pulling but at another
level he paved the way for this series of musical stunts by bringing back just
half of Theme 1 in his opening sonata movement.
Coda, measures 143 to end)
(02:50 to 03:06)
Here the coda derives from the first retransition that got Matiegka from G major
to C major
However comically truncated the material gets, if we stick to the principle of synecdoche
to guide our approach to form for this work, we “do” have ourselves a
seven-part rondo.
Of course if you want to look through the whole score for yourself to see if
you agree I want to make sure you can do that So here you go.
I have
written a lot about a guitar sonata that, even when you observe all the
prescribed repeats in the score, is not quite 12:30. Why write so much about a
guitar sonata that is so obscure? I am a guitarist and I have liked Matiegka’s
music for years. The 250th anniversary of his baptism has come upon us
here in 2023 and so I want to do what I can, as a guitarist and a composer, to
highlight the work of a 19th century guitarist composer whose sonata
forms can give us insight into how guitarists were handling sonata forms in Matiegka’s
day. Because I believe Leo Brouwer has been right to say we guitarists benefit
from our relatively marginal place in academic music theory studies because the
boundaries between “high” and “low” are far more permeable for us, I believe
studying Matiegka’s approach to sonata form over the last ten years may open
up, at least for guitarists, avenues for reconciling the generally scholastically
constructed barriers that are assumed to exist between “classical” music or “serious
music” and “popular” or “trivial” music. To demonstrate that, of course, I have
to do some fairly detailed analysis of Matiegka’s sonatas and not just the sonata
forms in those sonatas. I am not currently aware that anyone has attempted such
a detailed study of Matiegka’s Op. 16 in the English language and I wanted to
make a contribution to further study of his work.
