Grand Sonata I
Matiegka’s Grand Sonata I
was published in 1808 by Artaria without an opus number. In the cover sheet
there are featured incipits for four Grand Sonatas. Grand Sonata I in D major is our topic
of discussion. Grand Sonata II in A major comes next. Grand Sonata III has an incipit to
another Matiegka work but the Grand Sonata III itself could be
considered lost, as is Grand Sonata IV in F major.
As of 2023 there have been
several recordings of this work. One of
the earliest was made by Massimo
Agostinelli. Another guitarist who has recorded Grand Sonata I is Gilberto
Dusman. David
Lesiner’s recording was recently rereleased on Azica Records in 2022. Agustin
Maruri recorded both Grand Sonata I and Grand Sonata II. I will be making reference to Giulio
Tampalini’s 2019 recording of Matiegka’s complete music for solo guitar, as
I have so far.
Agostinelli collaborated with
Giovanni Pobera on an edition of Matiegka’s works (Opere
Scelte) published by Berben om 1995.
I recommend Theodore Front Musical Literature for getting the music
online if this is the edition you want.
I am, as I have written previously, relying upon the Stanley
Yates’ edition of Matiegka’s guitar sonatas, which is excellent. Given the
obscurity of Matiegka that there are five guitarists who have recorded Grand
Sonata I means that it is easily the best-represented work by the composer
in commercially available recordings.
I. Maestoso (quarter= 116-120
bpm)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5RXUUccAvs
EXPOSITION:
First Pass, measures 1 to 56
(00:00 to 01:47)
Theme 1 (D major) measures 1 to
16 (00:00 to 0:31)
“Maestoso” generally translates
as “majestic” or “stately” and the opening sonata form opens with a stately
theme. The first eight measures present
the core idea, which runs the course of a parallel period with the authentic
cadence leading to a new subsidiary idea whose resemblance to Mozart’s Eine
Kleine Nachtmusik is too obvious to be ignored. The stately but sparse initial gesture gives
way to a Mozart invocation over a droning dominant pedal point which leads to a
restatement of the initial idea. Theme 1
outlines a kind of rounded binary form, we could map it out as a a' b
a".
Theme 1 almost ends too strongly
at measure 16. The authentic cadence is too perfect. There are several variables in the theme
which work against this theme having so strong a sense of closure that it’s
over once it’s elapsed. We know, for
instance, we’re listening to a Grand Sonata because of the title but Matiegka
does two things to weaken this otherwise very strong cadence. He no sooner hits
a loud D major tonic chord on beat one of measure 16 than he follows it up with
a quiet first inversion D major triad in the lowest register of the instrument;
re-introduces dotted rhythmic figures, and closes measure 16 with a final chord
on beat 3, leaving the final beat of the measure silent. This evokes both a sense of thwarted
resolution and forward momentum. What
was initially a strong resolution to the opening theme has been subverted by
abrupt shifts in dynamics, chord voicing, and rhythm. We’re “done” but not too done. A transition is coming, naturally.
Transition measures 17-43 (0:32
to 01:22)
My opinion has been that
Matiegka’s themes in this opening sonata get overshadowed by his giant
transition. The firm authentic cadence ending Theme 1 immediately gives way to
a transition full of chromatic slithering.
In measure 19, for instance, Matiegka gives us a set of chords where F#
dominant seventh slips by way of a fifth-less B major to a fifth-less E7 to an
A and C# dyad. The chromatic descent is
delicate and everything about the chain of secondary dominants is clear
enough. At measure 20 Matiegka has B
natural over a D bass and the treble line leaps up to G sharp before the
melodic line snakes downward to A rather than functioning like a leading tone
to A. If we’re going from D major to A
major, Matiegka has warned us, we are taking a very scenic route.
The first half cadence to the key
of A major occurs at measure 21.
Matiegka has chromatically altered D, G, and A in first five measures of
his transition. The tonic, subdominant and dominant scale degrees of D major
have all been chromatically inflected out of the key in a very short space. By
measure 21 a firm E on the second half of the measure prepares the way for a
new theme in A major. Or does it?
The new material that appears at
measure 22 (00:41) sounds like it could be thematic but it feels like a
continuation phrase rather than a thoroughly new idea. In the originally
published edition measure 24 shows that the F# in the melody rises through G
sharp and A sharp before reaching B natural, an A that is naturalized in the
Yates edition. An upper A natural certainly doesn’t clash with the open low A
string the way an A sharp rising to B natural does. That is why I think the originally published
A sharp is correct. Matiegka was still
deploying chromatic passing tones to destabilize A so that we would not hear it
as a newly established tonic too soon.
Additionally, it is at this point
that Matiegka creates a lovely cascade of two-voice contrapuntal writing, the
treble and bass strings giving and taking melodic interest for three measures
before moving to the most florid passage in the transition, which arrives at measure
28 (00:53)
From here we get a flurry of
sixteenth notes in the upper voice and scalar runs. A bass note leaps up an octave and descends
by steady stepwise eighth notes through the A major scale before stopping at
the next adjacent tone, running via these leaps and descents through A, B, C#,
D and finally arriving at E. Once at E
the E chord is relentlessly arpeggiated in sixteenth notes while the E rises up
to an F natural chromatic neighbor before falling back down to E. This inflection from the parallel minor happens
three times before a turnaround passage announces that we’re going to do all of
this again once more, with feeling.
The reason we have not firmly
arrived at A major is Matiegka never lets up on the rhythmic bustle of the
transition one the one hand, and so chromatically saturated the tonal region
with notes that aren’t natural to either D major or A major we aren’t allowed
to feel like we’ve firmly arrived in A major as the new key yet. While any given element of this transition
might seem utterly rote in, say 2023, Matiegka has carefully controlled rhythmic,
melodic and harmonic closure so as to preclude us from thinking that this is
Theme 2. We’re still firmly in a transition.
Theme 2 is coming soon, but the transition needs to run its course.
Theme 2 (A major) measures 44 to
51 (01:37)
Theme 2, finally firmly in A
major, arrives at measure 44 on beat three.
Hypermetrically this a curious spot for a theme to appear. Matiegka kicked off a new theme in the second
half of a measure of common time before, in Op. 16 Theme 2 is sparse and elegant, much like
Theme 1 was. We’re given a two-measure
antecedent that gets a perky staccato two-measure consequent and this is
followed up by another passage of the same. This theme is seven measures of 4/4
with a half-measure at the end that zips into the florid coda of the
exposition. It would form a perfect parallel period but for two off-kilter
elements. The authentic cadence leads to an explosion of rhythmic activity and
arpeggios (a remarkably stereotypical guitarist-composer move in itself), for
one. For another, the not quite completed parallel period ends too soon and has
started on the wrong half of the measure in our given meter.
Coda measures 52 to 56 (01:38 to
01:47)
We sure get a robust authentic
cadence with all the tonic to dominant alternations you could want for the end
of the exposition. Bursting with
tripleted sixteenth note arpeggios and jump bass activity Matiegka has made it
clear that this is the end of the exposition, a robust moment of tonal
and harmonic and formal closure amidst unprecedented rhythmic activity.
EXPOSITION: Second Pass (01:48 to
03:32)
In I think half of the cases of
recordings of this work the exposition is not repeated even though Matiegka
specifies that. I think the expositional
repeat is a necessary part of the work.
Theme 2 is so short and the Coda closure so abrupt that signals to me
that Matiegka intended the whole thing to be repeated both so that listeners
could recognize the themes more clearly on the second pass and to balance out
the form. The themes are just good
enough to be heard a second time, after all, and the transition is, I think,
the most compelling and substantial part of the exposition. How substantial Matiegka thought the
transitional materials were we will get to see in his Development section.
DEVELOPMENT: measures 57 to 97 (03:33 to 04:51)
In A
Sonata Theory Handbook James Hepokoski proposed that if a development
only draws from Theme 1 and the transition and not from Theme 2 or any coda
material then we are looking at a sonata development that is half rotational
(page 77). What we discover in Grand Sonata I is Matiegka builds his entire
development section not on Theme 1 or Theme 2 but on his transition.
This is a simple but substantial
insight about how composers can play with and develop their ideas. When I was studying music theory, I was told
that a development section could draw on the themes or anything in the
exposition, really. But I didn’t know there were examples like Grand Sonata
I where the entire development is derived from the transition to the full
exclusion of either Theme 1 or Theme 2.
For that matter that the
transition is almost as long as Themes 1 and 2 put together wasn’t something I
could have known about decades ago when I was first studying sonata forms.
I have come to regard as a canard
most claims that this or that compose “broke the rules” for how to compose
because the more I looked into how sonata movements (as we inevitably must call
them now since “grand binary form” is not really on the table) the more I
realized that “the rules” were often post hoc inventions explaining what the
works of canonized composers did or allegedly subverted in audience
expectations. Going through Matiegka’s
guitar sonatas has shown me that he, a contemporary of Beethoven and Schubert
who was familiar with the works of Mozart and Haydn, felt very free to do
whatever he wanted with his ideas. If he
wanted to treat his sonata themes as kinds of formal placeholders he could.
There is no dominant pedal
passage, no “standing on the dominant” in this development section. Matiegka leads into a sotto voce
passage in B minor full of delicate treble figuration and staccato bass lines
that evoke but never quote Theme 1 for the only time in this section and that’s
arguable. Rather than end on a dominant
or prepare the dominant or anything like that Matiegka lets his music dissolve
into a wispy B minor passage that dissolves into lingering 12th fret
B natural harmonics. Ending development
sections on the submediant was almost a commonplace from the Romantic era
onward (and among composers influenced by the Romantic vocabular as, if memory
serves, Ferdinand Rebay ended a few of his development sections in his guitar
sonatas on submediant harmonies).
Where else can we go from here
but the recapitulation, right? But if there’s no dominant chord or passage to
prepare for Theme 1 to return in D major what is Matiegka going to do next?
RECAPITULATION measures 98 to
172) (04:52 to 07:12)
Theme 1 measures 98 to 113 (04:52
to 05:21)
Just as nobody could really
decree that you had to have a dominant pedal or “standing on the dominant”
passage before starting the recapitulation, there was also no real decree that
you couldn’t kick off your recapitulation in the “wrong key”. So Matiegka brings back Theme 1 in a lush
open-stringed G major.
This subdominant could be
construed as a “breaks the rules” moment for Matiegka to add on top of his “no
dominant in the development”. According to “textbook” explanations of sonata
forms the recapitulation is supposed to observe the principle of the “double
return”. Theme 1 is supposed to come
back and it is supposed to come back in the tonic key.
Yet the reality in the 18th
and 19th centuries among composers in Europe was that they might
just as often as not choose to recapitulate Theme 1 in a “wrong key”. Mozart,
for instance, was known to start recapitulations in the subdominant key from
time to time. Jason Yust pointed out in Organized
Time: Rhythm, Tonality, and Form that, during the early 19th
century, composers began to prefer non-tonic recapitulations. Subdominant recapitulations were considered
lazy and often avoided but even Mozart had chosen to start recapitulations in
the subdominant key. Here Matiegka opts
to begin his recapitulation in the subdominant key but from the secondary
passage he returns to D major so that by the time his rounded binary Theme 1
has run its course the recapitulation has gone from the subdominant to the
expected tonic.
Wrong-key recapitulation is a
device he uses in his Op. 31 Sonata No. 1 in C major. In that sonata he brings
back Theme 1 in A major rather than C major and has his second phrase in A
minor that prepares for the return of the second half of his Theme 1 to come
back in the correct key of C major. I
differ with Stanley Yates on what Matiegka has done here, Matiegka hasn’t given
us a false recapitulation, he’s given us a real recapitulation that starts off
in a wrong key and course-corrects itself in time for the non-modulating
transition.
Transition measures 114 to 142
(05:22 to 06:13)
One of the joys of composing for
the guitar is that once you’ve reached a certain level of technical mastery you
discover that if you really like a passage in one fairly easy key you can
transpose the entire thing into another key up or down a string without too
many drastic demands. Matiegka loved his
transition so much he brings back more or less the whole thing in the
recapitulation only this time around he shakes things up by having a passage in
triple meter. He doesn’t notate it as
such (Danuta
Mirka has written about how stringently monometrical 18th century
music is even when meter changes actually occur). But occur it does at
measure 125 (05:43) and it’s a lovely way to play with ideas even in the
recapitulation space where things are supposed to be getting “wrapped up”. Matiegka, who was familiar with Haydn’s work,
seems to have taken some cues from his influence by emulating the precedent of
continuing to develop and revise ideas after the formal recapitulation has
begun.
Theme 2 measures 143 to 149
(06:14 to 06:28)
Theme 2 comes back more or less
as expected.
Coda measures 150 to 172 (06:29
to 07:12)
The coda in the recapitulation is
substantially larger than it was in the exposition where its job was simply to
formally close the exposition. Here in
the recapitulation it builds up to a flamboyant half cadence and ends with a
fermata and ad libatum preceding a simple rising scale passage that
precedes a reprise of material from Theme 1 as a closing passage.
It is at this point that I
propose that one reason Matiegka did not feel any need to develop Theme 1 or
Theme 2 is because of this ad libatum moment. When David Leisner
recorded this sonata, he interpolated a cadenza between the end of the big half
cadence and the staccato rising scale that presages the closing phrase of the
sonata. It’s a beautifully made cadenza
and I like it. My preference, however,
is for deriving the cadenza from inversions of materials in Themes 1 or 2. I propose Matiegka under-developed his formal
themes because in this ad libatum interruption he could improvise or
supply some kind of for-the-moment cadenza developing on neglected
materials.
As has been customary for this project, when I can supply a full score with in-score notes and observations I want to provide that.
II. Andante
molto (quarter= about 66 bpm)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekffpV3uIuc
Stanley Yates’ proposed tempo is
that the quarter note gets about 66 beats per minute which seems to me almost
too fast. Something closer to 60 beats
per minute or even slightly slower seems appropriate. We have very short themes here with
short-breathed phrases in two-measure chunks.
This would make sense in light of William Caplin’s proposal that we
think of phrases as made up of at least two-measure chunks in his work. It’s
also fairly literally how we have to map out the phrases in this movement.
As to its form, well, I agree
with Stanley Yates it is basically a sonata form of some kind. There is wiggle room as to whether it's an
extremely tiny Type 3 or an expanded Type 1 based on the five types outlined by
Hepokoski and Darcy in Elements of Sonata Theory.
This is a languid and stately
movement, more so than the opening Maestoso.
Most recordings of this movement are, I think, too fast. David Leisner’s performance
seems best in capturing the stateliness of the movement and his added ornaments
on second passes and embellishments are appealing. I do wonder if he changed the registration of
some lines in this movement but I’ll leave that aside. As I have done so far, I’m working with
Giulio Tampalini’s recorded performance even if I am disappointed by how quickly
he took this movement.
EXPOSITION: First Pass, measures 1 to 22 (00:00 to 00:44)
Theme 1 (D major), measures 1 to 8 (00:00 to 00:15)
This little sonata opens up with
a stately theme in triple meter. It is
also merely eight measures long. What’s striking about this slow movement is
how much Matiegka is able to imply harmonically in two and three note textures.
He makes this slow movement seem more harmonically refulgent in implication
than the bare notes on the page might suggest. We can take measures 2 and 3 as
examples.
The melody is a simple, elegant
gesture. As a bare solo line, it’s even
a bit pedestrian 18th century galant but Matiegka harmonized
the line with a mixture of thirds, fourths and sixths. More importantly, he deftly wields oblique
motion to create continually shifting harmonies in a consistently sparse 3
voiced texture. An A7 spelled A, G and C
sharp in ascending order appears on beat 1 of measure 2 and at beat 2 the A is
sharpened, becoming a fifth-less A sharp secondary leading tone to B minor,
which duly appears on beat 3 of measure 2.
At measure 3 Matiegka has the bass voice drop down to G while the melody
in the treble strings takes up F#, E, G, F#, E, D in succession, supported by
D, C#, B, A, G natural, and F sharp. The
melody outlines a gently dipping, rising and falling gesture while the inner
voices consistently move down the scale.
The effect this has above the subdominant pedal is to create a gentle
cascade of dissonances. No one would
regard the juxtaposition of D and F# above a G pedal tone as consonant in the
early 19th century, nor would they say the same about E and C#
floating above the same G natural. The
harmony is cumulatively a simple G major chord but Matiegka delays the arrival
of the identifiable subdominant until beat 2 of measure 3. By measure 4 the melody and harmony have
arrived at the dominant.
The second phrase in Theme 1
begins with the same core idea as before but with a gentle melodic
embellishment on the third beat. Measure 5 brings a dominant harmony The A major resolves deceptively to a brief F#
minor at the start of measure 7 which leads to a second inversion A major and a
root position E major. Melodically we could say the treble line has C#, C# and
B natural leading the way to a second half cadence. Because measures 1 and 5
are basically the same we could describe this as fitting the bare minimum definition
of a parallel period, one in which both phrases end with half cadences. In his book Journeys Through Galant
Expositions L Poundie Burstein pointed out that it was commonplace for
themes to end on half cadences. Nobody
thought you needed a firm authentic cadence to consider your first theme
finished. Matiegka’s opening theme here
is a case in point. The half cadence he
reaches at measure 8 is both an arrival point and a launching off point because
this continuation phrase doubles up as a modulating transition.
Transition, measures 8 to 11
(00:16 to 00:22)
But you may ask yourself “How was
what we just heard and saw even a complete theme?” Given how slow the tempo is, and taking
William Caplin’s axiom that a phrase consists in two-measure chunks, I’d say we
have a parallel period with both halves of the period ending on half
cadences. Formal, melodic and harmonic
closure have been achieved in the sense that we know we’ve heard an
eight-measure theme. The fact that the
eighth measure doubles up as a continuation phrase and the start of a
modulating transition may mean Matiegka has deliberately blurred the boundaries
between and within phrases but everything in the music here is elegantly clear.
From measure 8 to 11 he uses a
simple set of three eighth notes spanning the second half of beat 2 and beat 3
in measures 8 and 9 to build sequential momentum to the start of each
subsequent measure. We can think of this
as a kind of slow operatic aria where the singer slowly rises up to the clouds
with some sentiment. Together we rise
through C sharp, D natural and E, chromatically moved upward by inner voices
that make G sharp in measure 8 and A sharp in measure 9. At measure 10 Matiegka
gives us a chromatic descent in the melody on beats 2 and 3 where A drops to G
sharp and then G natural to sustain across the barline. In the bass in measure 11 D natural appears
and the melody moves scale-wise down to C sharp above a second inversion A
major triad, with the final beat of measure 11 taken up by E7 with B in the
upper voice. We may hear all of this not
as a modulation into a new key but an elaborate extension of the second
(final?) phrase of the opening theme.
These are all good things to
consider and I propose that the way to understand what Matiegka has done here
is to regard this as a sonata form that, to use James Hepokoski’s terminology,
has a continuous exposition.
There is no clear moment anywhere that suggests Matiegka has stopped the
music to announce that a new theme is coming. Instead, he seamlessly presents
his eight-measure Theme 1 and builds a continuation phrase that just as
seamlessly turns into what I identify as Theme 2. Speaking of which …
Theme 2 (A major), measures 12 to
22 (00:23 to 00:44)
Theme 2 appears at measure 12 and
is driven by two-measure phrases. The sixteenth
note arpeggios are as bare bones as can be but because melodic and rhythmic
activity has shifted from the treble strings to the bass that combined change
of rhythmic activity and registration signals that this music fulfills the
formal function of a new thematic idea despite the fact that harmonically (and
melodically) we have never seemed to stop being in the same musical theme we
started with. It’s almost a Matiegka
trope that when he introduces a new formal section there is some abrupt shift
in rhythmic activity. In this case Theme
2 is introduced by the rising rippling arpeggios in sixteenth notes. The almost purely harmonic trajectory of this
theme can be mapped out as follows:
I-V, I-V, I-IV, V7/V I 6/4 V to I
Or as aaa'b
Now at measure 18 Stanley Yates
identifies the climactic chord of Theme 2 as an ascending cluster of F sharp, B
sharp, D sharp and A natural, with A being above the treble clef. This chord resolves to an A major in second
inversion which moves to a root position E and resolves with a firm authentic
cadence in A major which signals the first firm authentic cadence in the music
and shows that we have landed firmly in A major. This fulfills the expositional closure that
would be stipulated by Hepokoski and Darcy in Elements of Sonata Theory. Now about that B sharp seventh chord in
second inversion in the Yates edition, it makes sense where it is. James Hepokoski has discussed how, when
analyzing sonata movements, we should look for correspondence measures in
expositions and recapitulations. If
musical ideas appear in both the recapitulation and the exposition then we can
get a sense of what those musical ideas do in light of how they recur later in
the movement. Matiegka has a G sharp
fully diminished seventh chord in measure 53 as the climax of Theme 2 in the recapitulation
so it would stand to reason maybe Matiegka meant that to be the case here in
Theme 2 in the exposition, in which case the B should be sharp rather than
natural.
In the published Artaria edition,
though, the B is natural, in which case the climax of Theme 2 at measure 18
(00:36) is a second inversion B7 that resolves to a second inversion A major
chord. The recapitulation version of
this harmony at measure 53 could be enharmonically reinterpreted as a D fully
diminished seventh chord that resolves to a simple D triad. Wielding fully diminished seventh chord
variations of the tonic is something guitarists can do, whether in Matiegka’s
proto-Romantic style or in Robert
Johnson’s “Kind-Hearted Woman”. No
one would say Matiegka’s music is bluesy, of course, but it’s interesting to
speculate that something about the morphology involved in guitar technique and
harmonic language that alternating between simple tonic chords and fully
diminished seventh chords based on the same root spans the trans-Atlantic world
between Wenzeslaus Thomas Matiegka in the early 19th century and
Robert Johnson in the 20th.
So, since the published score
from Artaria has a B dominant seventh chord I am going with that, Yates’
decision as editor of his edition withstanding.
I have two reasons for this and the first one I have just stated. The
second reason I think B7 is what Matiegka wanted besides that obvious fact is I
don’t think it’s unreasonable to propose that he knew that a B7 resolving to a
second inversion A major chord would be a bit odd yet still sound good. It plays comfortably enough, and within a
sonata exposition it would create a rhythmic and harmonic distortion that goes
unresolved. It creates an expectation
that this harmonic/rhythmic quirk in Theme 2 “could” be resolved in a more
normal way for the time and style in the recapitulation (i.e. the diminished
chord tonic embellishment I’ve already made reference to in the recapitulation
we haven’t gotten to yet).
EXPOSITION: Second Pass (00:45 to
01:29)
What that chord at the climax of
Theme 2 in measure 18 is becomes all the more salient once we bear in mind that
Matiegka asks the guitarist to repeat the whole thing from the top. Most guitarists who have recorded this work
have done that but I have liked David Leisner’s decision to embellish the
second pass of the exposition in his performance. I agree with that decision. In light of Dana Gooley’s work on
improvisation in the early 19th century (Fantasies
of Improvisation: Free Playing in Nineteenth-Century Music) I would
dare suggest that improvising or embellishing the second pass of the exposition
in this central slow movement should almost be a requirement.
DEVELOPMENT, measures 23 to 30
(01:30 to 01:42)
Depending on how we hear this
music and interpret the score either we have a two-themed exposition with a
continuous exposition, or we could hear the whole thing as one single
twenty-two measure theme that ends on half cadence after half cadence in D
major until it finally modulates to A major and just ends there. I have argued for a two themed continuous
exposition.
Now we’ve got this passage from measures
23 to 30 and could we even call this a development? Well, yes.
The initial melodic gesture at measures 23 to 26 evokes the vibe of the
first four measures, it’s just that this happens over a pulsing dominant pedal
in steady eighth notes, something that has not appeared anywhere in the music
previously. The second melodic gesture
evokes the sixteenth note cascade of arpeggios we identified as the basis of
Theme 2. So, in terms of James Hepokoski’s
ideas about rotations in A Sonata Theory Handbook, we’ve got just enough
to consider this little passage to have full rotation properties since
the P and S/C materials are accounted for. Just because this development seems so
ludicrously short as to not even count as a development doesn’t mean it isn’t
one and it does fit the requirements of Hepokoski’s concept of a development
going through the core ideas that appeared in the exposition and in the order
in which they appeared there.
So, there’s that. Now we’re off to the recapitulation.
RECAPITULATION measures 31 to 57
(01:43 to 02:37)
I have played with the idea that
what Matiegka did in his exposition is create a kind of “half and half”
exposition. I’ve had a similar idea for
some expositions in guitar sonatas by Simon Molitor and at least one of
Matiegka’s other works (the E flat march in his lengthy series of studies). The
idea is that the recapitulation presents the completed version of a theme but
in the exposition the composer has broken up the theme into two chunks which
are presented in two different keys. The
idea, speculative though it is, is that Matiegka and other composers created
themes where they could expect their audience to hear that this stunt has been
pulled and that the expositional “challenge” or “game” is to present the halves
of the single theme as if they were separate parts in a sonata exposition but
not present them in what would be their expected form until the recapitulation. For what it’s worth if this is what early 19th
century guitarist composers attempted to do I think Matiegka was vastly more
successful in the effort that Simon Molitor but that’s my personal
aesthetics. Your preferences may vary. Let’s get to the details.
Theme 1, measures 31 to 41 (01:43
to 02:02)
Theme 1 comes back and it comes
back in D major, a perfectly textbook example of what sonata theorists call “double
return”. Matiegka sequentially develops
ideas in Theme 1 here more than he did in either his exposition or development
and Theme 1 expands from its eight-measure form to eleven measures here before
the transitional material reappears.
In Elements of Sonata Theory
James Hepokoski and Warren Darcy distinguished between five types of sonata
form. Type 1 fits what used to be called
a sonatina, or a sonata that has an exposition and a recapitulation but no real
development section. Given how short and potentially structurally negligible
the standing on the dominant pedal point development in this sonata could be we
“could” say there either is no development or not one long enough to be
considered a formally significant passage.
If we take that interpretive decision then the fact that Matiegka
expands his thematic materials more in his recapitulation zone than in the
development section could lead us to classify this slow movement as an expanded
Type 1 sonata form.
Against that interpretation we
should consider that in the works of Haydn recapitulation zone development of
themes is common enough and we know beyond all doubt that Matiegka was very familiar
with Haydn’s work (Matiegka’s Op. 23 guitar sonata is two thirds a Haydn
transcription or arrangement and his works abound in Haydn quotations). So
rather than conclude this is an expanded Type 1 sonata we could say this is a very
compact Type 3 sonata, more the “Textbook” sonata form that has been given in
music theory courses. Just because
Matiegka developed his ideas in his recapitulation more than in the development
would not alter this interpretation. In fact, knowing what we know about
Matiegka’s access to Haydn’s music the Type 3 interpretation makes the most
sense. Both classifications are still
plausible enough to be considered, which is why I’ve mentioned both of them.
Transition, measures 42 to 46
(02:03 to 02:12)
Rather than play the bare eighth
note sequence from the exposition, here Matiegka does what he did in the first
movement and decorate the gestures by turning eighth notes into thirty-second
notes followed by dotted sixteenth notes.
At measure 45 (02:09) we arrive
at a solo break floating over a subdominant harmony. It is a moment where the
music stops a while for the soloist, represented by the string of sixteenth
notes moving back and forth between B natural and A sharp (an almost proto-bluesy
aside), gets in a word about how things have been. This slow and stately triple meter piece
could be an opera aria or an aria from a cantata (Matiegka would eventually go
on to drop composing for the guitar and become a kappelmeister composing
church music, and Stanley Yates mentioned in his edition of Matiegka’s guitar
sonatas that there is evidence that Matiegka both studied law and attended seminary,
so I am not completely speculating as to the music here being steeped in a
background of opera arias and church music). This slow central movement could
have plausibly been used, with a few modifications as the basis for a vocal
setting of the Agnus Dei from the ordinary of the Mass.
Which is to say the solo above
the subdominant we see in measure 45 is probably best understood and
interpreted in light of this kind of background to Matiegka’s life and work.
Theme 2, measures 47 to 57 (02:13
to 02:37)
Theme 2 arrives after the little
solo has led to the expected authentic cadence moment. Give or take some necessary adjustments for D
major the material is preserved very well.
Any guitarist can tell you that rippling arpeggios that are easy in one
key become odiously hard to play and lack natural resonance in another key, no
matter how closely related, so Matiegka’s adjustments all make sense here and I
won’t belabor the fact by trying to describe those changes.
I will say that here in the
recapitulation that fully diminished seventh chord on the tonic that resolves
to the tonic and leads to a perfect authentic cadence is what audiences of Matiegka’s
time would have expected him to do. I
think that argues in favor of the B7 to A passage in the exposition should be
played as it appears in the published score for reasons I’ve already explained.
This slow central movement is beautiful
and a great example of a sonata that has a continuous exposition. It also lends itself wonderfully to
improvisation and embellishment, something David Leisner demonstrated in his
recording of Grand Sonata I. It’s not surprising that of all the
composer’s work this work is by far the best-represented in commercially
available recordings.
Having discussed the score in
some detail I would be remiss to not include it for your examination since it
is in the public domain.
On to the finale
III. Rondo
capricioso (dotted half = about 66 bpm)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0IkEBEjQZM
The first thing we should
establish is that the finale is labeled rondo capricioso, which translates into
"capricious rondo". To be
capricious is to be given over to abrupt and unaccountable changes of mood or
behavior. This finale is giant and Matiegka made a point of having it live up
to being a “capricious rondo”. Despite being scored strictly in 3/8 he will
change meters multiple times throughout this grand finale to Grand Sonata I.
It might be a bit much to suggest that any time you see a fermata in this
finale it should be considered a punchline but that would be a fairly reliable
rule of thumb for interpreting this finale.
Stanley Yates has described this
as a sonata rondo.
I hear and read it as a
seven-part rondo
Refrain, transition, Episode 1, retransition/solo,
Refrain, Episode 2, solo 2, Refrain, Episode 1, Refrain
Or … A tr B tr S1 A C A S2 B tr A
To the refrain, then, we turn. Because this is such a large finale I will not
be quite so detailed here as I was in describing the earlier movements. Rondos
are in a sense easier to explain than a sonata (because steady alternation
between refrains and episodes is pretty clear) yet require a bit less
explanation since there aren’t quite as many theories competing to explain what
rondos do the way there have been multiple theories about what sonata forms
even are and how they work.
A refrain in a rondo is the idea
that just keeps on coming back, however clipped or attenuated it may be on each
return. In his Op. 16 Matiegka closed with a rondo where he kept sawing off
parts of the refrain until, at the end, he ended with an episode and simply
never brought back his refrain. So we know just from Matiegka’s earlier works
that in a rondo he might drop several musical jokes on us and in this finale he
doesn’t disappoint. We’ll get to the
abstract musical jokes as we go. First
we get to the refrain.
REFRAIN (00:00 to 1:04)
In its first presentation the
Refrain can be described as a a : ba : ba
in this case 'a' is as
follows
(00:00 to 00:12 and 00:13 to
00:24)
measures 1 to 8 form
antecedent-consequent based on sequence
measures 9 to 12 form a tag that
functions as a turnaround back to the initial phrase
The initial idea is a jolly song
in 3/8, the kind that might appear in a comic Italian opera, for instance. We
get a simple idea and it is simply sequenced. Rondos from this period tended to
feature ideas that were considered good-natured or even folksy. After the `a’ material we go on to the other part of
this rounded binary form full of internal repeats.
ba
(00:25 to 00:44 and 00:45 to 01:04)
measures 13 to 23 form the 'b'
material
The continuation phrase presents
'a' material with intervallic change followed by a cascade of call and response
imitative counterpoint in two voices (measures 15 to 20). Measures 21 to 23
have sixteenth note arpeggios leading to an F sharp major chord with a fermata.
Matiegka has stopped here as if to prepare the way for a shift from D major to
B minor. By measure 20 Matiegka has
arrived at B minor and the half cadence on F sharp promises to resolve to B
minor but ... no. At measure 24 the 'a material returns, this
time firmly cadencing on the tonic at measure 31 before repeating the entire
"ba" module. So we’ve
gotten the first fermata and the first musical joke or feint, the
promise/threat to move to a new key with a chord serving as a half cadence to
the relative minor that simply doesn’t resolve; the chord just sticks out like
a sore thumb and the next musical phrase just shows up and carries on as if
nothing odd happened. The entire `ba’ module is to be repeated in the
score but not all guitarists observe all the repeat indications in the
finale. I have favored using Tampalini’s
recording as a reference point because while he takes the movements in Grand
Sonata I faster than I would like he pretty studiously observed all the
repeats and I believe the repeats are a necessary part of Matiegka’s musical
sense of humor. How he ends a phrase the first time will not be how he ends a
phrase a second time.
For instance …
TRANSITION measures 32 to 57
(01:04 to 01:24)
The transition away from the
Refrain begins at measure 32 and runs to measure 57 (01:04 to 01:24)
Matiegka presents two consecutive
line progressions as follows
measures 32 to 35 (01:04 to 01:07)
D, D7 , G
, D7 (no 3rd) , G
D, C natural, B natural, A ,
G
measures 36 to 41 (01:08 to 01:13)
G7 , C, D minor , C major , E7
F natural, E, D , C natural , B natural
The two descending line
progressions serve the harmonic function of destabilizing D major so that music
moves to A major. How will Matiegka reinforce that A major is the new key here?
He uses a technique he deployed in his Op.
17 Sonate progressive, a double Quiescenza.
measures 42 to 50 (01:14 to
01:19)
For sake of review, the Quiescenza
is a galant schema that Robert Gjerdingen discussed in his book Music
in the Galant Style. It consists
of a linear movement across a minor seventh through a major sixth to a leading
tone and finally the tonic of a given tonality. Over a steady A pedal tone we get G natural
descending to F sharp and then G sharp ascending to A. This has the effect of affirming A major as
the newly consolidated key region preparing the arrival of the first episode in
the rondo.
Now it would seem Matiegka has
affirmed A major is the new key but he has biggie-sized all sorts of things in
this sonata. His transition between Theme 1 and Theme 2 in the opening sonata
form was about the same length as the two themes put together. Here he creates
giant transitions that get further interrupted by solo breaks. So he’s not done
affirming A major yet. There’s still
more work to be done.
Now we’re at measures 51 to 57 (01:21
to 01:25)
Here we have a sequence of chords:
A major, B7, E, E7 (2nd inv), E7, which resolves to simple E major by measure
56 and a fermata on the lowest E at measure 57 (01:24) The effect is that he
isn’t just affirming A major he’s over-affirming it. Will he get to the first
episode?
EPISODE ONE in A major, measures 58 to 108 (01:26 TO 02:18)
Yes, finally.
Stanley Yates designates the
episode theme as being from measures 58 to 66 in his edition of Matiegka's
sonatas. Everything between measures 67
and 108 he designates as codettas. I understand this designation but, drawing
upon James Hepokoski's ideas about sonata theory (specifically the concept of
correspondence measures), I identify the first episode in this rondo as being
significantly larger.
Matiegka's identifiable themes
throughout this sonata have been noticeably small and a lot of the
"Grand" in Grand Sonata I comes not from the themes
themselves but the epic scale (for the guitar) Matiegka gives to transitions
and codas. In that sense I agree completely with Yates about how many passages
are codas, codettas, closing passages and transitions. I think part of the musical comedy Matiegka
took up here and throughout the sonata is to use these sprawling transitions
and asides as a kind of joke/test, has the composer made this sonata so large
he’s in danger of overstaying his welcome? Rather than regard this as an epic
finale in the manner of Beethoven I think this finale makes more sense (and is
more fun) as a finale owing more to Haydn than Beethoven, even if I realize
Matiegka made a point of making a Beethoven arrangement. To interpret Matiegka properly, I believe, it’s
more important to take cues from Haydn’s jokes in his string quartets than
Beethoven’s “Tempest” sonata.
In terms of formal function, the
entire span of measures 58 to 108 counts to me as the first episode.
In Yates' reckoning B covers measures 58 to
75. Whereas the refrain had an aa
: ba : ba structure the first episode is strophic. Matiegka embellishes a simple descending line
in A major that moves through A, G sharp, F sharp, E sharp, D natural, C sharp,
B and E on the first pass (measures 58 to 65). Then on the second pass
(measures 66 to 75) Matiegka adjusts the bass line so that it descends from A
through G sharp, F sharp, E sharp, D natural across two measures, C sharp
across two measures, and then on the final measure moves through eighth notes across
D and E to form an authentic cadence on A at 75. This strophic beginning for the episode has
delicacy and elegance to it and its linear descent is evocative of, say,
Pachelbel's famous and alternately loved and reviled Canon in D. The first phrase over this descending line is
a delicate dance and the second phrase has bare eighth notes outlining a gently
rocking descent through A C# A, G# B, G#, F# A F#, E# G# E# and so on.
Measure 75 (1:44) is where Yates
believes the episode ends I think Jason Yust would raise a point about how,
yes, we have a firm authentic cadence in A major and that provides harmonic and
melodic closure to the episode but a mere single eighth note value followed by
two eighth notes on the fifth of the scale that immediately proceeds to a
continuation phrase suggests that in rhythmic terms Matiegka has created a
resolution that is so weak nobody listening to this episode would think it's
over. What Yates identifies as "Codettas"
from measures 67 to 108 counts as a series of continuation phrases.
Take measures 76 to 83 (01:45 to
1:52), for instance. Matiegka drones away above an E pedal tone and in his
figuration we get a melody that goes as follows: D, C#, B, C#, E, A, B, A, G#, A, E, E and
repeats. Harmonically this kind of V-I
alternation is a trope in the B strains of ragtimes.
This V-I alternation is followed
by a IV-I alternation at measures 84 to 90 (01:52 to 01:59) that eventuall
resolves with a IV-V-I cadence. From
measures 91 to 98 we get a filigree passage that is melodically and harmonically
a simple I-V alternating pattern. We can
reduce the melody to A in a bar followed by B, A, G#. The arpeggios and flourishes withstanding in
linear terms this is a bare-bones cadential cliche. However, what is going on rhythmically needs
to be considered. The A major tonic is
played with tripleted sixteenth notes while the E major half of the chord
shuffle is played in thirty-second notes.
What Matiegka is doing here is rapidly alternating between triplet and
duple meter within his 3/8 measures, destabilizing the meter.
measures 99 to 109 (02:09 to
02:18)
We get more continuation phrases.
It’s like he’s hammering away at the non-tonic key so much his key-affirming
chain of cadences risks outwearing its welcome.
When’s he going to get back to the refrain?
measures 110 to 117 (02:19 to
02:26)
Finally, a transition that
promises to get away from the key but …
solo measures 118 to 140 (02:27
to 02:48)
Wait,
he just changed the meter of the piece.
Not
that he left 3/8 in the dust in the written score. Like many composers from the
18th and early 19th century Matiegka used accent marks,
articulation symbols, and beaming to reveal he has changed meters without doing
what we would do in the 21st century, which would simply be to
change meters and score accordingly.
To
repeat, Matiegka changed meters just at the moment where he seemed like he
would retransition back into the Refrain.
Then he indulges in a solo that, to put this anachronistically, has the “circling
ever-circling” mood of a Lynard Skynard solo in “Free Bird”. It’s like Matiegka
is toying with his audience by interrupting what should have been a flow from Episode
1 back into the Refrain with a deliberately obstructive guitar solo that isn’t
even the right meter for this triple meter rondo finale. I suggest that all of this could be construed
as a musical joke at the expense of guitarists.
The composer is throwing in a rambling guitar solo to make fun of how guitarists
have a temptation to throw in wicked solos that are not necessarily sensible or
musically compelling.
When does the Refrain come back?
When will Matiegka get back into the correct meter?
REFRAIN in D major measures 142 to 173(02:49 to 03:19)
Here Matiegka brings back all the
material from the refrain but omits every repeat. Why repeat everything this second time around
that was played twice the first time around? He did just threaten to outstay
his welcome with that “in the wrong meter” guitar solo. As compensation, he cuts the new Refrain
short and, without any further ado, launches into …
EPISODE 2 in G major measures 173 to 266 (03:19 to 5:20)
This is easily the biggest
section of a very big finale. This is
where Matiegka indulged in his most drastic manipulations of meter changes. He
kicks off the second episode with phrases that sound like they present three
measures of 2/4 and then four measures of 3 / 4. This is what we get in the
first phrase at measures 173 to 188, which the composers requires be repeated
(03:19 to 03:37 and 03:38 to 03:55). At measure 180 there is a fermata above a
D major chord reached at 03:25 and 03:47 respectively across repeats. A fermata
above a half cadence is fairly conventional. I think it serves two purposes
here: 1) it affirms that harmonically and melodically this is a resting point
but 2) it reinforces the ambiguity of the metrical shifting he has employed
within the initial phrase of Episode 2. This episode could end up being like
the Refrain in having some kind of binary or compound binary element.
The second phrase traverses measures
189 to 196 (03:56 to 04:03) and suggests that this will be an Episode like the
Refrain. An `a’ is answered by a `b’.
What is more, we’re firmly back in triple meter, so the contrast with the
previous material could not be rhythmically starker. Here the fermata at
measure 196 reinforces the new meter of the new phrase rather than casting
doubt on the meters of the earlier phrase the way the earlier fermata did.
But duple meter isn’t done yet,
not by a long shot. At measures 197 to 200 (04:04 to 04:09) we’re given another
phrase, this one entirely in duple meter, that starts in G major but ends with
a B major chord with a fermata above it. C major went to B major instead of D
major and just let things sit for a while. This must be an antecedent to
something but is Matiegka going to shift to E minor or go back to G major? Hasn’t he going from a chromatic mediant chord
(literally) back to the tonic without explanation?
The music picks up again with the
completion phrase measures 201 to 212 (04:10 to 04:22). Now Matiegka barrels
through in 2/4 for several measures and only at the end remembers that this finale
started in 3/8 and abruptly concludes in-meter. He has been taking the initial
phrase of Episode 2 and spinning it out into increasingly longer sections so
that duple meter begins to drown out the triple meter that kicked off this
finale.
Triple meter does return, firmly,
at measures 213 to 220 (04:23 to 04:30)
Then duple meter returns
(measures 221 to 224 (04:31 to 04:35). We get another half cadence threatening
to go to E minor that, by now, is probably a false alarm in tonal terms. Matiegka has, by now, been pretty consistent
in never letting his chromatically altered mediant chords ever actually go to
the relative minor key. He keeps jerking
our chain about which meter he is in or will stay in.
Then, from measures 225 to 248
(04:36 to 05:00) Matiegka has Episode 2 culminate in what I call “The Big March”.
In this relentless passage of
duple meter Matiegka runs through a chain of circle progressions so swiftly he
changes chords every beat:
G, E, Am, D, G7, C7, F7, B flat,
G7, C, A7, Dm, B7, Em, C7, F, D7, G, E7, Am, A7, Dm, D7, G, G7, C, C7, F, F7,
G, G7, E, E7, Am, Dm, G7, C, F, Bm, Em, Am, D, m G, G7, C, F, F&m, G, E7,
Am, F#7, B7, Em, … and he does resolve back to G major at measure 248 and even
arrives back in triple meter but he has gone through so many chords he might as
well have made this an Omnibus Progression March. See pages 4 and 5 of the
Artaria score to view just how breakneck this tour of tonalities is.
Then, at measures 249 to 256
(05:01 to 05:12) Matiegka jumps back into 3/8 as if nothing weird had just
happened. This is the retransition that is supposed to get us from G major back
into the Refrain. At this point we’ve
taken so many twists and turns into wrong meters and the remotest tonal regions
far away from D major it’s a bit of a mystery how Matiegka is going to get us
back to the Refrain. The first thing he needed to do, which he did, is at least
get us back into the right meter. That lilting secondary phrase from Episode 2
is back.
Or it was. From measures 257 to
266 (05:13 to 05:20) Matiegka’s rhythmic groupings and cascading arpeggios
reveal that we’ve come back to 3/8 only long enough to shift gears into
compound meter. He hits us with
alternations of A7 and D so while he has begun to break away from 3/8 as the
baseline meter he is at least preparing a return to the tonic key. But he has
gone off into tangents in his last retransition passage so … odds are decent he’s
going to interrupt things with a guitar solo tangent, which he does.
Solo break 2 B minor measure 267
to 298, compound meter (05:21 to 05:53)
At least a compound meter solo in
B minor is the relative minor of D major.
It has a pleasant rippling effect like we’re floating along a river in a
boat somewhere. This solo is tighter and leaner than the big solo break that
came before. Matiegka’s harmonies and
rhythms being in compound meter suggest that he’s got less need to abruptly
change gears. He has been at his most
capricious in Episode Two and now the time has come to use more gentle
techniques to get the music back to the Refrain. Sort of.
At measures 291 to 292 (05:46) sets up what amounts to a 4/4 break
scored across the 3/8 measures preparing return of
REFRAIN in D major measures 299
to 346 (05:54 to 06:39)
The refrain comes back more or
less as usual with no repeats. We get a second fermata at measure 322 after
measure 321's fermata on the by now expected F# major chord. Matiegka had in the past let this half
cadence to the relative minor get resolved abruptly back into the D major tonic
of the refrain without preparation. Here,
finally, he introduces a dominant seventh chord that interrupts the flow of the
refrain.
After all the capricious meter
changes and tonal stunts is there anything left here in the finale he could be capricious
about?
He does have at least one more
feat to share with us.
At measure measure 323 (06:18) he
presents the core idea of the refrain in imitative counterpoint against itself
in two voices before taking off in a call and response antiphonal passage that
expands the closing section of the refrain starting at measure 231 (06:25).
This sonata has been full of two-part counterpoint and Matiegka clearly reveled
in imitative procedures. Presenting the incipit of his Refrain in imitative counterpoint
against itself is a pretty formidable contrapuntal feat, especially on the
guitar. It is one of the most brilliant inventions in this sonata. I think this sprawling Rondo capricioso
has been a friendly musical satire of guitarists.
By now he has reached the climax
of the finale and keeps things pretty tightly constructed. For instance, at
measure 338 (06:33) he reintroduces the tripleted sixteenth rhythm on a chord
shuffle of E7 and A that resolves to a low A at measure 346 (06:39). This lets
him return as efficiently as possible to a recontextualized
EPISODE 1 returns measures 345 to
364 (06:40 to 06:59)
The first episode returns in the
tonic key. The continuation passages 1 and 3 from the first episode and its
retransition return at measures 365 to (07:00 to 07:21). Matiegka skips from
continuation passage 1 to 3 in contrast to the material presented after Episode
1 initially appeared. He’s winding
things up now and closes with a return to
REFRAIN D major measures 3844 to
412 (07:22 to 7:56)
It has been a long musical
journey in this giant rondo for solo guitar. We’ve seen how tightly he
constructed his two sonata forms earlier in this work. The Rondo capriccioso
has certainly lived up to its name. Of course you’ll want to look at the score
for yourself so, naturally, I’ll supply it.
Stanley Yates has written that
this sonata is one of the most ambitious and compelling of the early 19th
century guitar sonatas published in Vienna.
It lives up to its title Grand Sonata and Yates regards it as the
apotheosis of Matiegka’s technique as both composer and guitarist. I am
inclined to agree. I happen to like all
of Matiegka’s guitar sonatas which is, of course, I’m writing at such length
about them. Here in the early 21st century, when English language
music theory scholarship has provided so many approaches to analyzing and
interpreting sonata movements, Matiegka’s body of work provides some rich
opportunities to demonstrate the viability and relevance of those theories of
sonata to explain what Matiegka actually did rather than find his work wanting
on the basis of theories of sonata grounded in earlier 19th or even
20th century conceptions of what sonata forms were supposed to do.
If we confine ourselves to just studying the music of the already canonized
“masters” we can lose sight (and that all too easily) of how varied and dynamic
the field was in concert music in European countries in the 18th
century and early 19th century. I believe Matiegka’s guitar sonatas
reward detailed study and that more guitarists should consider taking up
performing his works. Just within this one sonata alone we’ve seen two very
different approaches to sonata form explored by this composer, both of which
are worth studying and performing. If guitarists, particularly, want to get a
sense of how flexible and dynamic approaches to sonata forms can be I don’t
think they could do better than to explore Matiegka’s work. There are other
guitarist composers who were comparably good at exploring large scale forms in
the early 19th century but none, in my opinion, who were better are
exploring the possibilities of sonata forms than Matiegka.
