Category Archives: Music

JS Bach v The World (part III)

So randomly, the moment I click on WordPress to write another episode of complete drivel that no-one reads, Bach’s toccata in C minor randomly plays on my ‘Braintree Away’ Playlist.  Sounds rather odd?  Yes, but Tuesday just gone myself and my parents went on a coach to a small Essex town called Braintree to watch our beloved Dover Athletic play football.  We lost 1-0 and in the second half we were given a masterclass in how to waste time by the hosts.  So, I needed some music for the journey and compiled a list of about 90 tracks, a lot of Bach, but some Radiohead and Divine Comedy, too.  Yet don’t panic because today we beat a good Macclesfield side 2-1 and kept our spot of third in the league, two points behind the leaders Forest Green Rovers.

Anyhow, I ended the last part with a performance of what is probably the greatest piece of music ever conceived.  The solo violin chaconne in D minor is really beyond comprehension for any language to justify.  It is not of this world.   So was JS Bach some kind of alien planted here by something from the future or something vastly more intelligent than ourselves, but not quite able to compose music it would like?  No, I highly doubt Bach is an alien plant or even an alien, no evidence you see.  Drat, say all the UFO fantasists.  No, Bach just happened to be a lone sperm that made it to the egg first, and through some complicated genetic makeup and milieu managed to become the greatest musician that ever lived.  Now back to the chaconne in D minor.  Did he hear the main theme in his head first or did he just happen upon it while playing around with some other ideas on the clavier, say?  Well it obviously didn’t send him out of his mind like it would have done Brahms.

Today I became the owner of a biography of Bach and as I always seem to do, I looked at the last sentence and this is what it said:

“Truly, Bach links us with the universe.”  Klause Eidam The True Life of J.S.Bach.

That is such a beautifully simple yet elegant explanation of Bach and his music.  I always thought Beethoven was the greatest and spent a lot of my teenage years (before IMSLP) buying cheap copies of his piano sonatas from a local music shop with my meagre pocket/paper round money.  Well as long as I had enough to buy a sonata or two and get into football I was happy.   There was a hardback edition of Bach’s Well Tempered Clavier sitting proudly on the shelf above the cheap sonatas still wrapped in plastic to keep the dust off it.  I think it was about £50 so I could only dream of being able to buy it.   Now I have all of the WTCs thanks to IMSLP but they are bloody difficult to play, but what masterpieces.  Still, I thought Beethoven was the grandmaster and greatest musician to have ever graced the planet.  Now he is in second place.  Bach is like a ceiling that only people like Beethoven or Mozart can dream of getting near or above.  Yet you cannot, no-one can.  Bach trumps his competitors time and time again.   I used to bawl my eyes out when I listened to the last movement of Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony, same with Beethoven’s third, seventh, and ninth symphonies.   Then a couple of years ago I found myself in tears walking across a supermarket car park while listening to to Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto in G major.  I have always wondered why music triggers this.  Is it the way a composer develops a theme so incredibly that something in your head cannot comprehend and tells the eyes to release the water?  As a way of trying to come to terms with what our underdeveloped brains can’t cope with.  An outlet say?

Without JS Bach music wouldn’t have progressed the way it did.  Handel may have stepped up the the plate but he didn’t have the umph to do what a Bach would do.  Vivaldi is a pleasure to listen to but too repetitive to be the bedrock of classical music, and the same with Scarlatti, Purcell came too early, and Telemann all the while the most prolific of composers was nowhere near good enough to provide the next generation with the correct techniques and harmonies.  So it was just lucky that JS Bach did exist really.

I haven’t written anything for a few days, but I did read that  JS Bach’s music sort of disappeared and wasn’t the flavour of the month until Mendelssohn rediscovered the great master in the 19th century.  Yet I read that Beethoven quotes the masterfulness of Bach and if you look carefully there are many similarities in there music.  Beethoven isn’t afraid to be bombastic and powerful and you can hear the link with Bach especially in the harmonies.  At the moment I am listening to Bach’s partitas for keyboard.  They are worthy pieces I would say nearly on par with the toccatas yet they don’t quite have the bite, but needless to say they are masterpieces and the intertwining are a joy to hear and play.  There is so much going on in these partitas and I expect the more I listen to them the higher they will go in my estimation.

Some pieces by Bach can take several listenings to really understand and appreciate what is going on.  I, you, we, must persevere.  I think it is to do with neural pathways in the brain.  When listening to a piece by Bach for the first time the brain cannot take it all in, especially if you are listening to his secular keyboard or solo instrument pieces.   So keep at it and eventually the brain will have a Bach pathway that may induce more serotonin or dopamine to flow just for his music.  That would be really interesting if that were true; surely it must be.  The brain is trying to contend with something written around 300 years ago.  That is a true test of time.  I wonder, at any point in his life, Bach pondered what would happen to his music beyond his lifetime.

This is a very interesting take on the master’s music

Well that’s part III done.  Thanks for getting this far all none of you!  Haha!  I think I will just keep this going.

JS Bach v The World (part II)

I want to start with this interpretation of BWV 922:

This is a very good Youtube recording by Brendel although I couldn’t find my favourite which I listen to on Spotify, which is performed by Joao Carlos Martins. The latter is much slower and over minute longer then the former. The beauty of the Martin’s version is he plays the opening at full throttle, supremely, then comes to a grinding halt almost when the first subject appears, and what a tear jerking job he makes of it, too. Bach has written this piece to give the impression that it is constantly descending when it is doing little in the way of that. Bach is tricking the listener (and the performer come to that) into feeling a perpetual but accepting sense of depression and despair.  The second subject is an elaborative more complex version of the first but still done the way only Bach could have done.  I feel no other composer can give this conjuristic effect in music.  I have laid awake at night pondering this prelude over and over, listening to its nuances and trickery and just,well, marvelling at it.   I now realise that nothing quite compares and life becomes as pointless as it is must be to a multi billionaire.

If I have heard the greatest that the greatest can offer and nothing really comes close then what is the point?  Beethoven’s third symphony ‘Eroica’ is the methadone to Bach’s toccata heroin.  But why is it that nothing comes close to JS Bach?  Everything feels so resignedly second best after a JS Bach composition.  So you just seek out Bach, after Bach, after Bach.  Even his incredibly talented sons CPE Bach, and WF Bach don’t really cut the mustard the way their father did.

I haven’t mentioned Handel yet, or other contemporaries of JS Bach.  Was Handel as good as Bach?  No, but close, but just no (even though Beethoven held him in high esteem which is a good reference to have!).  I like and admire some of Handel’s keyboard Suites and they can get close to JSB but then flop into a whimsical mess not being worth a mention.  Although one in particular, in F minor, is one I hold in high regard.  What about Domenico Scarlatti?  Yes and no.  There are some very moving and powerful sonatas amongst Scarlatti’s oeuvre, but like Handel some of the 555 written, an impressive amount, are rather flat and have little or no emotion attached to them.  But in mitigation to Scarlatti he did write them as a tutorial aid for his royal pupils.  I cannot really comment too much on Purcell as I haven never properly studied his music, of which the same could be said for Buxtehude.  There were many musicians during the period that Bach was active but strangely very little came out of Britain.  Britain and Ireland produced many scientists and authors but lacked in composers.  The only one worth mentioning was Thomas Arne who wrote Rule Britannia.  His other output is a bit of keyboard work but nothing to really get excited about. A little later in the 1700s a composer came from Ireland called John Field.  He was taught by Muzio Clementi when the family moved to London  and became a useful pianist attracting attention across Europe.   He wrote a series of Nocturnes that are bloody delicious.  His other output, piano sonatas, are okay-ish sort of similar to Clementi and not too hard to master.  The poor chap died in Russia while trying to flog pianos for Clementi, and there is little information beyond that.  So Britain had Arne, Clementi, Purcell, and Handel.  Although, Handel was German born and came to England in 1712 and eventually became a British Citizen, like Clementi did who was born in Rome.

So what has all that got to do with Bach?  Well I am trying to paint a picture of what music was like in the 50 or so years that JS Bach had to compose in.  How much influence did he have on future music?  Well that is the key question.  He has had neverending influence on every musical note that has been written since 1750.  He is omnipotent across the vast spectrum of music even if you no nothing of his collection as it was that collection that influenced Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms.  Brahms makes a fine qute about this piece of music:

He said this:

“On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind.

Brahms who was born into absolute poverty in Hamburg; Brahms who became a famous international pianist and composer, some say his first symphony was Beethoven’s tenth; Brahms who offered residence and money to the relatively poor composer Dvorak; and Brahms the atheist, Dvorak said ‘He believes in nothing!’.  This piece of music is extraordinarily important and if Brahms could still feel Bach’s verve over a hundred later imagine how powerful it would have been and the time of its inception.

I will discuss this further in Part III.  Thank you for getting this far.


JS Bach vs The World (part one)

Now I am going to write something that will probably disgust people who are extremely well educated in Classical Music (or Western Art Music to give it its technical term), they may have grade 8 on theory and instrument, maybe even a degree in the subject.  I am educated to grade 6 piano grade 4 theory, GCSE music A*, A level music D (I was the only student in the history of the school to ever take A level music and had one to one tuition for two years), and I did a music module with the Open University  which I passed with a grade 2.   Mainly I am self taught, I learn about the composer’s lives and their music at my own pace.  So I am probably very wrong on what I want to say here.

Science and medicine have advanced exponentially with every passing century.  From leeches and bloodletting in Tudor times to Full Face Transplants and other amazing things that surgeons and doctors can do.  Also, look at the amazing drugs that the medical world has at it’s disposal.  So you would never say that medicine in 1820 was better then medicine in 2015.   Now as I write this I am listening to JS Bach’s Toccata for keyboard in E minor.  It is a piece of music, (especially the fugue) that transcends the existence of life.  It is so abstract and detached from the grind of everyday living.  How did Bach do it?  Did he just follow a simple formula that worked really well on every piece he composed.

So here is my conjecture.  The greatness, the prowess; the depth of emotion and feeling in Bach’s music is the pinnacle of musical compositions which peeked in the last decade of his life.  So say 1740-50 was when music peeked and has never achieved such heights again.  JS Bach, I have decided, after playing his music almost non-stop for three months, is the greatest composer who ever lived.  I feel as if I want to cry when I write these words.  I realise that this is purely subjective, but Bach has everything and used all that was available to him at the time.  The last decade of his life produced an amazing outpouring of music that clearly goes up and beyond what any human could conceivably do.  He wrote book 2 of his Well-Tempered Clavier in 1742, and later the Art of the Fugue which remains unfinished, and the beautiful Goldberg Variations.  The aria or theme of the latter piece were used in Silence of the Lambs listened to by Hannibal Lecter while in his cage.   So it has an eerie quality that has never been matched.

As music produced a flood of classical composers after JS Bach’s death only two really threatened Bach’s superiority:  Beethoven and Mozart (although I would argue for Muzio Clementi as well who played a big role as an influence in Beethoven’s music, not so much Mozart’s although Wolfgang did pinch a theme of Clementi’s and used it in his overture to The Magic Flute.  Clementi made sure people knew he had written and published this theme ten years earlier!).  Beethoven, in my opinion was far greater than Mozart.  Although if Wolfgang had maybe lived another ten years or so we may have seen him go in the direction that Beethoven did.  This can be shown by listening to Mozart’s last three symphonies which are a sign that he could have changed the course of music forever.  But music peaked in the 1740s and could never be bettered.  I am starting to think that that is an objective fact and I will try my hardest to define and argue for this notion.

JS Bach was almost mathematical in his compositions.  His fugues so perfectly set.  Like starting with little equations and then the entire piece goes through all the stages of solving them, maybe a bit like solving a quadratic equation.    And you will always find minor key works by JS Bach and others, end with a major chord.  This is a delightful technique which was copied by Alkan, the french pianist and composer, in his symphony for piano.  Although it is done the other way round and as it seems like the movement will end on C major a dark and quiet chord in C minor finishes the piece.   Yet a quadratic equations can have more then 2 answers.  One positive, one negative maybe.  Bach solves them each time and each fugue sounds complete and satisfying.  That is why a Bach piece always sounds complete and not too long or too short.  There is nothing unnecessary in a JS Bach piece.

You couldn’t have timed that any better.  I just decided I would ramble a bit more about Bach on this blog when, randomly, on my Spotify playlist ‘Braintree away’ (I am going on four hour roundtrip journey by coach tomorrow, 13/10/15, to watch my local football team Dover Athletic play Braintree Town), his Toccata in F sharp minor BWV 910 starts to play.  I know it was just a coincidence but I was about to flick on Bach’s keyboard toccatas played by Gould for inspiration.  His interpretation is supreme I must say and I am slowly regarding the toccatas for keyboard as my favourite JS Bach compositions.  Better than the partitas, the English and French suites, better than the Well Tempered Clavier books I and II?  I hear you say.  Erm, yes, I reply.   While all those mentioned are indeed incredible masterpieces that no man on his own should have ever been allowed to compose, the toccatas go that little step further, taking the listener into the dizzying world of abstract emotion and beyond the realms of this small terrestrial planet.  Indeed if they could be compared with music from beyond this Solar System, or Galaxy, they would rank right up there, although who am I too say.  I have had my inner ears washed with Bach for the last three months and cannot find fault, or indeed imperfection.    I have yet to tire of any part of his music.

My listening patterns cycle.  I leave certain, well most, composers dormant for weeks, months, some even years.  I find if I do this then the next time I come across them, always randomly, then it will feel like the magical time I first heard them.  Take Berlioz for example.  When I was first introduced to the Symphonie Fantastique and Harold in Italy, during GCSE music lessons I was mightily impressed yet after a few weeks I grew weary and let them drop from my playlists. It has been years since I last played Berlioz, maybe he is due a turn when I randomly stumble across him again.  Or take Brahms.  I love his four symphonies.  When I first heard the opening to the 1st symphony, again at school, I was blown out of my trousers, it was that good.  Trouble is that was the best part of the first movement and never returns.  The 4th in E minor is my favourite Brahms symphony and should get an airing soon, just like his two powerful piano concertos will, too.   Tchaikovsky is sitting fallow as well, but will sound cheerily impressive when I click him back into action before the year is out.  Even Beethoven I have to rest as I do actually tire of the old warhorse apart from the Eroica Symphony, that is impossible, for me at least, to get bored off.  And what about Mozart?  Er, well I have taken a massive sabbatical from the little Salzburg’s finest son.  I find his music too production line-ish, if there is such a description.  He composed some fine peices of music and most of those are in the keys of D or C minor.  His requiem is incredible, his late piano concertos and symphonies also but apart from the odd piano sonata or fantasie his appeal, I am afraid, is limited for me.

I am going to adjust my years of when music peaked and that is now from 1700-1750.  I push back the years to when the, as already mentioned, toccatas where composed.  A little bit of investigative work, beyond Wikipedia, which doesn’t seem to have a page about.  Yet I soon found out they were written between 1708 and 1710.   This is from the Piano Society webpage.

Well, such is my excitement for Johann Seb that I seem to have contradicted myself.   I am writing this piece over several days and should have read over what I have written.  Anyway, I regard the toccatas as extremely important pieces.  And taking into consideration they were composed by a 23-25 year old is not bad going considering the depth of emotion they contain.  This is perhaps where it get a little subjective because at present I class the toccatas as more important works then the WTC say.  The WTC is probably one of the finest body of works within a radius of several million parsecs from the centre of the earth!  Yet, it is beautifully mechanical, and each fugue is like a quadratic equation with the notes gradually solving it. Not like the toccatas.  I don’t know whether it is the whimsy humming of Gould that adds an extra layer to the recording or the harmonics that Bach conjures out of the aether that are somehow perfect.  They say Mozart was perfect.  Mozart’s music was simpler then JS Bach’s yet paradoxically difficult on purpose to protect itself from any kind of default!  I can conjecture that JS Bach was just a proxy through which the music flowed.  He was merely a conduit.  From whom you ask?  I have know idea and  I don’t want to become a conspiracy theorist, been there done that.  You see I could say that an alien race picked out a rather nondescript German organist teacher and funnelled incredible music through him.  No. that is nonsense and lowers the value of the human race that we can’t produce great things on our own.  Yet something flowed through Bach.  You don’t produce a masterpiece every time you touch a clavier or a quill, ink, and manuscript paper unless something is driving you on.

I’ll be honest.  I don’t know that much about Bach’s life, but I have recently purchased a biography about him so I can garner more information.  I do know he had many children and at least three went onto be accomplished musicians and composers in their own right.  CPE Bach produced some amazing compositions that bridged the gap between baroque and classical music.  The nice thing about this particular Bach is that his piano sonatas are relatively easy to master if you are grade 6 or higher on the piano.  Still, while he composed heaps of lovely transitional music, none of it ever comes close to what his dad produced.

So music can never get better that what is was up to 1750?  With Beethoven we came incredibly close.  His 9th symphony transcends humanity to some void we can only fill with the power of art and literature.  Science and technology sits quietly, patiently in the corner waiting for its next Einstein or Richard Feynman to be born and able to solve mathematical riddles before her 5th birthday!  So yes, Beethoven was a man possessed his last dozen or piano sonatas show this.  the amazing Appassionata Sonata and the final 32nd one in C minor.  But I just come back with JS Bach’s toccatas and they trump everything time and time again!  I used to think that  I could solve music mathematically even to the point of studying maths though the Open University.  I was sure there must be a mathematical answer how the cogs and wheels work inside a sonata or symphony, or a toccata!   JS Bach was the only one to provide evidence that this could be possible.  So if you can rip a piece down to its bare bones and see what is actually going on.  It is like how I used to wonder how a car engine actually worked.  I was fascinated by the actual beautiful simplicity of it when I finally worked out how it worked.  Same with music, either Bach just composed it becuase he could or he did it all mathematically.  I will explore these avenues when I write part two of this sorry tale.  Thanks for getting this far!

New piano sonata.

Work has successfully began on my 4th sonata in C minor and I am particularly pleased with the second movement.  I hope to have the whole work completely finished in a month or so.

Update:  This piece is now complete and dedicated to Jeremy Corbyn MP.


Complete version



The tunefulness of a tune

Is there a way, mathematically, to decipher which of the millions of melodies is the most melodious?   I wondered this about twenty years ago, even to the point where I started studying maths in the hope I could make a breakthrough.  In the end I could only work out the variables that would be needed:

average notes per phrase,

length of phrase (in bars)

pitch range (in semitones)

number of phrases per melody

number of accidentals

Really for me it was an impossible task (what with not even taking into account harmony and timbre) but I was trying to take away some of the frustrating subjectiveness that is found in music.  If I were to hazard a guess as to what melodies would be up there as the most tuneful then something by Tchaikovsky or the Beatles.  People would still disagree even if the maths were watertight.  Yet no one says things like ‘I don’t like the height of Everest’.

Note only would a mathematical equation make the subject objective it may even be able to predict even more tuneful melodies, stuff that has never been written.   You could even reach a point where you have the most tuneful tune possible.  Music is mathematical in that it follows patterns but is probably too non-linear to write down a happy equation, otherwise it would already been done.  Yet saying that,  I do get the feeling sometimes that modern pop music is composed by a machine or a software package rather than a human doing it.  Could it be that we are running out of tunes hence why older ones are getting recycled more often?  Every so often you get one catchy tune but they are getting further and further apart.

Music is simply three chords (tonic, dominant, subdominant) with forays into the relative minor every now and then.  It could finally be argued that music is simpler than we think.

Religious music, secular music.

I am not talking about hymns here, but music written by  composers whom traditionally write secular music.   At the moment I am listening to Mozart’s Requiem Mass that just about killed him and remained unfinished in his lifetime.   Yet I am not religious in any sense but this genre of music can be just as good in quality if not better then some secular compositions.   Personally I am not listening to the words, being an atheist they mean nothing to me anyway.  But the music can be sublime and some of my favourites include Dvorak’s requiem, JS Bach’s St Matthew’s Passion and the Mozart mentioned above.

Many composers in the 18th and 19th Century were deeply religious (it is easier to name the atheists:  Brahms and Tchaikovsky.)   Yet not one, to the best of my knowledge wrote a ‘God’ symphony or a Jesus Sonata.  Secularism played a big part in the shaping of classical music even if the various composers were devout.   Surprising that it was even allowed.  For me, the perfect cross over from secular to religious is Brahms’s German Requiem.  It is a requiem for people, not God.   And it is deeply moving in character and depth of feeling.  Which is strange because according to Dvorak Brahms ‘believes in nothing!’.  I think that is why I like Brahms.


Listening to Tchaikovsky’s symphonic oeuvre I wonder as to why it moves me. What is in it that causes emotional stirrings? Not just Tchaikovsky, it can be any music; is it melody, harmony, timbre, contrast?  I think it is combination of all those factors but especially contrast; sturm and drang maybe.   Storm and stress; roughly translated.  It is all very well having a great melody in a nice major key such as A major but it takes a true craftsperson to switch that to say C minor in a bar or two.  But it has to be done cleverly and usually takes a genius to do it.  Some composers may opt for a quick sudden switch, shock value if you will.  Tchaikovsky does that well.  Others are more subtle like Bruckner.

A pretty melody can IMO get boring after a while so harmony is instigated to liven the music up somewhat.  This can play out well if you have an orchestra at your disposal but writing for the piano and the piano only takes a real skill and where contrast comes into play.  You only have the one timbre to play with and a couple of pedals but such a beautiful instrument in the right hands can yield the most amazing results.   Beethoven’s piano sonatas spring immediately to mind; each one a testament of how to compose for such a contraption.  Chopin and Liszt illuminate the apparatus as if they have sent 1000 volts of electricity through their fingers.  Yet it is simple.

Lightness and darkness, or darkness and light, hope and despair.  Have your pretty melody by all means, but it means nothing if you cannot counter it with a powerful minor key 2nd subject or development section.   This is what attaches this art form to the human psyche.  I suppose music has to be bipolar to have any meaning.   Or maybe it is just me.  I like complicated music, I like a lot going on and seeing how much a composer can get out of an instrument.   Take Beethoven’s Appassionata Sonata; the opening theme is so utterly depressing yet grippingly awe-inspiring at the same time.   And musically it is simple, but as the piece progresses it gets more and more complicated without losing its simplicity.   Only Beethoven can do that.   The 2nd subject offers some relief yet soon turns back to misery before it has the chance to develop in a positive fashion.  Was Beethoven conscious of what he was doing?  Did he plan it or did his mind just plop it onto the manuscript without a thought?

Music is littered with countless examples of contrast and they are usually the masterpieces.  But it is only music, is it important?   What is one meant to feel after listening to a masterpiece?  Press replay, maybe and go through it again.  Do that for a lifetime and what have you achieved.   You will have connected with something that is sublime and unforgettable.

‘Minor’ composers Part one.

Hidden behind Beethoven, Schubert and Mozart are a clutch of composers who really deserve more attention.  Most are so obscure and overshadowed by the aforementioned greats, but they really are fine musicians and I want to see if I can improve their profile.

First up is Muzio Clementi (1752-1832).  He influenced Beethoven and composed many beautiful pieces, mainly piano sonatas and the amazing Gradus Ad Parnassum.

 First four studies

My favourite Clementi piano sonata

The Op.50 and Op.40 sets are incredibly underrated sonatas and deserve more attention.

Next was a pupil and friend of Beethoven, Ferdinand Ries. His set of eight symphonies are a testament to finding a voice of his own which was difficult considering the grandness of Beethoven.

Symphony No.5

Ries also wrote many piano sonatas and piano concertos.

Mehul was a Fench composer that I have only recently discovered and what a gem his music is. The first movement of his first symphony in G minor pushes the limitations of the classical period to its zenith. The coda is particularly impressive.

Symphony No.1

Hummel is probably one of the better known ‘minor’ composers not to write a symphony. Yet he makes up for this in his two piano concertos (amongst others that are hard to come by). With a little more guile he could have ben on par with Schubert. He also composed nine piano sonatas that are worthy of their place in history especially the No.5 in F Sharp Minor.

Piano Sonata No.5

The bulk of Czerny’s output was mainly pedagogical, but he also composed several symphonies of which only four seem to have been recorded. My personal favourite in his first in C Minor. Vastly underrated.

Symphony No.1

In part II I will look at such gems as Dussek, Kozeluch and Kuhlua.

Muzio Clementi 1752-1832

Composer 1752-1832
Composer 1752-1832

Any person who has ever had formal piano lessons will surely have come across Mr Clementi, and his Op 36 sonatinas.  They are mechanical pedagogical pieces that are very pleasant and useful in developing a budding talent.  Yet that is just a tiny part of Clementi’s oeuvre.  If you can find the sheet music beyond (well use IMSLP) Op 36 you will find a treasure chest of masterful, superbly crafted piano music that will not only surprise but make you wonder.   Make you wonder why this music has been historically mothballed.  It seems almost impossible to access Clementi’s music beyond IMSLP (if you wanted to buy bound copies of all his sonatas), although Amazon and Spotify have a fairly comprehensive collection of recordings mainly by pianist Pietro Spada.  Spada opens Clementi up and shows very clearly that Clementi’s music stood on the boundary of the classical and romantic periods.

Clementi was slightly eclipsed by giants like Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn yet, I personally feel, his music is on par with the latter two and some of former’s early piano sonata repertoire.   Of course Beethoven went off in a direction that no mortal could match.  I will at this point admit that a few of Clementi’s works (mainly the sonatinas) are a touch twee and rigid but there is a selection of his sonatas that puts him at the top of the minor composer’s pile (although I will argue he is not a minor composer, but I will use that term for now).  The Op 40, 46, 47 and 50 collection of nine sonatas are all masterpieces that really should get more attention.   If I could compare him to such contemporaries as Dussek, Kalkbrenner and Hummel then he ever so slightly pushes the boundaries of originality and breadth.  While Hummel composed some worthy sonatas ,No 4 and 5, and the fantasy in E flat major, a lot of his work is lacklustre and contrived.  I point towards Clementi’s Op 47 sonatas, or capriccios.  This is No. 1 in E minor.  It has a very long introduction, one of the longest I have ever come across.  Listening to the first movement you can see music paving a way towards Schumann, Chopin and Liszt.  Whether this music ever did influence such composers is not clear although it is well documented that Beethoven had a fondness for Clementi’s music.

Clementi’s style is unique in that he explores, almost mathematically, the vast variety of motifs that are possible to compose.  Each sonata has a little nugget that gets bent and twisted throughout the movement.  This is done before Beethoven and it seems that Clementi influenced him in the use of introductions to works which can be long (a mentioned above) or just a few bars.  These mini preludes set the tone and act as a warm up; Clementi normally includes some hemidemisemi quaver (32nd notes) glissando to ready the performer’s suppleness.   He uses the full toolbox of sonata form artillery that works superbly  on all occasions.   In fact I find it hard to find a weak sonata produced by Muzio. They are melodious yet modulated in a heart beat making the piece strecthed and pulled.

Personally my favourite sonata is the Op 50, No. 2 in D minor.  It has, what I believe, to be the most haunting first movement of the classical period.  It is powerful and brooding, there is no room for any major key ditty in F major because is rolls along with some inner strength,some inner meaning.  What is Clementi trying to convey in this sonata?  He is a man we seem to know little about but he must have been something special to produce something akin to a middle period sonata of Beethoven’s.  D minor is an evocative key and all works that adopt it are mysterious and dark (Mozart’s Requiem Mass, Beethoven’s sonata No. 17 and symphony No.9, Bruckner’s symphonies No. 3 and 9).  Clementi has given the world something that is precious but is lost to humanity.  The finale of this sonata is authoritative and the wonderfully mastered entrance to the coda makes my back tremble every time I play or hear it.

I urge people to give Clementi a chance.  He is so close to becoming a grandmaster of the classical romantic bridge-in fact he built the bridge and his back was the bridge to aid the greats like Beethoven.  Of course there was his incredible Gradus ad Parnassum that is a fine collection of studies and shows Clementi’s full breadth of his craft. This is the beautiful beginning to one hundred impressive variations that only a genius could produce.

So there is more to Clementi then just  a few sonatinas.  There is more then I expect we will ever know.

Beethoven Symphonies arranged for piano

I am currently memorized by the Liszt arrangement of Beethoven’s Symphonies for piano.  The recording I have is by Cyprien Katsaris and it opens up the belly of  probably the greatest set of music ever written.  I am, although, tied with Bruckner’s nine Symphonies as well as they are equally on par with Beethoven.


Cyprien Katsaris
Cyprien Katsaris

But that’s another post.  Just listening to the seventh and it’s like watching a car engine work.  These arrangements open Beethoven up so you can hear all the intricacies, with rumbling bass notes, and beautiful ties, you can see Liszt has put an orchestra through a piano.

When I looked at the actual scores for these arrangements they seem to require a superhuman to play them, which Katsaris does suberbly.  He brings out all the drama and ghostly melodies that may be missed through the orchestra.  You can hear all of Beethoven’s inventiveness and amazing modulations.  This is the closest thing to perfection on the piano you can get.