|
Concerto
for Two Harpsichords in C
major, BWV 1061
The C major Concerto for Two
Harpsichords is presumed to
have been composed as early
as circa 1730, and thus to
be one of the first of
Bach’s harpsichord
concertos; it is, at the
same time, one of the few
that were not written as a
transcription of an earlier
model but evidently
conceived from the outset as
harpsichord concertos. The
tendency of this entire
group of works to transform
the Italian concerto through
thematic and polyphonic
intensification of the
writing, in conjunction with
the tendency already
inherent in keyboard writing
to extend the solo parts
more and more powerfully in
relation to the tutti, and
to base them on thematic
substance rather than free
“concertante” style, already
leads to consequences in
this work that almost
eliminate the concerto
tradition. It has been noted
ever since Forkel that the
tutti of the outer movements
is almost dispensable, and
that the work could also be
performed by two
harpsichords alone. The
tutti sections have indeed
been kept very brief, and
are almost only
reinforcements of the solo
parts or realizations of
their latent harmony. On the
other hand, however, they
can only be dispensed with
from the point of view of
the part-writing, on no
account from the formal
scheme, since they at least
divide up, in a rudimentary
“concerto” manner, the
impetuous, surging flow of
movement of the solo
instruments, based on almost
uninterrupted semiquaver
motion. The frequently
encountered suggestion to
play the work “senza
ripieni”, as domestic music
for two harpsichords is,
from this point of view, but
a recommendation not to take
old Bach and his intentions
as a composer too seriously.
Thematic work, pushing all
concertante traditions and
elements completely into the
background, already
dominates the first movement
with remarkable consistency.
The first tutti (bars 1-12)
is constructed according to
the Italian concerto
tradition in that it is
tonally self-contained, but
it is at the same time
articulated through motifs
and frequently “concertante”
in itself (with alternations
between tutti, first and
second harpsichord). There
follows the first solo
section which-again
traditional in the
foreground-modulates to the
dominant. It does not,
however, do this
figuratively, but lets a
“subsidiary theme” develop
through the dialogue between
the two harpsichords which,
in its “cantabile”
character, already suggests
the contrast in character
between the themes essential
to the later sonata form.
Immediately after this there
begins an intensive thematic
treatment of both ideas
which dominates the entire
remainder of the movement:
with the initial motif of
the first theme, its
continuation motifs, the
second theme, confrontation
of first and second theme in
dialogue style and
modulation, based on a new
treatment of the initial
motif, back to the tonic,
which is reached again
shortly after the middle of
the movement. The
recapitulation that now
begins, back in the tonic
and denoted by the
repetition of the opening
bars, which would correspond
to the concerto tradition,
reveals itself at once to be
but an “apparent
recapitulation”, from which
a new, second development
begins that is harmonic and,
in the fragmentation of the
smallest thematic motifs,
still more intensive and
far-reaching. The
traditional ritornello is
not suggested until the very
end of the movement, through
repetition of the first bar
and the greatly modified
second theme. This movement,
in which there is hardly a
“concertante”, hardly a
nonthematic bar, is brought
to a powerful close by a
broad cadenza.
The first movement, so
extraordinarily concentrated
and so irresistible in its
impetus of motion and its
energy, is followed by a
Siciliano for the two
harpsichords without
orchestral accompaniment
that is no less
concentrated, but more
intimate, reflective and
almost a little austere. It
is a strict four-part
invention that intensifies
its uninterrupted imitatory
style into canonic
strictness in places, and
suggests a free ternary
form. The Finale returns to
the spirit of the first
movement, intensifying it in
the strictness of a big
concertante fugal structure.
The first harpsichord begins
with a three-part fugal
exposition, which is
repeated by the second
harpsichord with
interchanged entries of the
parts. The third
“presentation” distributes
the entries between the two
harpsichords, and lets the
tutti parts join in “colla
parte”. A strongly
modulating episode for the
two harpsichords forms the
transition to an abridged
and simplified repetition of
the first section (one entry
each of the theme with an
obligato counterpoint in the
upper voice in Harpsichord I
and II, and free and
modulating repetition of
these entries with the
tutti). There follows a
second, very shorter episode
and a new, incomplete
“presentation” of the
subject with two entries in
the tutti, from which-quite
unexpectedly, -there evolves
a section that can be
designated “development” not
in the sense of fugue form
but of sonata form:
treatment of the initial
motif of the fugue subject
and the motifs of the first
episode. The sequential
treatment of the opening of
the subject, striving upward
from the low bass register,
imparts a dynamic to the
close of this “development”
that leads in magnificent
intensification to the
crowning conclusion of the
movement. Here the subject
of the fugue is quoted once
more as if rounding off the
movement in ritornello
style, and at the same time
like its apotheosis in a
highly dynamic fugal form.
It appears in octaves in the
bass of both harpsichords
(thus in a kind of organ
registration) with upper
voices in free counterpoint,
at the close in a powerful
chordal cadence.
Triple Concerto in A
minor, BWV 1044
All three movements of
Bach’s Triple Concerto in A
minor, written for solo
flute, violin and
harpsichord, are based on
earlier compositions. The
first and third movements
come from his Prelude and
Fugue in A minor for clavier
(BWV 894). The Adagio comes
from the Organ Sonata in D
minor (BWV 527). These new
versions (1) probably date
from the period he spent in
Leipzig after 1730, during
which he re-arranged several
violin concertos as clavier
concertos for the benefit of
the Collegium musicum, and
also wrote some works for
several concertante
instruments. The standard of
these other works, however,
cannot be compared to that
of the Triple Concerto. Here
such radical alterations
take place, the original
musical conceptions undergo
such a complete remoulding
that, in the first and third
movements particularly, they
are scarcely recognisable.
The polyphonic treatment of
the thematic material,
merely hinted at in the
original keyboard work, is
here thoroughly expounded.
In the outer movements the
interplay of the solo
instruments is quite
magnificent; sometimes they
partner one another,
sometimes they play
seperately with the
orchestra, rivalling one
another in true concertante
style. This is a rare
example of perfection and
balance in the face of the
particular difficulties that
a concerto of this nature
entails. The C major Adagio
movement stays relatively
close to the original organ
sonata. The Trio is shared
out between the three solo
instruments. The fact that
the harpsichord has the
upper melodic part, the
flute the second part and
the violin a mere pizzicato
accompaniment suggests that
in this concerto there is a
certain grading of the
soloists.
(1) It is Gustay Leonhardt’s
opinion that the Triple
Concerto is based on
compositions by Bach
(Prelude and Fugue in A
minor and the Organ Sonata
in D minor middle movement),
which, however, were
probably arranged for this
concerto by J. G. Müthel
(1728-88), his pupil in
1750; one of the few
original copies that we have
was by Müthel.
|
