At the start of the eighteenth century, an upsurge in the popularity of the transverse flute began, with the first published collection for the instrument appearing in 1703.[i] Despite the difficulties in both tuning and technique that the transverse baroque flute presented, many well known composers embraced the instrument and composed works for solo flute, including Telemann, Vivaldi, Quantz, C.P.E. Bach and J. S. Bach. For many flute players, the works for solo flute by J. S. Bach constitute an important aspect of both education and performance. Beginning with the unique Unaccompanied Flute Partita in A minor (BWV 1013), the oldest copy of which dates from approximately 1722/23, a total of eight works for solo flute are widely attributed to J. S. Bach.[ii] In contradiction to the commonly held belief that Bach composed the majority of his instrumental works (with the exception of the organ works) between 1717 and 1723 in Kothen where he served as Kapellmeister[iii], the possible dating of the flute works span a period of more than twenty years, beginning with the A minor Partita and concluding with the Sonata in E major (BWV 1035), which is believed to have been composed between 1741 and 1747.[iv] Although many of the flute works attributed to J. S. Bach have faced intense scrutiny as to their authenticity, separately and as a whole, they provide a significant study into both the works of J. S. Bach and Baroque instrumental works.
Unlike many composers of the Baroque era, J. S. Bach did not generally employ the popular ‘Sonata for solo instrument and thorough Bass’, as it “did not present any particular challenge to his ingenuity”[v], and in those works that did, Geiringer describes the approach as “[revealing] a somewhat aloof attitude towards this kind of music”.[vi] Instead, the four-movement Italian Sonata da Chiesa is found in several of the trio flute sonatas and some of the solo flute sonatas.[vii] The exceptions amongst the solo flute sonatas include the works most in question in regards to authenticity-Sonata in C Major (BWV 1033), Sonata in G Minor (BWV 1020) and Sonata in E flat Major (BWV 1031)-and the Sonata in A Major (BWV 1032), for which it is uncertain whether the manuscript that is available is complete. In using the Sonata da Chiesa form, the flute sonatas of J. S. Bach frequently differ from those of earlier models in the parts for harpsichord, with parts that are frequently elaborated, creating a partnership between the flute and the harpsichord that is much more equal than previously seen,[viii] sometimes going so far as to briefly have the harpsichord as the leading voice with flute accompaniment. As well, the sonatas often combine elements of the concerto style, such as da capo and rondo forms, and long solo sections.[ix] Finally, the flute works (even the Unaccompanied Partita) generally follow the J. S. Bach practice of rarely having a single melody accompanied by harmony that later became standard practice with the Viennese School of classical composers.[x]
Following the Unaccompanied Partita, it is believed that the Sonata in E Minor (BWV 1034) was the first solo flute sonata composed by J. S. Bach, with the principle manuscript dating from c.1726.[xi] As observed by Marshall, the texture of the Sonata in E minor, “scored as it is for basso continuo”, is more closely related to the “impure” texture of the continuo-accompanied arias with obbligato flute than to the “pure”, “clean” texture of J. S. Bach’s mature duo sonatas from the 1717-1723 Kothen period. Thus, Marshall draws the conclusion that the Sonata in E Minor was likely composed in Leipzig during 1724.[xii] Following common practice, the Sonata in E Minor follows the typical Sonata da Chiesa pattern noted in the flute Sonatas of J. S. Bach, with the tempos indicated as Adagio ma non tanto, Allegro, Andante, and Allegro. The Allegro sections are quite comparable in rhythm despite the first being in 2/2 and the second in 3/4 time, in particular with the beginnings of important phrases, which employ two sixteenth notes beginning on the off-beat as pick-up notes followed by an eighth or eighth note, as shown below.
Melodically, the first Allegro (mvt 2) features more arpeggiation than the second Allegro (mvt 4), which contains more scalar passages, although still using some degree of arpeggiation. Both movements feature a great deal of repetition (including direct repetition), especially in measures 40-47 of mvt 2, which is a constant sixteenth-note passage traveling via arpeggiation through the keys of B minor, E minor, A minor and D major before returning to the main melodic figure in E minor in measure 48. In mvt 4, seven measures (measures 13, 15, 17, 58, 60, 62 and 64) feature the same note repeated in eight notes for the entire measure (totalling six notes with the first often an octave below). In contrast, mvts 1 and 3, with the exception of a similar tempo, have several marked differences including rhythms, key, and the basic melodic figures used. According to Geiringer, the Sonata in E Minor “must have enjoyed great popularity”[xiii] as a comparatively large number of manuscript copies have survived. For modern performers, the Sonata in E minor is frequently performed, and remains one of the most popular of the sonatas, perhaps due to the balance of contrasts and similarities between the four movements, which is not present in all of the sonatas.
Of the solo sonatas considered by most scholars to be authentic, the Sonata in B Minor (BWV 1030) appears to date from approximately 1736, placing it as the next oldest after the Sonata in E minor.[xiv] As with many works of J. S. Bach, there is strong evidence to suggest that the current work is a revision of one or more earlier compositions. For instance, Klaus Hofmann, as noted by Gregory Butler, demonstrated that flute line of the Sonata in B Minor was originally composed for violin.[xv] As well, a G minor version of the harpsichord part for the Sonata in B minor has survived, with an estimated dating of c.1729-31. Long considered to be the most challenging of the solo flute sonatas (in particular due to the third movement), it is believed that the Sonata in B Minor was revised for the great court flautist Buffardin, whose greatest strength according to Quantz was in playing rapid pieces. [xvi] It is also possible that the Sonata in B Minor was revised for Quantz, who was also a court flautist.[xvii]
Unlike the Sonata in E minor, the Sonata in B Minor is in three movements, beginning with a long and expressive Andante of approximately eight minutes (the longest of any movement in the solo flute sonatas), which uses a ritornello form as the basis for the structure.[xviii] Similar to the Sonata in E Minor, the Andante features several sections of direct repetition, including the vocally inspired opening two-bar melodic figure, which is noted to resemble the opening chorus figure of Cantata no. 117 (originally in G major and scored with flutes).[xix] However, a great deal more variety is used amongst either melodic or rhythmic figures than in the Sonata in E minor, or any of the other solo flute sonatas. Whereas the Sonatas in E minor and E Major (BWV 1035) rhythmically consist mainly of sixteenth notes throughout, the first movement of the Sonata in B Minor features numerous passages of thirty-second notes, eighth-notes, and, with the exception of the first movement of the Sonata in E major, is the only sonata to contain triplet sixteenth notes. Of particular note is the great focus on short-long rhythms, as seen in the opening two-bar figure.[xx] Along with other aspects, the many different rhythmic figures contribute to the overall difficulty of the Sonata in B minor. In addition, the first movement features several distinct melodic figures that recur throughout, but lack the degree of development that is seen of melodic figures in many of the other sonatas, such as the development from measures 40-48 in mvt 2 of the Sonata in E minor. This in particular separates the Sonata in B Minor from much of the Baroque instrumental repertoire, including other pieces by J. S. Bach such as the Preludes and Fugues of the Well-Tempered Clavier, which almost invariably a limited number of melodic figures that develop for long sections.
Subsequent to the Andante, a shorter second movement, with a tempo marking of Largo e dolce follows in a siciliano-like style comparable to the slow third movement of the Sonata in E Major, and the second movement of the Sonata in E flat Major (BWV 1031). Similarities between the three movements include the common 6/8 time signature and the use of the dotted-eighth, sixteenth, eighth rhythm as part of the opening figure in each. However, the Sonata in B Minor varies from the Sonatas in E Major and E flat Major in the use of repeat signs (found at measures eight and sixteen) as well as rhythmically in the frequent use of faster thirty-second note passages and, as in the first movement, the short-long rhythm. In comparison to the first movement, the second features a greater range of melodic development.
Differing from any of the other sonatas, the final movement of the Sonata in B Minor is divided into two different sections with different time signatures. For some scholars, the two sections are referred to as separate movements, however, in the Urtext der Neuen Bach-Ausgabe (Urtext of the New Bach Edition) and on most recordings, the two sections are seen as different parts of the same movement, with the tempo notated as Presto. The first section is notated in 2/2, and the second section in 12/16, however, there is no change in the overall tempo feeling despite the change in rhythmic notation. As seen in the first and second movements, the second section contains numerous incidences of the short-long rhythm, generally through the use of register to create syncopation, as shown in the example below.
Like the second movement, the third movement features greater melodic development than the first movement, such as the development seen in measures 106-109, which is mirrored by a similar passage at measures 130-133. In terms of melodic development, these two passages are reminiscent of the previously discussed passage in mvt 2 of the Sonata in E Minor from measures 40-48 in the number of keys that are played through arpeggiation. Together, the three movements of the Sonata in B Minor present an extraordinary work with many progressive elements, and is an exceptional example of Bach’s instrumental works.
At approximately the same time, the Sonata in A Major (BWV 1032) was composed, likely for the same court flautist as the Sonata in B Minor (Buffardin or Quantz),[xxi] or in an alternate proposal, for the flautist Christoph Mizler, whose renewed presence in Leipzig coincides with the possible dating of the Sonata in A Major.[xxii] The Sonata in A Major is unique amongst all the sonatas of J. S. Bach in that the same tonic is retained for all three movements, which has led some, such as Hans Eppstein to speculate that the outer movements were originally in C major; this is supported in part by the range of the harpsichord part.[xxiii] Although not controversial in terms of authenticity as a work of J. S. Bach, the Sonata in A Major has faced a great deal of scrutiny in terms of completion and history. A common belief is that the existing manuscript copy of the Sonata in A Major has approximately fifty measures of the first movement missing.[xxiv] The existing manuscript, although a “neatly penned fair copy” for movements one and two, contains substantial markings of corrections in all the instrumental parts of the third movement. These markings further support the belief that the movement was originally in C major.[xxv] In comparison to the other solo flute sonatas, the Sonata in A Major closely resembles a concerto in form, with the suggestion raised by Boyd that the original version was a flute concerto with the outer movements in C major, and the middle movement in A minor (as was retained in the current sonata).[xxvi] Many scholars, including Eppstein, have been extremely critical of the Sonata in A Major, in particular the first movement, with the “lack of polyphonic intensity, the thin texture, and the careless compositional technique, such as the redundant E major cadences in measures 33 and 35”.[xxvii] Although little is known about the popularity of the Sonata in A Major at the time of composition, it remains the least played by modern flautists.
Three sonatas in particular have faced many challenges in regards to their authenticity as works of J. S. Bach. The first of these challenged works, the Sonata in C Major (BWV 1033), features a unique form that has raised many questions. To begin, the first two movements feature rudimentary bass parts[xxviii] against a nearly continuous flute line (very few rests are present), which is not seen in any of the other solo sonatas. Besides the style of the first two movements, a great deal of scrutiny has been placed on the final portion of the Sonata, the two minuets, which vary greatly in character. From this, the conclusion drawn by Eppstein is that the Sonata in C Major was likely written by two students of J. S. Bach.[xxix] Perhaps the most reasonable conclusion, drawn by Marshall is that the Sonata in C Major originated as an unaccompanied partita for solo flute, as the style of the first two movements has much greater similarities to other unaccompanied partitas by Bach than the other solo flute sonatas. It is possible that the Sonata in C Major, as an unaccompanied partita, may have been composed around the same time as the Unaccompanied Partita in A Minor, perhaps as a counterpart to it. Marshall’s hypothesis also offers that C. P. E. Bach may have been assigned the exercise of arranging the ‘Unaccompanied Partita in C’ for flute and continuo or harpsichord, a hypothesis supported by the proof of other arrangements by C. P. E. Bach.[xxx] Although the evidence is not conclusive, the style and stand-alone nature of the flute line in the first two movements of the Sonata in C Major do seem to indicate that, at the very least, the work was originally for unaccompanied flute.
Like the Sonata in C Major, the Sonata in G Minor (BWV 1020) and the Sonata in E Flat Major (BWV 1031) have faced great scrutiny as to their authenticity. Of similar style, the two sonatas have long been criticized for what has been referred to as “unBachian” elements, including the “thumping basses, the triadic, galant-sounding melodies, [and] the short-breathed phrases”.[xxxi] In particular, numerous ‘short-breathed phrases’ can be found in the first and third movements of both sonatas, a practice not noted in any of the other five. A number of comparisons have been made between the Sonata in E flat Major and the sonatas of Quantz (in particular the Trio Sonata QV 2:18), suggesting to some that the Sonata in E Flat Major could possibly be by Quantz.[xxxii] Marshall has drawn two possible conclusions, the first being the possibility of the compositions being of C. P. E. Bach and the second, the possibility that the galant-style noted above should not be a challenge to the authenticity of the Sonata in E Flat Major, but an indication of the possible dating, as other works composed by J. S. Bach in the 1730’s and 1740’s featured a galant-style.[xxxiii] Although the second option is a possibility, the highly likely dating 1741-1747 for the Sonata in E Major (BWV 1035), which features a vastly different style from the Sonatas in G Minor and E Flat Major, presents some difficulties. Overall, the Sonatas in G Minor and E Flat Major are generally considered to be the easiest of the solo flute works, and are generally the first works of J. S. Bach studied by flute players. While their authenticity may be uncertain, their popularity is not, in particular the Sonata in E Flat Major, which is frequently performed, and includes several easily recognizable melodies in all three movements.
As was the case with many of the works by J. S. Bach, the flute works, although evidently successful in their time, disappeared from prominence for more than a century. It was not until the late 19th century that Paul Taffanel, a professor of flute at the Paris conservatory revived many works from the Baroque and Classical eras, including the flute sonatas of J. S. Bach and the Mozart Concerti as “alternatives to the trash of his own century”,[xxxiv] thus providing new generations with the challenges and genius of the works. Although there may never be certainty as to the legitimacy of some of the flute works attributed to J. S. Bach, there will never be any uncertainty to the popularity and value of the works to flautists, and it is likely that they will continue to be performed and studied in perpetuity.
[i] Raymond Meylan. The Flute. Trans. Alfred Clayton. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd, 1988. Pg 102.
[ii] Robert L. Marshall. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, The Style, The Significance. New York: Schrimer Books, 1989. Pg 202.
[iii] Robert L. Marshall. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, The Style, The Significance. New York: Schrimer Books, 1989. Pg 210.
[iv] Robert L. Marshall. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, The Style, The Significance. New York: Schrimer Books, 1989. Pg 220.
[v] Karl Geiringer and Irene Geiringer. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Culmination of an Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966. Pg 302.
[vi] Ibid. Pg 302.
[vii] Nancy Toff. The Flute Book: A Complete Guide for Students and Performers. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Pg 209.
[viii] Ibid. Pg 209.
[ix] Karl Geiringer and Irene Geiringer. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Culmination of an Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966. Pg 312.
[x] Klaus Edam. The True Life of Johann Sebastian Bach. Trans Hoyt Rogers. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Pg 127.
[xi] Robert L. Marshall. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, The Style, The Significance. New York: Schrimer Books, 1989. Pg 209.
[xii] Ibid. Pg 215-216.
[xiii] Karl Geiringer and Irene Geiringer. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Culmination of an Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966. Pg 303.
[xiv] Robert L. Marshall. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, The Style, The Significance. New York: Schrimer Books, 1989. Pg 216.
[xv] Gregory G. Butler, ed. Bach Perspectives V6: J. S. Bach’s Concerted Ensemble Music, The Ouverture. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2007. Pgs 57-58.
[xvi] Robert L. Marshall. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, The Style, The Significance. New York: Schrimer Books, 1989. Pg 216-217.
[xvii] Peter Williams. J. S. Bach: A Life in Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pg 209.
[xviii] Malcolm Boyd. The Master Musicians: Bach. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pg 100.
[xix] Robert L. Marshall. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, The Style, The Significance. New York: Schrimer Books, 1989. Pg 216.
[xx] Gerhard Herz. Essays on J. S. Bach. “Lombard Rhythms in Bach’s Vocal Music”. Studies in Musicology, No. 73. George Buelow, Series ed. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1985. Pg 260.
[xxi] Robert L. Marshall. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, The Style, The Significance. New York: Schrimer Books, 1989. Pg 209.
[xxii] Gregory G. Butler, ed. Bach Perspectives V6: J. S. Bach’s Concerted Ensemble Music, The Ouverture. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2007. Pg 53.
[xxiii] Ibid. Pg 217-218.
[xxiv] Karl Geiringer and Irene Geiringer. Johann Sebastian Bach: The Culmination of an Era. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966. Pg 314.
[xxv] Robert L. Marshall. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, The Style, The Significance. New York: Schrimer Books, 1989. Pg 218.
[xxvi] Malcolm Boyd. The Master Musicians: Bach. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Pg 99.
[xxvii] Robert L. Marshall. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, The Style, The Significance. New York: Schrimer Books, 1989. Pg 218.
[xxviii] Ibid. Pg 204.
[xxix] Ibid. Pg 204.
[xxx] Ibid. Pg 207.
[xxxi] Ibid. Pg 207.
[xxxii] Peter Williams. J.S.Bach: A Life in Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pg 243.
[xxxiii] Robert L. Marshall. The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach: The Sources, The Style, The Significance. New York: Schrimer Books, 1989. Pg 208.
[xxxiv] Nancy Toff. The Development of the Modern Flute. New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1979. Pg 125.
*Personally, I felt that my paper was somewhat disjunct and could have flowed a bit better or been more thesis driven, but I am not going to scoff at the A grade I received. Now I just want to know whether I received an A or A+ in the course. I know that before this paper, I was sitting at an A+...sort of. Meaning that I was technically at a C I (incomplete), but given that the paper was 25% of the final grade, that meant that I had lost less than 5% of my total grade, making it an A+. Hopefully, that will come online in the next couple of days. Now to complete:
2-3 page concert report on the new music concert I attended this past weekend (this is due in 14 hours)
10-page paper on Carmen for Opera History
Group presentation for 20th century on Fluxuus
3-5 page paper on Fluxuus
? length paper for Philosophy of Music-I am going to write about the Norton Lectures that Bernstein gave (recall my presentation a few weeks ago)
JURY...
Final exam for 20th century.
...and then I will be done. I am not sure how many credits I have left before I finish my Bachelor of Music degree, but it is not that many at this point. Maybe 12 or 15? Not sure, and not sure exactly which requirements I still have to do. I know that I need to take a theory course, which will be Orchestration, and I know that I need to do my major area paper, but besides that, I think it is pretty much up to me. I am looking forward to a different schedule next year, but I am not sure how it will work out. My HOPE is that I can have my courses more clustered together, and early in the day. Who knows. Whatever happens, I am really going to work hard for that balance that is so important, and one that I really have neglected this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment