musical influences on the young j s bach tom...

Musical influences on the young J S Bach

Tom Wilkinson Journal of the Royal College of Organists Volume 9 (2015) pp. 5-17

TOM WILKINSON is University Organist and Director of Chapel Choirs at the University of St Andrews. In 2015, Tom founded the Kellie Consort, Scotland’s only pre-professional baroque ensemble. Born in Edinburgh, Tom studied at St Mary’s Music School and went on to become Organ Scholar of Truro Cathedral. In 2004, he took up the Organ Scholarship at The Queen’s College, Oxford, and graduated with first-class honours in music in 2007. In the same year, Tom took the FRCO diploma. In 2008-09 he held the position of Assistant Director of Music at Chelmsford Cathedral, and in 2013, Tom was awarded a Master's degree in Early Keyboard Performance, with distinction, from the University of Edinburgh. He is enrolled in a PhD programme at the University of Glasgow, researching the music of J.S. Bach and his composer sons under the supervision of Prof. John Butt.

Musical influences on the young J. S. Bach 5

Musical influences on the young J. S. Bach Tom Wilkinson

The aim of this paper is to consider the surviving early keyboard works of J. S. Bach in their musical context. Stephen A. Crist argues that Bach is too often considered an isolated genius, rather than as a composer responding to the legacy of the seventeenth century;1 this article is an attempt to examine the validity of this argument, chiefly through musical analysis. The three most important manuscript sources for this exercise are: the Möller Manuscript (MM), the Andreas Bach Book (ABB), and the Neumeister Collection (NC). All three of these sources contain works by Bach along with works by others; the MM and the ABB were principally copied by Johann Christoph Bach (1671–1721), Johann Sebastian’s eldest brother and guardian from 1695 to 1700. The differences in the maturity of Bach’s works contained in the MM and the ABB, along with changes in J. C. Bach’s handwriting, suggest that the MM was copied between 1703 and c.1707, and the ABB was copied between c.1708 and c.1713.2 The NC dates from the 1790s. Christoph Wolff writes that the MM and ABB ‘provide resounding testimony that by 1705, at about age twenty, [Bach’s] works already reflect an unusual degree of experience and sophistication’,3 but it is by no means certain that some, perhaps many of the relevant works by Bach were not composed between 1705 and 1713. Wolff ’s view that the works by other composers contained in the two manuscripts are the best available sources of works probably known to the young Bach seems more defensible.4 The period relevant to this project, then, is c.1700 to c.1713; that is, when Bach was aged between fourteen and twenty-eight. The latter date coincides neatly with Bach’s encounter with the music of Vivaldi et al. As with all non-autograph manuscripts, the sources may be unreliable. The likely octave displacement of certain notes suggests that some pieces were copied from tablature. Johann Christoph Bach seems to have taken a particular interest in ornamentation, even in works for which he was not the principal copyist;5 in this area and probably others too, it seems very likely that the sources are not wholly faithful to the composers’ original thoughts. Doubtlessly, the surviving sources represent only a fraction of the music known to, and composed by, the young Bach, and they do not provide direct evidence of the extent or nature of the tuition that he received. Notwithstanding these problems, I hope to show in this essay that the surviving music does provide sufficient material to enable speculative conclusions to be drawn about the young Bach’s musical development. I have not avoided mentioning early works not contained within the three manuscripts mentioned above, or indeed later works, where relevant. Although Bach moved away from a near-exclusive focus on keyboard composition from c.1708 onwards, most of the works considered in this essay are keyboard works. It should be noted that when a comparison is drawn between a Bach work and the work of another which is not found in the ABB or MM, this does not represent a claim that Bach knew the latter work. Rather, the comparison is intended to demonstrate Bach’s response to a compositional principle. The structure of the article is as follows. First, I identify the musicians that had a significant influence on Bach, either directly or indirectly. Second, I explore the different

RCO The Journal6

schools of influence—German (both ‘central’ and ‘North’), French, and Italian—and examine some relevant case studies. Third, I discuss specific aspects of relevant music: harmony, motif, and structure. Finally, by way of summation, I discuss one of Bach’s masterpieces, the ‘Passacaglia in C minor’ BWV 582 (ABB). The number of musical examples in the article makes the quoting of all musical texts impractical; many of the relevant texts can be found online, and the reader will find it helpful to have access to Keyboard Music from the Andreas Bach Book and the Möller Manuscript (Harvard University Press, 1991), edited by Robert Hill. A theme that underlies much of the article is Bach’s desire to create large-scale, structurally coherent pieces, hints of which one cannot help but notice, armed with a knowledge of Bach’s later masterpieces. The most significant musical influence on Bach prior to the death of his father in 1695 may have been Johann Christoph Bach (1642–1703), a cousin once removed (not to be confused with his brother, mentioned above). Later in life, Bach described him as ‘the profound composer’,6 possibly suggesting a seminal early influence. This seems plausible when one considers that he was one of the most innovative and successful musicians in Eisenach in the 1690s, with particular skill in improvisation.7 Yet his influence on the young Bach is difficult to trace, since only a small number of his keyboard works survive. Bach’s Obituary, written by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, mentions Bach’s early exposure to the music of important figures from the French, German, and Italian traditions. The details of C. P. E. Bach’s claim are not fully corroborated by the surviving sources: for example, Frescobaldi and Froberger, both mentioned by C. P. E. Bach, are not represented in the MM or the ABB. Although the Obituary should not be regarded as an infallible source, it does serve as a reminder that, when considering the music to which the young Bach was exposed, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Bach’s eldest brother, Johann Christoph Bach, undoubtedly had a formative influence. The precise nature of this influence is, of course, unclear, but it seems likely that J. C. Bach would have been influenced by Pachelbel, his teacher for three years. Some of Bach’s earliest compositions, such as those found in the NC, are written in the central German style, of which Pachelbel was a key exponent. Another representative of this tradition whose music was undoubtedly known to Bach is Johann Michael Bach (1648–94), the father of Bach’s first wife Maria Barbara, whom he married in 1707. The Lüneberg organist Georg Böhm (1661–1733) may have taught Bach in the years 1700–02; in my view, whether or not formal lessons took place, Böhm was an important early influence on Bach, especially with regard to musical form and Italianate figuration. Notably, in a letter written after his father’s death, C. P. E. Bach went to the trouble of deleting a reference to Böhm as Bach’s teacher, replacing it with the phrase ‘the Lüneberg organist Böhm’.8 C. P. E. Bach’s motive may have been to dissociate his father from someone that, by 1750, would have been considered conservative; from my perspective, this is ironic. Also in the period 1700–02, Bach made frequent visits to Hamburg in order to learn from Johann Reinken (1643–1722), probably the most famous German organist of the period.9 I shall discuss Bach’s clear knowledge of Reinken’s music (including, speculatively, improvisation); on balance, I agree with Peter Williams’s statement that ‘Reinken seldom if ever matches Bach’s harmonic tension and melodic flair, and his ultimate influence can be overestimated’.10 Many of the figures mentioned above aspired to a concept described by Christoph


Wolff as the ‘universal’ musician: a performer, director, teacher, composer, organologist, and manager.11 Arguably, Dietrich Buxtehude (c.1637–1707), with whom Bach studied for four months in 1705–06, exemplified this concept more fully than his contemporaries. It seems very plausible that Buxtehude was the most important single influence on Bach’s own journey towards becoming a ‘universal musician’. Both men had a strong interest in organology. Buxtehude was an advocate of the modern Werckmeister temperaments, which allowed music to be played in all twenty-four keys, a possibility which was, of course, fully exploited by Bach later in life. Both composers studied a variety of national styles and assimilated them into their own compositions. Similarly, both composers wrote in a very wide variety of genres. Wolff writes that ‘Buxtehude’s attitude and behavior are atypical of the prevailing tendencies in the eighteenth century’,12 meaning that he did not conform to the standardisation of form and genre found in the outputs of figures such as Corelli, Handel, and Telemann; Bach’s early works certainly follow Buxtehude’s example in this sense. (It could be argued that Bach, ever the individualist, followed this example throughout his life, and that the tendency is closely linked to his practice of basing the compositional process on the potential of the relevant musical material, which, paradoxically, gives rise to some of the most radical elements of his mature music.) It can safely be assumed that Buxtehude influenced Bach profoundly, though as I will show below, comparison of the two composers’ keyboard music does not always make this obvious. As mentioned above, many of Bach’s earliest compositions are chorale preludes in the central German style. A comparison of Johann Michael Bach’s Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ and Bach’s Christe, der du bist Tag und Licht (alternatively, Wir danken dir, Herr Jesu Christ) BWV 1096 (NC) bears this out. Both works have a four-voice texture, of which the top voice is a cantus firmus. Pachelbel’s influence is seen in the presence of fore-imitation of the chorale. In this context, the notable features of BWV 1096 are the greater degree of decoration in the lower three parts, and the significantly longer passage prior to the initial entry of the chorale melody. The entry of the fourth voice in bar 15 is probably intended to be a false entry of the cantus firmus; the true entry of which is delayed until bar 31, around two-thirds of the way through the piece. Thus, there are elements of drama in BWV 1096 which are not characteristic of works by J. M. Bach. One of the more exciting passages in J. M. Bach’s chorale preludes is a nine-bar canonic section, heard twice in his setting of In dulci jubilo (bars 26–34 and 62–70). It is possible that this inspired Bach’s own (probably later) setting of the same melody, BWV 608 (from the Orgelbüchlein), since that work features similar canonic writing. However, BWV 608 far surpasses the earlier work in ingenuity by maintaining a strict canon for the entire piece. Furthermore, there is greater activity in the accompanying voices, just as in BWV 1096. By contrast, some of Bach’s early chorale preludes do not seem to have any generic models (except improvisation?). Jesu, meine Freude BWV 1105 (NC) is one example (Ex. 1): the style of the work suggests a bold, experimental nature (as opposed to a capacity for emulation and surpassing of technique). The sheer abundance of ideas—arguably, evidence of immaturity—is clear at first glance. However, there is an attempt at structural unity: the rhetorical material of bars 7–9 is expanded from bar 14 to the end. Basing the last five bars of such a short piece on such a simple gesture, which enhances the starkness of harmonies such as bar 161, is impressively dramatic and, as Peter Williams

RCO The Journal8

argues, probably represents ‘a young composer’s reaction against the anodyne style of Pachelbel and those he influenced in the Bach family, such as J. M. Bach, whose cadences are uniformly calm and formulaic’.13

Ex. 1: J. S. Bach, Jesu, meine Freude BWV 1105 (NC).


Similarly, the available evidence suggests that in his composition of chorale partitas, Bach did more than merely emulate his models. Georg Böhm’s partita on Ach wie nichtig, ach wie flüchtig (Ex. 2) has such close parallels with Bach’s Ach, was soll ich Sünder machen BWV 770 (Ex. 3) that the differences are especially clear. In general, the most noticeable differences are that Bach’s partita movements are more obviously defined by a given motif, and usually employ a more consistent texture, than Böhm’s. This is especially clear in the first eight movements of BWV 770. Many have noted that movements II and III share common textural and motivic features.14 III of Ach wie nichtig exhibits violinistic figuration of the pre-Vivaldi type (scalic motion interspersed with step-wise broken thirds, with occasional arpeggios and leaps of a fifth, sixth, or octave); Bach incorporates this into III of BWV 770. In terms of texture and motif, IV of Ach wie nichtig is similar to V of BWV 770. IX of BWV 770 clearly has its basis in VI of Ach wie nichtig, which is a sarabande, but the textural contrasts in BWV 770 suggest the influence of the concerto style of Corelli,15 which Bach may have encountered in an imitative work by a German composer. Of course, the similarity may be coincidental, but if not, it represents an early example of Bach’s tendency to combine diverse styles in his compositions (perhaps even prior to the influence of Buxtehude?). A comparison of the surviving sets of chorale partitas by Böhm and Bach suggests that while Böhm’s influence on Bach was significant in some areas (for example, in the use of scalic figuration and the bicinium variation type), it would be a mistake to regard Bach’s early chorale partitas as primarily an emulation of Böhm’s style. The significance of Bach’s encounter with North German organs and musicians on his development as a composer, improviser, and performer is well recognised.16 As to Bach’s exposure to the music of this tradition, it is likely that Böhm is an important figure. Since 2005, the earliest known autographs by J. S. Bach are tablature copies, dating from around 1700, of works by two key figures in the North German school: Reinken and Buxtehude.17 At the foot of the Reinken work, Bach writes ‘â Dom. Georg: Böhme descriptum ao. 1700 Lunaburgi’ (written out at the home of [or: ‘after a MS by’] Mr Georg Böhm in the year 1700 in Lüneburg).18 This certainly confirms that Bach knew Böhm, but whether or not regular, formal lessons took place remains uncertain. The Reinken work is a lengthy fantasia on An Wasserflüssen Babylon, the same melody on which, in 1720, Bach improvised for Reinken for half an hour. According to Bach’s Obituary, Reinken was moved to respond: ‘I thought that this art was dead, but I see that in you it still lives’.19 This quotation may be evidence that Bach was one of the few eighteenth-century masters of the seventeenth-century practice of improvising large-scale chorale fantasias. Bach’s assimilation of the highly sectional North German stylus phantasticus is more apparent in his harpsichord works than his organ works. A comparison of ‘Prelude in A’ BuxWV 151 (MM) by Buxtehude with any one of Bach’s manualiter toccatas BWV 910–16 bears this out. For example, the opening of BWV 910 (ABB), full of virtuosic passagework and rhetorical pauses, is clearly cast in the same mould as BuxWV 151. However, the contrapuntal sections of BWV 910 are longer and more harmonically developed than BuxWV 151 and other works in the North German style, such as ‘Fugue in G minor’ (MM) by Peter Heidorn. In BWV 916 (ABB), even some of the ‘free’ sections, such as bars 39–50, are more motivically and texturally consistent than is typical in North German style. As in his chorale partitas, one of Bach’s trademarks is to write in a more motivically ordered manner than his predecessors. One compositional advantage of this is that it allows for greater large-

RCO The Journal10

Ex. 2: Georg Böhm, Ach wie nichtig, ach wie flüchtig, partitas 2 and 3.


Ex. 3: J. S. Bach, Ach, was soll ich Sünder machen BWV 770, partitas 2 and 3.

RCO The Journal12

scale structural cohesion, and Bach’s treatment of permutation technique, much prized by Reinken, also indicates a concern with this aspect of composition. Three of Reinken’s suites for two violins, viola da gamba, and continuo, entitled Hortus musicus, exist in arrangements for keyboard by Bach: BWV 954, 965, and 966 (Exx. 4 and 5). The contrapuntal movements of the original Reinken works are permutation fugues; they are entirely free of episodes and are, texturally, virtually unvarying. (The basic texture is three-part, the viola da gamba providing a decorated version of the bass-line.) In his arrangements, Bach moves away from permutation technique to a more texturally varied style: the expositions, for example, differ from Reinken’s in that they always begin with an unaccompanied statement of the subject. Even more significantly, Bach introduces episodes, perhaps indicating that he felt that the originals lacked structural demarcation.20

The extent of Bach’s early exposure to French style is unclear. The Obituary states that Bach regularly heard a well-known band consisting for the most part of Frenchmen in Lüneburg;21 however, the evidence of the ABB and MM suggests that Bach’s early exposure to French styles of keyboard composition was largely through the conduit of German music. The French influence is most clearly seen in non-contrapuntal music, exemplified by dance suites. Wolff argues—hardly conclusively, in my view—that since Böhm’s organ in the Johanniskirche was in a state of disrepair for several years at the turn of the eighteenth century, his most significant influence on Bach was in the sphere of French-influenced music that was probably intended for harpsichord.22 However, it is true that Böhm’s ‘French’ dance suites, with stile brisé based textures, are well represented in the ABB and MM. The two manuscripts also include French-style suites by Christian Flor (Böhm’s predecessor at the Johanniskirche), Reinken, Christian Ritter, Georg Telemann (credited by the anagrammatic pseudonym ‘Melante’), and Friedrich Zachow, alongside one by the French composer Marin Marais. One of Bach’s clearest homages to Reinken23 in terms of approach to texture and form is Praeludium et Partita del Tuono Terzo BWV 833 (MM). The Courente [sic] of this work seems almost thematically related to that of Reinken’s ‘Suite in G’ (MM). The partitas (suites) and Biblical Sonatas of Johann Kuhnau may also have formed part of Bach’s early encounter with French style; although they are not found in the ABB or MM, Schulenberg argues that their ubiquity was such that Bach ‘must have known [them]’.24 However, the fact that their highly developed formal designs and functional harmonic language are not emulated in any of Bach’s suites found in the ABB or MM suggests to me that Bach may not have known the works until later in life. I would even suggest that Bach took some direct inspiration from these works in the composition of his mature suites: the thematic material of the Sarabande of Kuhnau’s ‘Partita II’ (Klavier-Übung I), for example, is very similar indeed to that of Bach’s sixth ‘French Suite’ BWV 817. Leaving the extent of Bach’s early exposure to Kuhnau aside, it is clear that Bach’s lifelong practice of incorporating French style into his music began in this early period. The same is true of Bach’s assimilation of Italian style. Just as is the case with French style, the evidence of the ABB and MM is that much of Bach’s early exposure to Italian style was through German music. Whereas French style informed Bach’s non-contrapuntal music, Italian style was a key influence on his contrapuntal writing. This can be seen in ‘Canzona in D minor’ BWV 588 (fragment in MM): the repeated notes in the theme of the 3/2 section are a feature of canzona style. This theme is presented alongside a chromatically descending motif, reminiscent of German ricercare style (compare bars 21–32 of Nicolaus


Bruhns’s ‘Prelude in E minor’, which juxtaposes national styles in a similar manner). Also noticeable is the Italianate nature of counterpoint, in which the voices only make sense in combination (in contrast to the Germanic ‘true’ counterpoint cultivated by Bach later in life, in which individual lines come closer to being genuinely self-contained). All of these features combine to form an almost Corellian trio-sonata texture in works such as ‘Fantasia in G minor’ BWV 917. The early fugues BWV 574 (on a theme by Legrenzi), 946, 950, and 951a (on themes by Albinoni) are further evidence of Bach’s interest in Italian style. Böhm seems to have been instrumental in the incorporation of Italian string style into keyboard writing: his Preludes in C major and A minor include violinistic figurations such as those based on repeated string-crossings (e.g., A minor, bar 55ff ) . ‘Fugue in G minor’ BWV 578 (ABB)

Ex. 4: Johann Adam Reinken, Sonata No. 2 (Hortus musicus), II: Allegro, opening.

RCO The Journal14

features similar figuration, although as Peter Williams points out, this is within the context of the North German Spielthemen tradition of idiomatic keyboard writing (indeed, the work also has parallels with Reinken’s ‘Fugue in G minor’ both motivically and with regard to the use of sequences).25 Perhaps most significantly of all, Bach’s introduction to the episode as a means of articulating structure and providing contrast probably came from Italian music. Bach’s early use of episodes is discussed above with reference to Reinken’s Hortus musicus. Bach’s introduction to the ritornello principle through the music of Vivaldi et al in 1713 is well-documented; as the above examples show, Bach had begun his exploration of Italian style well before this point. Having discussed Bach’s influences in terms of national styles, I now consider the influences on Bach’s approach to harmony, motif, and structure. As is mentioned above with regard to central German chorale prelude style, Bach’s early works display an experimental approach to many aspects of composition, and harmony is no exception. For example, ‘Prelude and Fugue in G minor’ BWV 535, of which an early version exists in the MM (BWV 535a), contains an extended, curiously pedantic exploration of the enharmonic properties of the diminished seventh (bars 19–31), for which it is difficult to pinpoint a precedent, although the opening section of the work may draw inspiration from Chanberceau (ABB) by Johann Küchenthal. The chorale settings of the ‘Arnstadt’ type are well-known for their dramatic harmonies, which sometimes extend into bizarre chromaticism (for example, the final phrase of BWV 726); it may well be the case that such passages reflect the influence of Buxtehude. Other possible influences include works such as the Allemand [sic] of ‘Suite in B minor’ (MM) by Friedrich Zachow, which contains chromaticism that results in rather ugly mode-shift (for example, bar 7). A more successful example of this technique is found in bar 5 of ‘Fugue in D minor’ (MM) by Johann Coberg. This chromatically descending melodic formula is much used by Bach, to memorable effect. A similar passage is found in bar 101 of

Ex. 5: J. S. Bach (after Reinken), Fugue in B flat BWV 954, opening.


‘Meine Seele erhebet den Herrn’ BWV 733; it is also found in later works, for example in ‘Sonata No. 3 in G minor’ for viola da gamba and obbligato harpsichord BWV 1029, Vivace, bars 67–8. The harmonic language of Bach’s mature style is rightly regarded as a landmark in music history; its development represents, in part, a move away from modality present in much seventeenth-century music. In terms of keyboard repertoire, the music of Frescobaldi and his pupil Froberger exerted a strong influence on German composers, though as is discussed above it is not known whether Bach came into direct contact with their music as a young man. Chorale preludes by Bach, J. M. Bach, Pachelbel, and others in which the harmony is not immediately discernible as ‘pre-tonal,’ but in which the chorale melody necessitates a non-tonal harmonic scheme (such as concluding on a chord other than what might be considered the key-chord), are too numerous to need an example. Some of Bach’s later chorale preludes, such as BWV 703 and 704, are very clearly based in a tonal harmonic language, but include prominent vestiges of modality; in this respect, the harmonic language shows parallels with earlier music such as the 4ème Ordre by François Couperin.26

In comparing non-chorale-based music by Bach and others, it is possible to observe the development of tonal harmony. The binary form of Sarabande of Flor’s ‘Suite in C’ (MM) is articulated by the clear modulation into the key of G at the end of the first half. However, dominant chords are sometimes minor rather than major; evidently, ‘functional’ harmony, in which the sharpened third is said to provide dominant chords with harmonic ‘energy,’ was not yet common currency. For example, the phrygian cadence in the submediant (bar 12) ends on an E minor chord. Another aspect of harmony that seems transitional in pre-Bach keyboard music is modulation. The Allemande of Böhm’s ‘Suite in F minor’ (MM), for example, seems at first glance to modulate to the dominant in bar 8 (the end of the first half). Leaving aside the fact that later binary movements in minor keys tend to modulate to the relative major at this point, it is notable here that, due to the presence of F-minor harmony in bar 7, the key of the music in bar 8 might be ambiguous to the listener. The Allemand [sic] of Bach’s ‘Suite in A major’ BWV 832 (MM), by contrast, avoids this tonal ambiguity by preparing the important structural modulations further in advance. Bach was not the first composer to demonstrate this tendency; earlier examples are Kuhnau’s suites, Moritz Edelmann’s ‘Toccata in D major’ (fragment in MM), and much music by Pachelbel, for example ‘Fugue in G minor’ recorded in the Weimarer Orgeltabulatur mentioned above. This is not to argue that Bach’s music is never tonally ambiguous—it frequently is, especially during fugal expositions—but that, in comparison with the works of his predecessors, many of his early works reflect a desire to codify the concept of modulation. A related characteristic of Bach’s output, present in his early fugues, is an apparent desire to create large-scale, structurally coherent works. As Schulenberg puts it, ‘what attracted Bach to fugue in the first place may have been not contrapuntal artifice but the particular sorts of drama attainable only in fugue: the gradual accumulation of sonority during the initial exposition, and the climaxes achieved through strategically placed entries of the subject (as in a final bass entry)’.27 Wolff argues similarly: ‘the expansion of the fugue through a new harmonic dimension and the extension of the form through strategically placed episodes appear to have been among Bach’s early goals’.28 Schulenberg and Wolff are presumably referring to accomplished early fugues such as those from ‘Prelude and Fugue

RCO The Journal16

in G minor’ BWV 535a/ii (MM) and ‘Prelude and Fugue in A’ 896/ii (MM). However, it should be noted that some of Bach’s early fugues do not corroborate their points of view. For example, ‘Fugue in A’ BWV 949 (ABB) is in my view a work that suffers precisely from too much focus on ‘contrapuntal artifice’ (inversion of the subject, etc.) and lacks clearly defined episodes. The early masterpiece, ‘Passacaglia in C minor’ BWV 582 (ABB) is remarkable for many reasons. Many of its possible influences—French, German, and Italian—are discussed at length by Peter Williams.29 There is no need to reiterate the evidence he cites here; it is sufficient to quote his conclusion, that the work is ‘greater than the sum of its parts’.30 In comparison with the other early works, it is perhaps the command of large-scale structure that is the most notable aspect of the work. While it is impossible to ‘explain’ this, it is easy to see that a composer with Bach’s methodical tendencies, as demonstrated above, might be able to exploit the potential of the passacaglia concept to achieve a well-structured large-scale work. Many have discussed possible frameworks that lie beneath the work’s surface.31 Without entering into that debate, it seems uncontroversial that the motivic relationships between variations, which as Williams points out are ‘more systematic than any model’,32 are an important aspect of the work’s quasi-organic development. Laurence Dreyfus explores with reference to later works the ‘remarkable density and integration’33 that can result from Bach’s tendency to ‘grow’ music from thematic material. I would argue that the corollary of such a tendency is a desire to avoid free composition where possible, and that the surface-level structural simplicity of the passacaglia genre provides a helpful basis for a composer with such characteristics. In other words, the presence of a clear structural framework might have assisted Bach in planning the long-term motivic development. As far as the fugue is concerned, it is notable that some of the earlier episodes (bars 204–08, 212–20)—where free composition is required, of course—are among the least memorable passages in the work. On the other hand, the episode of bars 259–71 is probably one of the most dramatic and memorable passages in the work. It is futile to attempt to ‘explain’ this passage as a logical next step, given what has come before. The motivic development continues through this passage, to be sure. But the daring-yet-goal-driven harmony makes this passage one that cannot adequately be explained through the study of Bach’s possible influences. In conclusion: Bach’s early keyboard works provide a wealth of evidence of an experimental and intellectually energetic nature. In incorporating French and Italian styles into his works, he followed the example of Böhm, Buxtehude, Reinken, and others. A dramatic tendency is shown in his treatment of the ‘central’ German style and chorales of the ‘Arnstadt’ type. On the other hand, his treatment of the stylus phantasticus and chorale partita style reflects a logical approach which occasionally goes too far, as in the diminished-seventh-based passage of ‘Prelude and Fugue in G minor’ BWV 535. Although precise dating is impossible, I would hazard a guess that Bach’s codification of tonal harmony, along with his ability to employ it at the service of structure, began in his teenage years. This, along with his move away from the sectional stylus phantasticus towards large-scale preludes and fugues, reflects a monumental approach which, arguably, reaches its apotheosis in the early works in ‘Passacaglia in C minor’ BWV 582. Although his indebtedness to his musical forebears is clear, I hope that this article can serve as a warning against the commonly held view that Bach’s early works provide few signs of his genius.


Notes

1. Stephen A. Crist, ‘The early works and the heritage of the seventeenth century’, in John Butt (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Bach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 81.

2. Robert Hill, ‘Introduction’, Keyboard Music from the Andreas Bach Book and the Möller Manuscript (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), xxii.

3. Christoph Wolff, Bach: The Learned Musician (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 47. 4. Ibid., 46–7. 5. Hill, ‘Introduction’, Keyboard Music from the Andreas Bach Book and the Möller Manuscript, xxviii. 6. J. S. Bach, Geneaology (unpublished, c.1735), quoted in Wolff, Bach: The Learned Musician, 28. 7. Wolff, Bach: The Learned Musician, 29. 8. Peter Williams, J. S. Bach: A Life in Music (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 27. 9. Christoph Wolff, ‘Bach and Johann Adam Reinken: a context for the early works’, in Bach:

Essays on His Life and Music (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 58. 10. Peter Williams, The Organ Music of J. S. Bach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2/2003), 56.11. Christoph Wolff, ‘J. S. Bach and the legacy of the seventeenth century’, in Daniel R. Melamed (ed.),

Bach Studies 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 197.12. Ibid., 198. 13. Williams, The Organ Music of J. S. Bach, 543.14. Ibid., 525.15. Ibid., 526.16. For example, see David Yearsley, ‘The organ music of J. S. Bach’, in Nicholas Thistlethwaite

and Geoffrey Webber (eds), The Cambridge Companion to the Organ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 237.

17. Michael Maul and Peter Wollny (translation: J. Bradford Robinson), in Dietrich Buxtehude, Johann Adam Reinken, and Johann Pachelbel, Weimarer Orgeltabulatur (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 2007), XXI.

18. Michael Maul and Peter Wollny, ‘The Weimar Organ Tablature: Bach’s earliest autographs’, in Understanding Bach 3 (Bach Network UK, 2008), 73.

19. Quoted in Williams, J. S. Bach: A Life in Music, 147. 20. Wolff, ‘Bach and Johann Adam Reinken: a context for the early works’, 67.21. Quoted in Williams, J. S. Bach: A Life in Music, 29.22. Wolff, ‘J. S. Bach and the legacy of the seventeenth century’, 62.23. Williams, The Organ Music of J. S. Bach, 485.24. David Schulenberg, The Keyboard Music of J. S. Bach (Routledge, 2/2006), 83.25. Williams, The Organ Music of J. S. Bach, 179.26. Ibid., 443.27. Schulenberg, The Keyboard Music of J. S. Bach, 61. 28. Wolff, ‘J. S. Bach and the legacy of the seventeenth century’, 69.29. Williams, The Organ Music of J. S. Bach, 182–8.30. Ibid., 188.31. For example, see Yoshitake Kobayashi, ‘The variation principle in J. S. Bach’s Passacaglia in C

minor BWV 582’, in Daniel R. Melamed (ed.), Bach Studies 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

32. Williams, The Organ Music of J. S. Bach, 185. 33. Laurence Dreyfus, ‘Bachian invention and its mechanisms’, in John Butt (ed.), The Cambridge

Companion to Bach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 190.

musical influences on the young j s bach tom...

Documents