I

I

l

I

Th" Background to Bach's

Fifth Brandenburg Concerto

Pieter Dirksen (Utrecht)

IIt is a well-known fact that the earliest source containing original concertos by Johann

Sebastian Bach is the autograph score of the six Brandenburg Concertos, which bears a

dedication dated24March 1721. Fora long time the absence - with one exception which wewill encounter further on - of earlier sources for these and other concertos was interpretedas indicating that Bach had begun to compose original concertos only during his years at thecourt ofCöthen, where he stayed from the end of l717 tothe spring of 1723. This accordedwell with the traditional concept of Bach as a composer whose development took place ina number of clearly circumscribed stages. In this view the composition of instrumentalensemble music and harpsichord works belong to his years at Cöthen, whereas his activitiesin Weimar, where he stayed from 1 708 to I 7 I 7 , were chiefly devoted to the creation of organmusic and church cantatas. This rather rigid demarcation essentially ignores the fact that themiddleof Bach'sWeimarperiod saw anintenseinvolvement with thenewlyimportedltalianconcerto, which is reflected mainly by the well-known series of keyboard transcriptions ofconcertos by vivaldi, Torelli, Marcello, PrinceJohann Emst and others.l Moreover, recentlythere has surfaced a set ofparts in Bach's own hand ofa Concerto fortwo violins by his friendGeorg Philipp Telemann, which can be dated as eariy as 1709.2 It is almosr unthinkable thatBach did not participate as a composer in this undoubtedly lively process of copying,performing and transcribing by creating concertos himself. It is only logical, therefore, thatthis notion, in fact based solely on the absence of actual source-material, has beensuccessfully challenged by recent scholarship. A Weimar origin is, at present, - on the basisof stylistic and notational evidence - being considered the most plausible for quite a numberof conceÍos. These include the First, Third and sixth Brandenburg concertos, twoConcertos in D minor for violin and oboe respectively, reconstructed from later harpsichordtranscriptions,, andthe original version forthreeviolins ofthe ConcertoforthreeharpsichordsinCmajor.3 Tfius,onecannotbutconcludethatitisdefinitelyonlyaccidentalthatnoWeimarsources for Bach's own concertos have been preserved.

The Fifth Brandenburg Concerto thus far seems to have escaped any consideration as a

157

PIETER DIRKSEN

possible Weimar work. In earlier studips, notably by Heinrich Besseler and Martin Geck,a

it was considered a late work within the Brandenburg set, óomposed not long before its entry

in the dedication score on grounds of the alleged modernity of its style, its instrumentation

and its reputation as the first 'keyboard concerto'.s The identification of an apograph set ofparts copied around the end ofBach's life as containing a considerably different version has

basically shattered this theory.6 The variant readings of this version are of such significanpe

that it definitely constitutes the original, early versioà which must predate the final,Brandenburg version by a substantial amount of time. The traditional view of the FifthBrandenburg Concerto as a work with decidedly modernist features, however, has tended to

exclude the possibility of a pre-Cöthen origin. On closer scrutiny the stylistic evidence forthis interpretation turns out to be of limited relevance. On the contra"ry, the most strikingfeatures of the Fifth Brandenburg lose much of their singularity when the work is seen in a

Weimar context.

Beforeentering into adiscussion ófthesefeatures it is importantto give abriefdescriptionof the main sources of 'Brandenburg Five'.7 These comprise three entities. The sole source

forthe earlierversion (BWV 1050a) is preserved in aset ofpaÍs written circa 1750by Bach's

son-inlawJohann ChristophAltnickol (1719-1759) withthehelp ofthreeother, unidentifled

copyists - here referred to as source C. The set, consisting of six separate paÍs, is complete,but unfortunately the-violonepaÍt, the only bass string instrument in this version, has been

written out only for the first movement. The principal source for the final version(BWV 1050) is the autograph score prepared for the Margrave of Brandenburg (source A).This copy was written in close conjunction with a complete autograph set of paÍs (source

B). An overview of the three sources is given in Table l.

TABLE I Primary Sources for BWV 1050/1050a

Source Nature Content

(B)

(c)

(A) Berlih, Deutsche

Staatsbibliothek, Am. B 78

Berlin, Deutsche

Staatsbibliothek,

Mus. ms. Bach St 130

Berlin, StaatsbibliothekPreuBischer Kulturbesitz,Mus. ms. Bach St 130

Dedication

score, dated

24.3.t721

Complete set ofseven parts, mainlyautograph

Complete set ofsix parts, writtenby Altnickol and

three other scribes:

CEMBALO CONCERTATO.Flauto Traverso,

Violino Concertato,

Violino, Viola, Violone*(* first movement only)

BWV 1050(and BWV1046-49, 1051)

BWV 1050

BWV l0-50a

158

BACH'S FIFTH BRANDENBURG CONCERTO

Sources A and B closely reflect the revision Bach undertook with the first version. This

process can be reconstructed as follows. Bach, planning to copy the early version of the

D major Conceno in his dedicalion score. drew the staffing necessary for the first movement

beforehand. Then, judging it necessary to revise the work completely, he decided to writea set of parts as well, not only to preserve the new version for himself, but also to keep the

dedication score free from the inevitable emendations and corrections which would have

formed an undesiÍable infringement on the calligraphic nature of this score. Thus the

revisional process is mainly discernible in the autograph parts. When he copied the new

version in score, however, he added yet further refinements. which only partially found theirway into the parts too.8 The many copies made during and after Bach's lifetime can all be

traced back on text-critical grounds to these two sources.

The dating of the revision does not pose any obvious problems and, on grounds of,the

close proximity of sources A and B, can definitely be placed in the first months of 1721. The

dating of the earlier version is, in view of the absence of autograph material or early copies,

an altogether different matter. While there is definite agreement that, in the light of the

importance of Bach's revisions, a considerable amount of time must have elapsed between

the two stages,e opinions differ regarding how long this period was. Several theories have

been advancedrecently, themostwidely discussed beingthatitwas the earlierversionwhichwas written on the occasion of the arrival of a new two-manual harpsichord by MichaelMietke at Cöthen in 11 19,10 rvhile the presence of a flauto traverso appears to exclude - incombination with the general stylistic appearance - any eaÍlier date.r I In order to throw morelight on the shadowyearly history oftheFifthBrandenburg it is firstnecessary totake acloserlook at the exact nature of the revisions.

Twochanges standoutfromtherest. First,Bachextendedtheharpsichord'sunaccompanied

solo at the end of the lrst movement from 18 to 65 bars, which he apparently cornposed

directly into the Cembalo part for his own use (source B).12 Second, he opted for a moredifferentiated instrumentation of the bass line. tn the early version only a single bass stringinstrumentis askedforin the form of aviolone, whichdoubledtheharpsichordist's lefthandpart with simplifications and omissions. In the Brandenburg revision Bach added a

violoncello which is given an enriched reading of the early violone part and he turned the newpart of the latter instrument into a true ripieno-part. The instrumentation of the lowest voiceof the concerto was thus considerably refined and enriched. - We will return to specificproblems regarding the violone part in the earlier version later.

The instrumentation of the bass in the earlier version, while significant in itself, actuallyforms part of an overall concept peculiar to this version. All aspects specific to BWV 1050acentre aroundtheproblemofdynamicsproducedbythepresenceofaconcertanteharpsichordpaÍ. At the time of writing this challenge was undoubtedly new to Bach and in his desire toleave the harpsichord fully audible he took precautions on two levels, namely in hisinstrumentation and in the exact maintenance and prescription of dynamics. He decided torestrict the number of participating instruments to the barestminimum. The omission of the

violoncello should be viewed as part of this scheme. The use of the violone - which, as has

been convincingly argued by Laurence Dreyfus,r3 was an instrument tuned in G and playing

159

vprFI

PIETER DIRKSEN

ExAMPLE I First Movement, bars M-45

C (= BWV 1050a)

A/B (= BWV 1050)

in eight-foot pitch - as the only bass-reinforcement has a clear acoustical purpose. As an

instrument of the gamba-family the violone is substantially softer in tone with a more

transparent sound than the violoncello; together with the harpsichordist's left hand part itthus providedthe lightestpossible instrumentation of the concerto'sbass-line. Furthermore,

Bach abstained from using a second ripieno violin, thus reducing the ripieno to three voices- a feature retained in the revised version.ra He compensated for this reduction of the

orchestral basics (which, of course, makes sense only when all parts are performed singly)

by adding two concértante paÍs forviolin and flute. The advantages ofthis choice - probably

in conjunction with a more extemal factor (see further below) - aÍe obvious. Not only could

thè concertante violin reinforce the ripieno violin in the tuttis while on the other hand the

160

BACH'S FIFTH BRANDENBURG CONCERTO

flute's restricted dynamics posed no threat to the harpsichord. The arrangement also offeredunlimited possibilities of concertizing in a 'polyphonic' way without running the risk of'covering' the harpsichord.rs This was all the more vital as Bach intended to conceive its part

as the dominating one in the musical structure.

The other precaution Bach took is the carefully prescribed dynamics. In the opening

movement, whenevertheharpsichord is concertizingthe dynamics oftheripieno instruments

are reduced to (at least) piano.16 The strictness with which Bach applied this rule can be

illustrated by the two versions of bars 44-45 (Ex. 1). In the 1721 revision Bach decided tofill upthe gap intheharpsichord's sixteenths, ashedidin some otherplaces. Hethus achieved

a continuous sixteenth motion in the first movement not present in the early version. In BWV1050a the gap in bars 44-45 for once gave the ripieno the opportunity to play the

accompanying ritomello-headmotiveforte instead of the uslalpiano.In therevised.version

Bach was obliged to alter itto piano too. There is, however, a far more important differencein the dynamic scheme of both versions, a difference which sheds important light on matters

ofperformancepractice.Itconcernsthe dynamicmarkingsof theviolino principale.Whereasin the revised version it is allowed to play forte continuously (except, of course, in the

contrasting middle section bars 71-100 and in abrief passage with Seufzer figxes,bars32-39), in the earlier version it is only allowed to do so when reinforcing the ripieno violin inthetuttis; in its solos itis withoutexceptionreducedtopiano.lT Hiddenbehindthis fundamental

difference is very probably a different conception ofthe dynamics ofthe harpsichord. In the

early version a plenum registration of the harpsichord was obviously considered not yetstrong enough to provide an obligato right-hand part dynamically equal to a violin played

forte,whilethe same registration played in chordal style would undoubtedly have been fullyadequate to accompany the tutti. The dynamics of the five other instruments, together withthe carefully structured changes between solo and continuo harpsichord, aÍe thus orderedthat it is never necessary for the harpsichordist to change dynamics c.q. keyboards; he can

play the entire movement on his full complement of stops.

In the revised version the dynamic relationship of harpsichord and solo violin has

undergone an impoÍant transfonnation. Bach now considers them to be dynamically equalpartners even in conceÍante passages, obviously asby l72l Bach could count on a strongerharpsichord, which is also reflected in the new and heavier scoring of the bass line with theaddition of a violoncello and the requirement of a violone in 16' - instead of in 8' - pitch. Thisvery probably implied that the tuttis no longer could be accompanied with a plenumregistration, but.had to be played in a softer registration. In this light the indications in theautograph score assume special importance; wherever the harpsichord is allotted a continuorole Bach gives the direction accompagnem, accomp. etc. As this reversion to continuoplaying would have been made abundantly clear to the player by the disappearance of theobligato paÍ and the appearance of figures (which are present in profusion), this direction,which is written with unusual precision wherever it is required, should very probably be

interpreted as suggesting a change ofkeyboard. It is thus likely that this change only involvedthe right hand switching to the softer upper manual.

In all likelihood, therefore, the harpsichord behind the concept ofthe earlier version was

161

vp.

Vla

VneCemb

PIETER DIRKSEN

a simple one-manual, four-octave instrument, playing each movement straight through with

a single registration. This, ofcourse, demolishes any possíbility oflinking the earlierversion

with the arrival of the two-manual Mietke harpsichord in 1719. The revised version, on the

other hand, is obviously intended for a two-manual instrument of bigger tonal resources and

restores the suboctave B, so conspicuously avoided inbar 92 in the first version. It is quite

possible that Bach realised this reyision with an eye to the Mietke instrument at Cöthen,

which definitely had two manuals, and in the knowledge that the Margrave of Brandenburg

had a comparable instrument at his disposal,'S but as this version definitely dates from 1721

the 1719 harpsichord arrival can have no bearing on the question of the date.te

There is agreement about the fact that the Fifth Brandenburg Concerto represents the firstwork that Bach wrote for the then very new flauto traverso. The earliest other datable works

which include flute parts aÍe two congratulary Serenades which probably date from 1722,20

so even the revision of 1721 was carried out at atime when Bach still had not made use again

of the new flute. That the work constitutes Bach's first use of this new instrument is reflected

in the relatively restricted use he made of its possibilities. He never goes beyond d3 - in the

first movement not even above c# -, even though the solo violin is used up to e3. The tessitura

of the flute is on the whole relatively low; Bach even writes a solo passage in the extreme

lower register while - in the early version - the full ensemble is playingforte:

EXAMpLE 2 First Movement. bars 108-110

In the revised version the dynamics of this passage are corrected, all three ripieno string

instruments being required to play piano.

As BWV 1050a probably originated some years before this revision, one can be sure that

its useofthe fluterepresents an isolatedcase.Inno singleWeimarorearly andmiddle Cöthen

period work are there traverso parts to be found. One can conclude therefore that Bach did

not yet have flautists at his disposal in his ensembles of this period. As to their use of the flute,

the two versions ofthe Fifth Brandenburg Concerto represent a chronological 'outpost' and

consequently the Co4certo must have been written with some special player and/or occasion

in mind. With thia conclusion we temporarily put aside the chronological problems

occasioned by the presence ofa flute and proceed to a consideration ofthe stylistic features

of the piece.

r62

BACH'S FIFTH BRANDENBURG CONCERTO

IILet us first concentrate on the movement which most strongly determines the countenance

of the whole concerto, namely the first. The overtly Vivaldian character as a whole has

always been recognized, mostly without pinpointing this influence precisely.2l Attention has

been payed, however, to the very Italianate ritomello theme. There is indeed scarcely

anything more Vivaldian in'Bach's oeuvre than the fanfarelike opening motive of the

ritomello, for which a possible direct model may be found in the opening phrase of a Vivaldi

concerto likewise in D major (Ex.3a).» The motive seems to have had a certain tradition in

the orbit of Bach's early concerto-experience. It is encountered in a probably early Violin

ConceÍo by Telemann again in D major (Ex. 3b),'zr in a Concerto in G major by Prince

Johann Emst von Sachsen-Weimar (Ex. 3c),2 which has had the unrivalled honour gf having

been transcribed twice by Bach (BWV 592l592a), as well as opening Bach's so-called

Concerto cbn Fuga in C minor BWV 909 (Ex. 3d), a problematic work but probabty an

authentic arrangement of an unknown instiumental conceÍo.25 The use of the motive in

Bach's own works is not restricted to the opening of the Fifth Brandenburg Concerto, but is

EXAMPLE 3

a Vivaldi RV 213

b Telemann

c Johann Ernst

d Bwv 909

e BWV 35/l (bars 4-6)

163

PIETER DIRKSEN

encountered again in the ritornello of the Oboe Concerto in D minor,26 as part of the

. Fortspinnung (Ex. 3e). This last parallel is especially interesting since the oboe work,

reconstructible from BWV 35 and 156, is generally considered as belonging to a relatively

earlyphase of Bach's concertocomposition. ThatBachviewedthemotive as quintessentially

Italian in style is corroborated by the fact that he used it again around 1730 as the headmotive

of CantataBWY 5T,lauchzetGottinallenLanden,aworkas strongly Italianate in the forces

used (soprano, trumpet, strings and continuo) as in style.27

The other clearly definable Vivaldian influence concerns the final unaccompanied

harpsichord solo. Although this most famous aspect of the Fifth Brandenburg Concerto is

usually claimed to be its most startlingly original and innovative feature, it actually has averyclear predecessor in a work by Vivaldi: the so-called Grosso Mogul-Concerto in D major

RV 208. Bach knew the work, as is testified by his transcription of it for organ BWV 594.

What is more, he transcribed the version of Vivaldi's concerto in which the outermovements

are provided with lengthy, unaccompànied final solos.28 Especially the 'cadenza' of the firstmovement shares its main structural principles with the one in Bach's first movement. This

is especially clear when we compare the earlier version with it. Both unaccompanied solos

are mainly built on a lengthy dominant pedal point. They are both developed without a break

from the last solo episode; the retraction of any accompaniment appears to be the logicaloutcome of the soloist's unceasing virtuoso figurations. They have thus little to do with the

overall - extended - concerto structure.2e Bach uses this particular model in another concerto

as well, namely in the Violin Concerto in D minor after BWV lO52:30 here both fast

movements contain viÍuoso, unaccompanied final solo episodes with extended pedal-point

figurations.

Some of the most distinctive elements in the first movement are thus largely derived fromVivaldianexamples, ortobemore specific: fromhisviolinconcertos. The importanceof this

violinistic model, however, goes still further. Within the concertino it is only the harpsichord

which is allotted violinistic figurations. From the outset ofthe first concertino episode, Bach

makes his point clear. The violin and flute expose a tetrachord-based theme of cantabilequalities, while the harpsichord doubles it in a violinistically figured form:

EXAMPLE 4 First Movement. bar 9

Seen in this light, thé other characteristics which are the exclusive domain ofthe harpsichord

can be easily explained too. In the long central episode the harpsichord's unceasing

arpeggios have an unquestionably violinistic background. V/hen the righthand parthas more

164

BACH'S FIFTH BRANDENBURG CONCERTO

than onevoicetoplay, this obviously does not stemfromadesireto exploretheharpsichord's

potential for contrapuntal textures but these passages aÍe recognizable as direct imitation of

the violin's ability to play double and ffiple stops:

EXAMPLE 5 First Movement

bars 2O-21

bars 133-134

Finally, it is only theharpsichord whichis giventhe so-called'geschwindePassagien',3rthat

is, virtuosopassages which go abovethe metre'snormalfastestnote-value, inthis casethirty-

seconds. These usually belong to the domain of the solo violin as well. The main portion ofthe last solo, where these 'fast passages' literally run riot, can be seen as an obvious attempt

at a 'clavieristic' imitation of the glittering of the bariolage-technique on the violin:

EXAMeLE 6 First Movement (BWV 1050a)

bar 159

bar 165

In order to achieve as close an approximation as possible of the hustle-and-bustle inherent

in full-chorded, fast bariolages on the violin, Bach adds a profusion of acciacatura-related

passing notes to his broken-chord figurations.

165

PIETER DIRKSEN

TABLE 2 The Motives in the First Movement and Their Distribution

Concertino Ripieno

Harpsichord Solo-Violin Flutel hio-rrortn rtoru viotonJ

Tutti

ffi(")fuk\ry

(b)

(d) (x)

Solo

ffi,Ox

tïTI]]ï m]ï (h)

The harpsichord part in the first movement shows a gradual emancipation from the

harpsichord's role as a doubling bass instrument. The first, short, bass-free passage is

encountered in bars 47 -49.1tis, however, only in the accompanied part of the final solo (bars

139-154) in which almost every bass doubling is eliminated. One can thus say that the

harpsichord is behaving harmonically more and more as a solo violin.

Of course, when Bach wrote the Fifth Brandenburg, the concerto for violin was the all-

domineering spe within the new genre, and so it is perhaps only logical that the harpsichord

part should show violinistic elements. Yet the systematic way in which these elements are

employed andthe factthat atthe same timethemore specifically idiomatickeyboardtextures

- the field in which Bach had built up such a rich and unequalled experience - are equally

systematically excluded, is striking. Seen in this light, the use of the violin as one of the

additional solo instruments acquires special significance: its part is never allotted any ofthe

violinistic solo material of the harpsichord. The restriction of theviolino principale' svirtuoso

role thus puts the harpsichord's violinistic orientation - not to say ambitions - into further

sharp relief. The 'unidiomatic', reserved treatment of the violin, which sometimes has been

interpreted as a weak element of the whole,32 was thus in fact a consciously calculated feature

t66

ÉACH's orotu u*o*TINBURG coNCERTo

of the piece.

When we consider.the motivic organization of the first movement, it is apparent that the

violinistic element has two different aspects, which can be summarily defined by the

'ritornello' and the 'harpsichord' aspect. In Table 2 the motives and their distribution overthe six instruments aretabulated.Whatemerges fromthetableisthatthetwomostidiomaticallystring-like motives ofthe ritornello - the ones characterized by note-repetition - never appear

in the flute or the harpsichord. These violinistic motives are thus clearly delimited from whatmay be called the 'virtuoso' violinistic motives which are the exclusive domain of the

harpsichord. The basic character of the ritomello is thus very string-like. Indeed, there is

nothing in this thoroughly 'unclavieristic' ritornello which suggests that a harpsichord willshortly be entering as a solo instrument. Ranging over this twofold paÍition is a highlysophisticateddistribution of - partiallyrelated-motives, by whicheach individual instrumentreceives its own particular combination of thematically determining material. The individualitywhich each of the six instruments contributes to the overall musical structure may be oneofthe more important reasons behind the unique quality of this movement and the fascinationit holds.

The deception which Bach, by thelierarchy otthe inslrumentation and the distributionof the motivic material, plays on his audience is multifaceted. The initial ritornello withharpsichord continuo strongly suggests a concerto for strings only. When the first soloepisode sets in the surprise is a multiJayered one; the harpsichord emerges from itsaccompanying role into one of a soloist, it staÍts immediately with violinistic figurations ofa different kind from the ritornello, and it does so while conceÍizing with a flute (anotherunexpected appearance after the string-introduction) and a violin. The latter instrument,traditionally the primus inter pares in conceÍos with a mixed concertino,33 is withheld anyof the harpsichord's virtuosity and violinistic material. Especially this latter, almost ironicpoint was not something likely to be rnissed by Bach's contemporaries.

'What emerges from a closer study of the harpsichord's solo part in the first movement andits peculiar relationship to the other solo-instruments is that Bach gave to the harpsichord therole of the domineering 'solo violin', incorporating as many imitations of typical viÍuosoviolin writing in its part as possible.3a This central idea is carried to its most extÍememanifestation in the revised version of the cadenza. Not only did Bach finally give to theharpsichord the cantabile form of the tetrachord motive (see Table 2, motive d), therebyone-sidedly raising the rnelodic difference between harpsichord and the two other soloinstruments, he also decided to use a particular violin technique in a drastic, literal way. Inbars 191-193 one finds the following passage:

EXAMpLE 8 First Movement, bars lgl-7g3

167

PIETER DIRKSEN

On closer investigation this passage reveals itself as a literal translation of a very specific

violin technique transferred to the harpsichord. It concerns a particular variety of an

extension technique for the left hand often encountered in the virtuoso violin repertoire ofthe eighteenth century:

pxeupLr 9 35

a Vivaldi RV 208

b Vivaldi RV 241

8m

c Locatelli

Be

opus 3/l I

In this technique the little finger (in violinistic terms the fourth) is fixed in a high position

on the E-string, whilst the forefinger (1) has to be stretched down on the A-string. The

analogy to the passage in Bach's harpsichord cadenza is striking. In conformity with the

violin technique, he places the stretching-technique in the left hand: the little finger is fixed

on an organ-point while the other fingers have to be stretched increasingly. Consequently,

the passage is meant to be played literally; the left hand is meant to sustain the half notes.36

As the last segment of the motivically very violin-oriented new first part of the cadenza (bars

154-195), this taxing of the harpsichordist's stretching abilities occasions a provisional

culmination-point breaking off on the dominant. The manner of playing often encountered

in which the low A's are foreshortened should therefore be considered as being contrary to

Bach's intentions as it interferes with the dynamic architecture of the cadenza. Particulary

striking is that it is again Vivaldi's Grosso mogal-concerto which obviously provided Bach

with the model to follow on the harpsichord. The importance of this work for the creation

of the Fifth Brandenburg can therefore not easily be exaggerated.

The stretch ofan eleventh in the left hand loses some ofits initial incredibility when seen in relation

to what we know about Bach's experience and preference regarding keyboard dimensions. The

two preserved instruments by Michael Mietke stand in a certain relationship to Bach, as has been

demonstrated by Sheridan Germann,3i (and if so, his introduction to these instruments took place

r68

BAbH's FIFTH BRANDE*ru*o coNCERTo

in the same period as the creation and revision of the Fifth Brandenburg). They both show the

extremely nanow Stichmal (the width of three octaves or 2l lower keys)3S of 469, 5 mm. Such

narrow dimensions - approximately 30 mm smaller than the standard for today's modern pianos

and also for the keyboards of (for example) Ruckers - would considerably facilitate the passage

in the cadenza. Bach's preference for narrower keys than usual is testified by Johann Friedrich

Agricola: 'As regards the width of the keys, one knows that especially in the Mark [=Brandenburg, where (a.o.) Mietke workedl thekeys aremade narrowerthan elsewhere... this was

required by the late Kapellmeisier Bach ...'.3e

In this detail ofthe cadenza in the revised version one can again see evidence that Bach wrote

the concerto in the very first place for himself. It was obviously from the wish to expose his

cembalistic abilities to his personal limits and to expand the concerto's violinistic virtuosity

as much as possible that he allowed this unique technical difficulty into the concerto.ao

IIIThe harpsichord being allotted the leading role which was traditionally the territory of the

violin and taking over many of its stylistic features, is continued by Bach in the other two

movements as well, albeit in a less extreme way as in the first movement. The 'geschwinde

Passagien' ofthe third movement again only appear in the harpsichord part. In the second

movement the central idea takes on a different and rather surprising guise, which is partly

the result of the form of the movement and the instrumentation chosen. Far from being

something like a movement from a trio sonata with an additional obbligato role for the

harpsichord, as has occasionally been suggested, it is actually a full-fledged Konzertsatz irt

which the flute, violin and the harpsichord bass form the tutti, while the right-hand

harpsichord part forms the solo. What is more, it constitutes a far more straightforward and

typical concerto movement than either the first or the last movement. While the outer

movements are composed in unusual, experimental concerto fofms (see further below), the

second movement is written in the following plain form:

TABLE 3 Formal Outline of the Second Movement

(tutti) (solo)

tlJ.l,Section: A - b - A- b'

I

I

I

m(D major)

- Ar- b"'

I

I

VI(G major)

- A- b"

I

I

I

G+l,inoODegree:

(B minor) (B minor)

;l

169

PIETER DIRKSEN

\À7ith the exception of the penultimate tutti, which is the only varied one and thus provides

the barest minimum of overall formal contrast, every ritoinello presents an exact repetition

and transposition of the initial one. It is important to realize that it constitutes Bach's onlyslow concerto-movement in full-fledged concerto form. This feature forms part of Bach's

overall structural plan for the concerto to which we shall retum later.

The harpsichord solo in the right hand is written in avery c antabilemanner, without much

regard to idiomatic harpsichord writing, which is especially evident in the many long notes

which are absent from both the hute and the violin part. That this was Bach's deliberate

intention is underlined by the fact that no single source ofeither the earlier or the later version

shows any omamentation on these notes. The nowadays widely applied practice of freely

omamenting these notes was therefore not intended by the composer. Bach wished to tax the

sustaining power of the harpsichord to - or rather over - its limits, to which the use of a fluteand a violin as accompanying instruments - both instruments in fact being far more ideal toplay the expressive solo - provides added irony. To leave no doubt about his intentions, Bach

added a brief interjection of short-breathed motives from the ritomello, played by either the

flute and the violin, to each of the harpsichord's long notes:

ExAMpLE l0 Second Movement. bars 6-8

In view of the structure of the second movement the question of the instrumentation becomes

vexing, as the violone part stops right before this movement in the earlier version. It is thus

unclear if it was allotted a role in the middle movement or not. The different conception ofharpsichord dynamics which could be shown to exist between the two versions of the firstmovement, however, seems to suggest a solution. In the middle movement of the earlierversion - if Bach indeed intended it for a one-manual harpsichord - the violone, if present,

would surely have been restricted to reinforcing the'tutti' sections only. This, ofcourse,clarifies the formal structure considerably. When Bach revised the work with an eye towardsa two-manual harpsichord, he may have deemed this doubling no longer necessary, as the

harpsichord itself could now differentiate dynamically between solo and continuo. In thisconnection it may.be revealing that in the autograph score an accompagnement-indicatioÍr

is again provided aÍ the head ofevery continuo section.

170

iacH's ororr r*o*TTNBURG coNCERTo

Problems of a different nature are encountered with regard to the - doubtlessly missing- violone part in the third movement. The Neue Bach Ausgabe decided to print a ratherunconvincing version taken from a spurious cello part included in the set ofparts whichpreserve the earlier versionat but which was probably made without reference to the originalsource materials which Altnickol and his assisting copyists ceÍainly had at their disposal.

From the first movement one may deduce that the original violone paÍ was neither so

restrictednorthatit so slavishly doubledtheharpsichord lefthand as this spurious part wouldhave us believe. For example, bars 194-198 make little harmonic sense without an

independent c#o organ-point in the bass, as can be found inthe l72l revision:

EXAMpLE I I Third Movement. bars 194-200

-

Thus the original violone part was in all probability very close to the revised version's cellopart.

IVIn several respects the frst movement could be shown to reflect a relatively early stage ofVivaldi-reception and thus will not be farremoved, chronologically, from the time of Bach'sintense involvement with Italian concertos in the years l7l3-l715,which strongly suggests

a Weimar origin. Some other features of the Concerto seem to corroborate this conclusion.Both of the unusual features of the ripieno suggest links with Weimarpractices. Whereas theomission of a cello was in the first place carried out, as we have seen, for reasons of dynamicbalance, there may be a link with continuo practices as evidenced by some Weimar cantatas.Laurence Dreyfus has shown that for many early cantatas a violoncello was not yet

t7l

PIETER DIRKSEN

considered the obligatory member of the continuo group which it became later, in Bach's

Cöthen and Leipzig ensembles.az The last documented evidence for this particular practice

can be found in two cantatas from the year 1715. In a few of their movements the cello is

., explicitly omitted, leaving the organ together with the violone as the only bass instrument.a3

The absence of a second violino ripieno may similarly suggest a Weimar connection.

Wemer Breig has shown that the earliest version of BWV 1052 was a Concerto for violin in

D minor which must also have had certain links with this type of ripieno-organization.aa

Certainly the last, and perhaps also the first movement originated as compositions with a

three-part ripieno including only one ripieno violin as in Brandenburg Five. The solo violin

in the original version of BWV 1052 also reinforced the ripieno violin in the tutti's, which

must have resulted in a texture very similar toÍheforte passages in the first movement of the

DmajorConcerto. As the DminorConcertocanbe showntobe subjecttothe sameVivaldian

influence regarding unaccompanied solos as the D major Concerto, the two works seem

closely related and were possibly created not long after each other. As the D minor Concerto

is now generally regarded as being of Weimar origin,as this again suggests a comparable

chronological placing of the D major Concerto.

There are several other indications which point in the same direction. In the earlier version

the middle movement was marked adagio,whíchwas altered rn l72l to affetuoso. Most ofthe other concerto-movements by Bach carrying an adagio marking (second movements of

BWV 1042, 1046(a), 1048, 1051, 1052, 1060(a) and 1064) in all probability originated in

Weimar.a6 For the middle movements of his later concertos Bach generally appears to have

, preferred markings with less slow tempo implications such as andante or largo!1

The typology of the third movement stands in a Weimar tradition too, especially because

it is essentially monothematic. To appreciate this it is necessary to arrive at a proper

understanding of what actually constitutes the main theme. Most commentators see the

opening two-bar motive as such and describe the whole movement as fugal. Carl Dahlhaus,

however, has argued convincingly that it is not this motive which should be considered as

the theme but the first eight bars as exposed by the solo violin and the flute:a8

ExAMPLE 12 Third Movement, bars 1-8

All the linear and figurational material of the movement can be traced back to these eight.

quasi-canonical bars. The idea of building a concerto-like movement on a single, all-pervading idea strongly resembles the compositorial technique of cQrtain Weimar organ

music. such as the Toccata in D minor BWV 538/1 - a work which can be dated to the second

half of Bach's Weiqpar years.re But the resemblance with some of the free organ music of

Weimar goes still further. Vy'emer Breig has shown that Bach's free organ style had reached

172

BACH'S FIFTH BRANDE*U'OO CONCERTO

a certain level of maturity before he came into contact with the Vivaldian concerto, and that

this earlier style was effectively combined with the new concerto principles in some of the

late Weimar organ music. Instead of writing single organ pieces in which all the basic

concerto principles were present, Bach applied these principles complementary over the two

parts of these cycles - PreludefioccataFantasia and Fugue - in ever changing ways.50 Bach

thus not only made use of the enoÍÍnous structural possibilities of the new principles, but

applied them in a highly original way to achieve a subtle but effective combination of

contrast and unity between the two movements concemed.

A comparable cyclical concept is apparent in the Fifth Brandenburg Concerto. Here the

idea takes an even more sophistocated form because this cycle consists not of two but of

three movements and because it is written not for a single instrumentalist but for a number

of instruments. We have already seen that the middle movement must be considered as a

formally complete Konzertsatz, unique among Bach's slow movements. It has every

appearance that the concerto as a whole is designed with this movement as its formal point

of departure. In placing a formally 'correct' and straightforward concerto movement at the

centre Bach had his hands free, as it were, to apply in the two outer movements an expressly

experimental approach to the fundamental concerto principles. The first movement is

designed in a complicated, extended concerto form,sr in which a subtle relationship exists

between partially related ritomello and solo themes (see above, p. 166). The third movement

with its strict da capo structure is completely independent of ritomello form; there is no

thematical entity in this movement which can be considered as t h e ritornello. The isolated

position of this movement in Bach's concerto oeuvre is underlined by the fact that all other

da capo concerto movements by Bach are heavily dependent on ritomello structures. The

structure of the last movement of the Fifth Brandenburg Concerto therefore shows another

aspect of Bach's overall scheme of avoiding anything that is obvious in this work.

The occurrence or absence of ritomello form and the resulting formal diversity finds

further expression in the contrasting ways in which Bach makes use of the instrumental

forces available, which adds another dimension to the principle of contrast between the

movements. A key to the variation in the instrumentation is to be found in the way in which

the ripieno violin is used. In the first movement its function is clearly determined; in the tutti

sections it is always doubled by the solo violin (with one, significant, exception in bars 19-

20), while its role in the solos is entirely restricted to figures of an accompanying character

(as is, of course, the viola). Only at the last possible moment, at the end of the accompanied

part of the last solo (bars 15 1- 154) is it treated on equal terms in a solo section with the flute

and the solo violin. In the last movement these textures are much more frequent. The

compositorial differentiation of the six or seven instruments, which is such a marked

characteristic of the first movement, is considerably blurred here. All instruments take theiÍ

share of lines in a more accompanying function; only the degree to which Bach has

distributed thematic and non-thematic material over the instruments makes clear that there

is a quantitative difference between solo and ripieno. Another important difference lies in the

fact that the ripieno violin is neverdoubled by the solo violin to form adistinctive upper voice

in the tutti sections as it is in the tutti sections of the first movement. In order to achieve a

173

PIETER DIRKSEN

dynamically prominent uppervoice at structurally importantpoints Bach instead doubles thesolo violin with the flute. Not counting the literal da capo, this occurs at four different places.In bars 29-41, an orchestral fugato heralds the entry of the ripieno instruments in this

i' movement. The doubling of the flute and the solo violin from bar 33 results in a dynamicallyfavoured upper ripieno part which as such partakes in the overall imitative structure of thissection. During the ensuing harpsichord flourishes (from bar 42) the ripieno assumes anaccompanying function; the flute and solo violin are divided again (from bar44) but withoutat first losing their ripieno function. Only gradually do they regain their differentiation fromthe actual ripieno instruments, and are doubled again in order to round off the A section ofthe movement with the headmotive (bars 74-78). In the B section Bach varies the use of theinstruments at his disposal still more radically. The three concertino instruments each taketheir tum in playing a solo{heme based on the opening motive (see Ex. 14 below),intemrpted by statements of this motive in its original form played unisono by the ripienoviolin and viola. This solo-tutti contrast is, however, blurred by the fact that the ripieno violinjoins the concertino instruments in the chordal triplets which accompany the solos. A thirddoubling of the flute and the solo violin occurs in bars 130-147 where the thus dynamicallyfavoured uppervoicehas the dominatingpart, to whichtheripienoviolin addsacontre partiecarefully intertwined with the leading part. This is followed by a last appearance of the solo-theme (bars 148-155), significantly played unisono by the two upper strings of the ripieno(with the telling performance-indication cantabile) and accompanied by the concertino andthe violone. Another drastic change of instrumental emphasis immediately follows. Theharpsichord assumes the role of the only solo instrument in an extended passage(BWV 1050a: bars 155-184; BWV 1050: bars 155-188), accompanied by the five otherinstruments treated as a homogenous ripieno, which is taken as far as orchestral unisoni withthree or four instruments.s2 From bar 185/189 to the end of the B section the normalrelationship between concertino- and ripieno-instruments is restored. This section is roundedoff with a concise final cadence featuring a brief fourth doubling of the two solo-melodyinstruments.

The third movement is thus characterized by an almost constant regrouping of instrumentsand shifting of the balance between the themes. The clear-cut da capo form forms thenecessary counterbalance, as it were, to the almost improvisatory, ever changing textures ofthe movement.

The way in which the different concerto principles are distributed over the threemovements of this concerto is summarized in Table 4. The originality of the work thus doesnot stop at the highly original instrumentation itself, but finds its logical extension in anunusual manipulation of the main concerto principles and -forms as well.

The various ways in which Bach orchestrates the tutti sections provides the key to yetanother hidden aim ofthis concerto, and gives an explanation for Bach's decision to includethe combination of a violin and a flute in the concertino. These two instruments symbolizethe antithesis of the two national styles which was a topical issue at the time: the French andthe Italian style. The flute in the form known to Bach was a relatively recent Frenchdevelopment. It only gradually appeared on the scene in Germany during the 1710s and

174

s_

BACH'S FIFTH BRANDENBURG CONCERTO

TABLE 4 Concerro Elemenrs in BWV 1050(a)

Element Movement

Ritomello structure I

Ritomello type:

- V ordersatz-F ortspinnung-Epilo gs3

- imitative, trio-likeDa capo structure

Contrast between solo/tutti-themes

Flute forms part of rutti top-Voice

Solo violin forms part of tutti top-voice

Ripieno violin forms part of tutti top-voice

(x)

(x)xx

1720s and was regarded as quintessentially a French instrument.sa The violin, of course, was

still viewed as the most typically Italian of instruments, which characteristic moreover was

undoubtedly renewed by the leading role it played in relation to the new Italian concertostyle. Bach wisely avoids.the more obvious path of allotting both instruments parts writtenin their respective styles; not only would this have resulted in a crude confrontation of these

styles but it would also have conflicted with one of the work's other aims, namely the

virtuosic, contrasting treatment ofthe harpsichord. Instead, Íhe traversière and the violinoprincipale are treated in the solo passages in a completely homogeneous way without any

trace of virtuoso writing. Bach instead emphasises the difference in the instrumentation ofthe tutti's of the different movements and the corresponding differentiation of thematicstyles. In the tutti sections of the frst movement, with their very Vivaldian features (see

above, p. 163), Bachdoubles the ('flrst') ripienoviolinwiththe soloviolin as is always foundin any baroque violin concerto, while the flute remains silent. Instrumentation and style are

thus carefully attuned to one another. The opening motive of the third movement is a Gigue-theme which possibly refers to French examples known to Bach:55

ExerwlE I3

a Dieupart

xx

L75

PIETER DIRKSEN

EXAMPLE I3

b BWV 806(a)/1, bars 3-4

c BWV 1050(a)/3

The fugatos which are based on this motive are a direct stylistic reference to the middlesection of a typical French ouverture as can be seen from a comparison with, for example,the central section of the orchestral ouverture in D major BWV 1069ll . The many five-parttextures in the third movements6 must also be seen as alluding to French practices; five-panwriting (with two instead of only one viola part) was recognized as the norm for French-styled orchestral overtures in Germany at the tum of the seventeenth century.57

seen in this light, the peculiar role of the flute in the last movement can easily be

explained. Its combination with the upper violin part echoes the typically French practice ofdoubling the top line with woodwind, which contrasts strongly with the predilection of theItalian concerto for pure string textures at least in the tutti sections. Bach was aware of thisstylistic difference, as is obvious from acomparison of his orchestral overtures (BV/V 1066-1069) with most of his conceÍos. In the overtures the first violin is, as a rule, doubled byoboes or a flute, but this never occurs in any concerto.s8 That Bach considered especially astring texture with a flute doubling the first violin as typically French can be seen from theinstrumentation of the Suite in B minor BWV 1067.

The stylistic objectives of the last movement also explain why, despite its da capo structure, Bachavoids any allusion to the ritomello form with its strongly Italianate associations. However, as thisapplication of French stylistic elements occurs in the context of a concerto, it is not illogical forthe third movement to reveal Italianate elements side-by-side with the French aspect withoutencountering this phenomenon vice versa in the first movement. The most striking Italianateelement in the third movement is surely the transformation of the Gigue-motive into the melodywhich opens the B section. The syntax of this melody, with its 'galant' two-bar phrasing, seems

to have been modelled upon yet another example by Vivaldi, namely a famous passage from hisL' Estro Armomrco Opus 3, in the third movement of the ConceÍo in A minor for two violins RV522(8x.14). Bachknew this concerto, as isdocumentedby his transcriptionfororganBWV5g3.As this particular melodic type is untypical of Bach's own style, there can be little doubt that he

was referring directly to Vivaldi. Bach must have considered the feat of combining twocontrasting styles in the transformation of a singlemotive afitting ingredientforthis uniquefinale.

176

EXAMPLE 14

Vivaldi, bars 87-95

b

BACH'S FIFTH BRANDENBI]RG CONCERTO

Bach, bars 79-86

Into the scheme of stylistically contrasting outer movements the middle movement clearly

mediates between the two opposing styles. Apart from the form of this movement the part-

writing of the ritornello is also Italianate in style, as it is clearly modelled upon textures

typical of the trio sonata with its two intertwining, fully equal melodic lines. The French

element is represented by the predominating dotted rhythm of the whole and the various?/r-chords applied. The key of this movement, B minor, may also plausibly be interpreted as

a conscious French element, as Bach also used it in two impoÍant and unambiguously

French-oriented works, namely the Ouyertiire nach französischer Art for harpsichord

BWV 831 and the Suite for flute and strings BWV 1067.

The confrontation and partial blending of opposing national styles forms another aspect

which was of importance in the creation of the Fifth Brandenburg ConceÍo. Bach avoidedgiving any externalhinttothisprogramme, and was carefultoheadthe thÍeemovements withnothing but the most neutral tempo designations at his disposal; allegro, adagio and allegrorespectively.5e That this was typical for his compositorial attitude in general, and for his

handling of different stylistic influences in particular, has long been recognized. Even

Clavieri)bung 11, with its explicit confrontation of the two styles in a concerto and an

ouverture, reveals on closer scrutiny aspects which put the apparently uncomplicated

relationship between style and form in both works strongly into question.60 That the many

different motives for the composition of the Fifth Brandenburg ConceÍo would have led to

a coherent masterpiece tells much about the level of compositorial mastery Bach had

achieved at the end of his Weimar tenure. His ability to turn any compositorial experimentand novelty into a unified and convincing whole is typical of this period. At the same timethe experimental traits were soon to begin to loose their sharp edges as they came to be

integrated more fully into Bach's ever developing personal style. It is therefore typical thatBachneverrepeatedtheexpeimental,recherché character of BWV l050atothe same extent

in another concerto.

There is, however, a work by Bach outside the strict concerto-genre which stronglyresembles the outer movements of BWV 1050(a). It refers to the Prelude and Fugue inA minor for harpsichord BWV 894, a work generally regarded as of Weimar origin.6r In the

first movements of both works the outlines of the solo-ritomello organization are blurred, the

last solo dissolves in pure virtuoso flguraÍion in thirty-seconds, while the overall rhythmicalpicture is characterised by a steady alternation and occasional combination of regular

sixteenths an<Í;sixteenths-triplets. The lastmovement of both pieces consists of a fugue(-like

piece) in fast triplets with a pervading monothematicism as the main characteristic. Perhaps

[NB: bar 148: this themo cantabile l]

177

PIETER DIRKSEN

it was exactly this intrinsic relationship which later prompted Bach to develop the solo

keyboard work into a concerto with almost the same instrumentation as Brandenburg Five

- the Concerto for flute, violin, harpsichord and strings in A minor BWV 1044.

When considering the characteristics of the D major Concerto, one cannot but conclude

that we are dealing here with a work dating from the late Weimar period and fitting naturally

into the formal and stylistic tendencies of these years, when Bach incorporated the various

new stylistic influences on his owrl work in a highly original way. The decidedly forward-

looking features only seem superficially to point to a chronologically 'modem', i.e.

relatively later position in Bach's conceÍo-oeuvre. On closer scrutiny, however, this

modemity is solely the result of the work's unique features and singular aims.

vLet us now consider the context for which the D major Concerto was possibly created. We

are dealing with a work written, in all probability, at the end of the Weimar period with

obvious representational aims, especially on the part of the harpsichordist, featuring a bi-national stylistic programme and created, in view of the unusually early use of the traverso,

for some special occasion. When searching for a clue to a possible external reason for the

creation of this concerto within these chronological bounds one inevitably comes across

Bach's visit to Dresden in September 1717, which became legendary due to the aborted

keyboard contest with the French keyboardvirtuoso Louis Marchand.62 Onfurtherreflection

one cannot help noting that in this theory several of the unique features of the concerto fallneatly into place. Firstly, the presence of the flute can thus be explained. It was in the Dresden

Hofkapelle that Pierre Buffardin, the famous French flute virtuoso, worked. A connection

between some of Bach's flute music and the Dresden virtuoso, a key figure in the early

dissemination and subsequent popularity of the flute in Central Germany, has been

considered earlier,63 but apparently never in conjunction with the Fifth Brandenburg. (The

chronologically rather isolated first use of the traverso can thus be explained.) Buffardin,who entered the Dresden orchestra in 1715, may have been an early Dresden contact of Bach

since the Frenchman is known to have taught Bach's brother Jakob in 1712.61 Together with

the Dresden Konzertmeister Jean-Baptiste Volumier and the violin virtuoso Johann Georg

Pisendel he probably belonged to the small group of Bach's early Dresden acquaintances.

Volumier, according to the account in Bach's obituary, was the one who had instigated

Bach's visit of l7l1 .Is it a mere coincidence that the two concertante paÍts, apart from the

harpsichord part, call exactly for their respective instruments? The Dresden theory explains

most of the other salient features of the piece as well. The presence of a written-out cadenza

in the first movement, which has been shown to have been directly influenced by a particular

Vivaldi concerto, is typical for many of Vivaldi's 'Dresden' concertos, too,65 and Bach, no

doubt familiar with this tradition, sought to emulate these on the harpsichord.

The highly distinctive group of musicians in Dresden would have been the ideal audience

to recognize the firièr points made in the D major Concerto. In the late l7l0s the Dresden

Kapelle was in the midst of a musical conflict between the French and the Italian styles.6

178

BACH'S ""''*O*'UNBURG

CONCERTO

Partly as theresultof differingpredilections bytheruler, theKurfíirst AngustderStarke, and

the Crown Prince, both elements were present in the composition, repertoire and playing

styles of the Kapelle, but the conflict seems to have been largely restricted to its vocal

department and its operatic activities. The instrumentalists, among whom native German

musicians dominated, seem to have had a relatively open attitude towards the wide-ranging

influences, as canbe seenby theirreadinesstoperformVivaldi's mostrecentworks, andtheir

aspiration to combine the besl of the two styles. Telemann remarks in his autobiography of1718 about the Dresden musicians: '[die] Herren Virfuosen in DreBden / bey denen die

Delicatesse Welschlandes / und Franckreichs Lebhafftigkeit lals in einem Mittel-Puncte

zusammen kommt'.67 Bach's Concerto can perhaps be seen as his own, idiosyncratic

contribution to this stylistic discussion and search for a synthesis. The overt Vivaldianisms,

the galant,up-to-date melodic features, the sophisticated handling of the all-important new

concerto-principles throughout its three movements, the meaning of the peculiar hierarchic

instrumentation,theviolinisticbackgroundoftheharpsichord's solopartandthejuxtaposition

of French and Italian elements were points not likely to be wasted on the Dresden circle.

The most intriguing element suggesting a connection of BWV 1050a with the Dresden

visit of 1717 is of a thematic nature. If we accept the fact that Bach composed the work forthis occasion, than it was surely one of the weapons with which Bach planned to meet his

opponent Louis Marchand. It is therefore perhaps not surprising to find a direct reference to

Marchand in the Concerto. André Pirro has pointed out that the theme of the middle

movement is based upon a Fugue for organ by Marchand in C minor:68

gxerr,rpr-e 15

The thematic link is so strong that there can be no doubt about the dependence ofthe twothemes regardless of its direction of the imitation, though Bach is by far the more likely ofthe two to have been the'imitator. Bach surely intended the setting of a very French tJreme

and harmonies in formal surroundings and textures which are very ltalianate as a model ofstylistic versatility ard goils réuniswithwhichtobaffletheFrenchman. Theimplicationthatensemble music involving the harpsichord should have been planned as part of the contest

- besides solo-improvisations on both organ and harpsichord? - is on reflection very logical.At that time the harpsichord was generally considered in'the very first place as an ensemble

instrument, and the D major Concerto was the ideal vehicle to combine this with the

ostentatious element required for the contest. Bach would moreover cerlainly have enjoyedperforming with some of the finest musicians of the period (who were given rewarding parts

in themselves), and the piece gave ample opportunity to show his powers in a multi-faceted

Bach

179

way: as a composer able to combine great contrapuntal skill with the newest forms and

melodic styles, as a continuo player and as a viÍuoso soloist. The strong impression that

Bach's recital made in Dresden may thus in part be due to the Concerto's immediate power

and to its being the ideal vehicle to show Bach's genius in all its important aspects.6e

The foregoing reflections are, to be sure, nothing more than a working hypothesis builtupon a general consideration of the work's stylistic features, its probable chronologic.al

position andthe unmistakablepreseficeof thekeyboardvirtuosoBachbehindthe whole. But

while the Dresden theory put forward here is without doubt entirely speculative, it provides

an almost ideal extemal occasion to explain the characteristics and the very existence ofthe

Concerto, and it has the advantage of linking an extraordinary work to an extraordinary

occasion.

NOTES1. See Hans-Joachim Schulze , Studien zur Bach-ibertieferung im 18. Jahrhundert (Leipzig and

Dresden, 1984), pp. 146-173.

2. Hans-Joachim Schulze in Bach-lahrbuchTl (1985), p. 185. The concerto is identified in the

thematic catalogue of Telemann's concertos by Siegfried Kross, Das Instrumentalkonzert bei

Georg Philipp Telemann (Tutzing, 1989) as '2 V.G.(l)'.3. See Martin Geck, 'Gattungstraditionen und Altersschichten in den Brandenburgische

KonzerÍen' , Die Musikforschung 23 (1970),pp. 139-152; Wemer Breig, 'Zur Chronologie von

Johann Sebastian Bachs KonzeÍschaffen - Versuch eines neuen Zugangs' , Archiv fi)rMusil<wissenschaft 4O (1983), pp. 71-l}l; Joshua Rifkin, Violin Concertos at the Court ofWeimar, booklet to Decca42l 442-2 (Lordon, 1989), pp. 4-11.

4. Heinrich Besseler, 'Zur Chronologie der Konzerte Joh. Seb. Bachs, in Festschrift MarSchneider zum achtzigsten Geburtstage, ed. Walther Vetter (Leipzig, 1955), pp. 115-128;

Geck, 'Gattungsffaditionen und Altersschichten in den Brandenburgische Konzerten', p. 140.

5. On the problems of this concept in connection with BWV 1050(a), see Werner Breig, 'Johann

Sebastian Bach und die Entstehung des Klavierkonzerts', Archiv fiir Musikwissenschaft 36

t 1979). pp. 28-30.

6. Alfred Diirr, 'Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des 5. Brandenburgischen Konzerts', Bach-lahrbuch

6l (1975), pp. 63-69. The early version is edited by DiJrr as Concerto BWV 1050a, Nachtrag

zu NBA VIII2 (Kassel etc., 1975).

7. lnformationbasedonDiirr,'ZurEntstehungsgeschichte',pp.63-66:Dnrr,NachtragzuNBAV II I 2:'Ergurzende Angaben zum Kritischen Bericht VII/2'.

8. This interpretation of the sources as developed by DÍn, 'Zur Entstehungsgeschichte', and

Hans-Joachim Schulze, Vorwort Ío the facsimile-edition of the autograph set of parts ofBWV 1050 (Faksimile-Reihe Bachscher Werke und Schriftstiicke XV, Leipzig, 1975) has been

challenged by Robert Marshall (Music & Letters 58,1917,pp.236-240): his arguments,

however, fail to give an explanation for the specific relationship between the compositorial

character of the cadenza's writing in the harpsichord part of 'B' and the preliminary ruIing ofthe score ('A') still with the l8-bar cadenza in mind.

9. Compare in this respect the First Brandenburg Concerto BWV 1046, the only other work of the

BrandenburgserforwhichanearlyhistorycomparabletoBVr'V l050isrecordedinthesources- a history which possibly goes back as far as I 7 I 3l see Ceck. 'Gattungstradilionen und

Altersschichten in den Brandenburgischen Konzerten', pp. 1 44- 1 45.

r80

BACH'S O'O'N U*O"'UNBURG CONCERTO

10. See, for.example, Diirr, 'Zur Entstehungsgeschichte', p. 67; Christoph Wolff ,The New Grove

Bach Family (London, 1983), p. 157.

11. Hans.Joachim Schulze, 'Johann Sebastian Bachs Konzerte - Fragen der iiberlieferung und

Chronologie', in Beitrtige zum Konzertschaffen.lohann Sebastian Bachsr ed. Peter Ahnsehl,

Karl Hellerand Hans-Joachim Schulze (Bach.Studien YI, lripzig, 1981), p. 15: 'Vor 1717

wird man es [i.e., the Concerto] trotzdem nicht anzusetzen brauchen, daja der Gebrauch der

Querflöte in Bachs Weimarer Zeit bislang nicht bezeugt ist'.12. For a detailed comparison of the two cadenzas, see Georg Stauffer, 'Bach as Reviser of his own

Keyboard Wotks', Early Mislc 13 (1985), pp. 193-195.

13. LaurenceDreyfus,Bach'sContinuoGrozp(StudiesintheHistoryofMusiclll,CambridgeMA and London. 1987). pp. 146-149.

14. This argument is adopted here from Breig, 'J.S. Bach und die Entstehung des Klavierkonzerts',p. 29. - Friedrich Smend's well-known argumentation that the absence of a third violin part can

be explained by the composition of Bach's small Cöthen ensemble - in which Bach usually

played violin or viola-but now took over the solo harpsichord part and thus left a gap.within the

string.group - (Bach in Köthen,Berln, 1951, p. 24) cvn, at best, only tre a secondary extemal .

reason besides the more important dynamic one for relinquishing the second ripieno violin;.see Breig. loc. cit.

15. There is, however, no need to overemphasize this point, as is still done inconnection,withBach's use of a.conceÍante halpsichord. One writer recently went so far as to state that noteven in the sonatas with obligato harpsichord can the right hand.partmake itself audible against

a single melody-instrument (Georg von Dadelsen, 'Bernerkungen zu Bachs eembalo-

konzerten', in B ericht iiber die Wissenschaftliche Konferenz zum V- InternationalenBachfest der DDR in Verbindung mit dem 60. Bachfest der Neuen Bachgesellschaft 1985 , ed.

Winfried Hoffmann and Armin Schneiderheinze (l*ipzig,1988), pp. 239-240), which is a

gross underestimation of the dynamic power of a good copy of an.antique harpsichord. Rather,

one should see Bach's elaborate precautions in the perspective of the concertols aim ofallowing the harpsichord a dynamic position within the ensemble equivalent to its dominating

role in the overall compositorial structure.

16. Wemer Breig calls attention to the fact that Bach, in conjunction with these dynamics. is

caÍoful to use a very Íansparent manner of writing for the ripieno in these passages; 'Bach unddie Entstehung des Klavierkonzerts', p. 29.

17, Thisobservation is based on the general picture ofthe dynamic indications; a few exceptions tothe rules are clearly recognizable as copyist's errors. fuExample 1 we already saw how Bachcorreeted the dynamics of the ripieno in the new version, but this clearly only reflects an errorin the insffumenÍaÍion.The piano indication in bar.l l I of the learly' flut9 pm, in fact the onlysuch indication in this part apart from the pianissime in bar 95 in the first movement. iscorectly omitted in the revised version. In the revised version the plaro indication for the

ripieno-instruments is Ínissing in bar 128 as canbe deduced from the indications inBWV 1050a.

18. See Sheridan Gerrnann, 'The Mietkes, the Margrave and Bach', tn Bach, Höndel, Scarlatti -

Tercentenary Essays, ed.,Peter Williams (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 119-148.

19. To see the upper limit of the keyboard tessitura in the Fifth Brandenburg, q3, in relation withthe preserved Mietke instruments, which show the same top note (Peter Williams in Bach,Htindel, Scarlatti [see the prev ious Note], p. 128. Note 37) is besides the point. The tessitura ofC-c3 or four octaves is typical of most Weimar and Cöthen harpsichord music. That Bach used

this restricted range even in a concerto does not tell us more than that Bach obviously wishedthe piece torbe playable on any harpsichord availabl,e. Following this line of thought, one couldspequlate that Bach conceived the Concerro also with an eye towards performance during his

181

PIETER DIRKSEN

many visits to other courts where he had to make do with the harpsichords available onlocation.

20. See Robert L. Marshall, 'J.S. Bach's Compositions for Solo Flute: A Reconsideration of their;, Authenticity and Chronology', "Io urnal of the American Musicological Society 32 (1979),.

p. 480; reprinted in Robert L. Marshall, The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach (New York,1989), p. 211.

2 i. See, for example, KaÍin Stöckl, Preface Ío Johann Sebastian Bach, Brandenburg Concerto 'No. 5 (Mainz and London, 1988),;p. XI.

22. See Pippa Drummond, The German Concerto (Oxford, 1980), p. 88. The work is preserved inthe Sàchsische Landesbibliothek, Dresden, in a copy made by Johann Georg Pisendel; see

Karl Heller, Die deursche Uberlieferung der InstrumentalmusikVivaldis (Leipzig, l97l),pp.9r-92.

23. Kross-Catalogue (see Note 2), V.D.(2).24. The conceÍo can be found in the Appendix of the Kritischer Bericht of NBA IV/S,

OrgelwerkelBearbeitungenfremderWerke, ed. Karl Heller (Kassel etc., 1980), pp. 105-123.

25. This was already conjectured by Hermann Keller, Die Klavierwerke Bachs (Leipzig, 1950),

p. 48, though he could not believe that Bach had been the aranger himself.

26. On this work, see Joshua Rifkin, 'Ein langsamer Konzertsatz Johann Sebastian Bachs',

Bach-Jahrbuch 65 (1979), pp. l4O-147 .

27 . On Íhe specific character of BWV 51, see Robert L. Marshall, 'Bach the Progressive -

Observations on his Later Works',The Musical Quarterly 62 (1976), p. 325 (reprintednTheMusic of Johann Sebastian Bach, pp. 21-31); Klaus Hofmann, 'Johann Sebastian Bachs

Kantate 'Ja:uchzet Gott in allen Landen' BWV 51 - Uberlegungen zur Entstehung und

urspriinglicher Bestimmung', Bdch-lahrbuch 75 (1989), pp. 43-54.

28. These violin solos can be found tnthe Kritischer Bericht of NBA IV/8 (see Note 24),pp. 100-104. The complete RV 208-version of the Grosso Mogal-ConceÍo is still unpublished.

29. The difference in concept between the two versions ofthe unaccompanied final harpsichord

solo is reflected in a terminological distinction. Only in the extended form in BWV 1050 did itreceive the title 'solo senza stromenti'; in BWV 1050a it is without indication - at least in the

'Altnickol'-parts, but probably in the original source as well. The reason behind this distinctionis not hard to frnd. The l8-bar solo continues the continuous motion of thiÍy-seconds in the -accomDanied - bars 139-153 without intemrption, whereas in the 65-bar version Bach

interpolates a long new section in sixteenths before retuming to the thirty-seconds only in the

last 24 bars - which is an arrangement of the early version of the solo. Not only because of itslength but also because of this new start in bar 154, causing a marked structural caesura in the

' movement as a whole, does the last solo become a true cadenza.

30. For the reconstruction ofthis version see NBA YIW, Verschollene Solokonzerte inRekonstruktionez, ed. Wilfried Fischer (Kassel etc., l97O), pp. 3-30, Kritischer Bericht,pp. 36-62; and Wemer Breig, 'Bachs Violinkonzert d-Moll - Studien zu seiner Gestalt und

seiner Entstehungsgeschichte', B ac h-J ahr buc h 62 (197 6), pp. 7 -34.

3l . This term is used both by Johann David Heinichen (Der Generalbal3 in der Composition,Dresden, 1728) and Johann Joachim Qtantz (Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversière zu

spielen, Berlin, 1752).

32. See, for example, Schulze, 'Bachs Konzerte - Fragen der Uberlieferung und Chronologie',p. 15.

33. See, for example, Vivaldi's so-called Ensemble-Concertos RV 561-563, 568-572, 574, 576-577

and579.34. It should be recalled that Bach is known to have been an excellent violinist himself, as is

attested by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach: 'In seiner Jugend bis zum ziemlich herannahenden

182

BACH'S FIFTH BRANDENBURG CONCERTO

Alter spielte er die Violine rein und durchdringend ...' (Bach-Dokumente,vol.lll, Dokumentezum Nachwirken Johann Sebastian Bachs, ed. Hans-Joachim Schulze, Leipzig and Kassel,

1972,no.801). He was thus undoubtedly acquainted with specific (virtuoso) violin techniques

through his own playing experience as well.35. In connection with the Locatelli example - which in itself is too late to have anything to do with

BWV 1050(a) - it must be mentioned that there is documentary evidence of Bachs familiaritywith at least one other work of Locatelli, namely the Concerto Grosso in F minor, Opus I no. 8;

see Hans-Joachim Schulze, 'Ein apokryphes Hiindel-Concerto in Joh. Seb. Bachs

Handschrift?', B ach-Jahrbiuch 66 (1980), pp.27 -33.36. Fully beside the point regarding the meaning of this passage and its performance practice is

Christopher Hogwood's view that 'the Brandenburg version of the famous keyboard episode

also appears to require an instrument with a pedal board in order to be played authentically'(booklet to Decca 414 1 87, London, 1985).

37. Germann, 'The Mietkes, the Margrave and Bach', p. 145.

38. This standard measurement was introduced by Friedrich Ernstl see his 'Four Ruckers

Harpsichords in Berlin', The Galpin Society Journal2O (1967), pp. 64-65.39. Bach Dokumente,Ill,no.T42:'Was die Breite der Tasten betrifft, so weis man, daB

absonderlich in der Mark die Tasten schmiiler als iindemwarts gemacht werden ... so verlangtcsie der seel. Kapellm. Bach ...'.

40. Hans-Joachim Schulze sees the caderrzain its revised version'als vielleicht spàtestes

Dokument fiir den Widerstreit zwischen Komponisten und Virtuosenlaufbahn und als dessen

Kulmination ...'('ZrmThemenbereichderneuerenBach-Forschung',inJohannSebastianBach und Johann Joseph Fux - Bericht iiber das Symposium anlaJSlich des 58. Bachfestes derNeuen Bachgesellscfutft 24. - 29. Mai 1983 in Graz, ed. Johann Trummer and RudolfFlotzinger, Kassel etc., 1985, p. 30). If so, this is much more the case in the early cadetza,with its improvisatory character bom out by its chromatically rising and falling rows ofdiminished seventh chords paÍtially built upon a dominant pedal-point, its startling chromaticflourish at the end and the sudden breaking offof all movement in bar 171. Bach's main objectin the revision was a stronger thematical integration of the solo into the whole movement whichhe achieved by providing a long new section consisting of a new interpretation of thematicmaterial (bars 154-195), and a thorough reworking of the early solo resulting in a more refinedharmonic plan which is less dependent upon diminished sevenths and a much smoothertransition to the closing ritomello by way of rhythmical retardation. The revision thereforeshould be seen as an intervention by the c o mp o s er inthe frstversion. Following on theselines, one could say - with some exaggeration - that the two versions of the 'cadenza' of theFifth Brandenburg Concerto document the 'virtuoso' Bach and the 'composer' Bachrespectively.

41. See DÍrr's edition mentioned in Note 6.42. Dreyfus, B ac h' s C ontinuo Group, pp. 132-136.43. It concems Cantatas BWV 182 and 199; see Dreyfus, op. cit., p. 134.44. See Breig, 'Bachs Violinkonzert d-Moll', pp. 25-30.45. Breig, 'Bachs Violinkonzert d-Moll', pp.32-33; Rifkin, 'Violin Concerros at the Court of

Weimar', passim.

46. See the literature mentioned in Note 3.47. on the relative relationships of Bach's tempo markings see RobeÍ L. Marshall, 'Tempo and

Dynamic Indications in the Bach Sources - A Review of the Terminology' , in Bach, Höndel,Scarlatti (see Note l8),pp.267-274 (reprinted tnThe Music of lohann Sebastian Bach,pp.263-29»; Marshall demonstrates that Bach considered adagio as the slowest basic tempomarking.

183

PIETER DIRKSEN

48. Carl Dahlhaus,'Bachs konzertante Fugen', Ba c h-J ahrbuc h 42 ( 1 955), p. 59.

49. See Georg B. Stauffer, The Organ Preludes of Johann Sebastian Bach (Studies in MusicologyXXVII, Ann Arbor, 1980), p. 113.

", 50. Wemer Breig, 'Bachs freie Orgelmusik unter dem Einfluss der italienischen Konzertform', inJohann Sebastian Bachs Traditionsraum, ed. Reinhard Szeskus and JÍirgen Asmus(Bach-Studien IX, Leipzig, 1986), pp. 29-41.

51. This is reflected in the fact that the first movement can sustain fundamentally different analytic

approaches; compare, for examplei Rudolf Gerber, Bachs Brandenburgische KonzerÍe - Eine

Einfiihrung inihreformale und geistigeWesensart(Kassel,211965), pp.31-34, withHans-Gtinther Klein, Der EinJlulS der vivaldischen Konzertform im Instrumentalwerk J.S.

Baclrs (Sammlung musikgeschichtlicher Abhandlungen LIV, StraBburg and Baden-Baden,

t97O), pp.7r-72.52. Wemer Breig ('Bach und die Entstehung des Klavierkonzerts', pp. 28-29) points out that this

section comes closest to the typical textures of a harpsichord concerto in the whole work;everywhere else the concertino is used as a compact gÍoup.

53. These generally accepted terms in describing the most common type of Bach's ritomellos were

coined by Wilhelm Fischer in his article 'Zur Entwicklung des Wiener klassischen Stils',Studien zur Musihuissenschaft 3 (1915), pp. 24-84.

54. See Hans-Peter Schmitz, Querflöte und Querflötenspiel wàhrend des Barockzeitalters(Kassel etc., 211958).

55. André Pirro was the first to draw attention to the remarkable example of the emulation of the

Dieupart Gigue in the Prelude of BWV 806; see his L'Esthétique de Jean-Sébastien Bach

(Paris, 1907), pp.430-431. A copy of all six of Dieupart's harpsichord suites, which includes

the A major Gigue, is preserved in a manuscript in Bach's own handwriting dating from the

early Weimar years; Frankfurt am Main, Stadt- und UniveÍsÍàts-bibliothek, Mzs. Hs. 1538.

56. This occurs in bars 44-74,87- 106, 1 13- 1 17, 148-155, 189-192 artd 221-225 (bar numbers after

the version BWV 1050; the da capo excluded).

57. See, for example, the orchestral suites by Johann Kaspar Ferdinand Fischer, Georg Muffat and

Johann Sigismund Kusser.

58. In the First, Second and FouÍh Brandenburg Concertos woodwind instruments do participate inthe ritomellos, but always with independent parts.

59. The change of the tempo-indication of the middle movement fuom adagio in BWV 1050a toaffetuoso in BWV 1050 must be seen as a clarification of the character bf this movement. Its

suggestion of a somewhat faster tempo for the revised version may result from reflection by

Bach upon an all too great disparity between the tempo indication of the frst version and the

nature of the right-hand harpsichord part.

60. See Laurence Dreyfus, 'The Capellmeister and his Audience: Observations on "Enlighted"Receptions of Bach', in Kongrefibericht Stuttgart 1985, ed,. Dietrich Berke and Dorothee

Hanemann (Kassel etc., 1987), pp. 180-189.

61. See, for example, the 'Work-list' inThe New Grove Bach Family (l-ondon, 1983), p. 207. - Asanother indication for the correctness of this dating one could point to the imitative structure

which opens the Prelude; it can be found in a slightly modified form in the opening of theTriosuper 'Hen Jesu Christ, dich zu uns wend' BWY 655(a), which definitely belongs to the

Weimar period.

62. See the account of the Obituary in Bach-Dokumente,lIl, no. 666.

63. See Marshall, 'Bach's Compositions for Solo Flute', pp. 478-481.

64. See Bach-Dokumente,Ill, no. 802. On Buffardin, see Ingrid Kollpacher-Haas, 'Pierre-Gabriel

Buffardin - Sein I.eben und Werk', Studien zur Musikwissenschaft 25 (1962), pp. 298-306.

65. See Rudolf Eller, 'Vivaldi - Dresden - Bach', Beitröge zur Musilcwissenschaft 3 ( 1961), p. 48.

184

g_

BACH'S FIFTH BRANDENBURG CONCERTO

66. See Ortnm Landmann, 'The Dresden Hofkapelle during the Lifetime of Johann Sebastian

Bach', Early Mu.síc 17 (1989), pp. 19-23.

67. Lebens-Lauff I mein I Georg Philipp Telemanns; I Entworffen I In Frankfurth am Mayn I d. 10.

Sept. A. 17I8,in Johann Mattheson, Grosse Generalbassschule (Hambvg,l73l),p. l73.68. Ptno, L'Esthétique de lean-Sébastien Bach,p.429.Marchand's Fugue has been preserved in a

manuscript in Versailles (Bibliothèque Municipale, Ms.6112), and is edited in Louis Marchand,

L'Oeuvre de Orgue, ed. Jean Bonfils (Paris, 1974), p. 55.

69. In this connection the theory that the First Brandenburg ConceÍo in its final version withviolino piccolo solo (BWV 1046) was possibly brought by Bach to be played by the Dresden

orchestra on occasion ofhis 1717 visit should be mentioned; see Johannes Krey,'ZwEntstehungsgeschichte des Ersten Brandenburgischen Konzerts', n Festschriftfiir HeinrichBesseler zum 60. Geburtstag (kipzig, 1961), pp. 337-342. The only thing to be said against

this theory is, that if any concerto was created by Bach for the visit, the D major Concerto is a

far more likely candidate, as the occasion definitely was marked by Bach's virtuoso keyboardplaying.

185