If the first group of Praeludia entered in the Clavier-Büchlein are mainly concerned with finger action, of the second (C sharp major and minor, E flat minor and F minor) only the C sharp major belongs to the technical study type: in its earliest known version it is a highly ingenious demonstration of how to get the most brilliant effect in the most advanced key with the simplest means. The others are more concerned with cantabile projection and the moulding of melodic and harmonic shapes, all in advanced keys. It has been
Book I – Other types 65
noted in connexion with the E flat major prelude that Bach seems to have brought in more prelude types as the compendium nature of Book I evolved. For this he had models in the clavier suites of Kuhnau and J.C.F. Fischer. Kuhnau in his two Clavier-Übungen (1689, 1692) has examples of the sectional type of prelude, the patterned chordal type, and the sonata type in the Niedtian sense of the seventeenth-century string ensemble sonata, not the later galant type cultivated by Bach. In his Partie IV (1692) he also uses the ciacona as a prelude possibility, an element recommended by Niedt. Bach explored this possibility in the Passacaglia in C minor for organ BWV 582, but not in the 48.
Fischer in his Pieces de clavessin (1696) has a number of preludes of varying degrees of elaboration that correspond to the first two sections of Niedt’s sectional recipe. He also has two Praeludia which have long been seen as prototypes for Book I.15We have noted that his Praeludium VI in D major uses in various sections ingredients which Bach integrated into a single sweep in the B flat major prelude. Fischer’s Praeludium II in F major uses a pattern of repeated chords which Bach enriched and made more cogent in the B flat minor prelude of Book I. This pattern was a favourite of Fischer’s, which he used again in several of the Musicalischer Parnassus suites with the titles Toccata, Toccatina, Tastada.
Finally there are two Italian prototypes. The first is the Vivaldian concerto, whose thoroughgoing influence on all aspects of Bach’s composition technique and style from around 1713 it would be difficult to overestimate. Most obvious is the ritornello principle of the concerto Allegro, a procedure that has been seen as leading to the Invention principle via the preludes of the English Suites (Hermelink 1976 pp.69–70). This Invention principle, as opposed to Niedt’s, is best described by Forkel as ‘A musical subject . . . so contrived that by imitation of the parts the whole of a composition might be unfolded from it. . . . The rest was only elaboration, and if one but knew properly the means of development, did not need to be invented.’16It lies at the basis of many of the preludes. Less obvious is the influence of Vivaldi’s slow movements. The prelude in E flat minor combines a number of Vivaldi slow movement features, most obviously the texture of solo melody over a cushion of repeated chords in the upper strings, as in the Larghetto of Vivaldi’s Op.3 No.7, arranged for harpsichord by Bach in BWV 972. A second, less obvious one, noted by Christoph Wolff (1991 pp.75–8), is in the Largo of Op.3 No.3, arranged by Bach in BWV 978, which has orchestral chords alternating with solo arpeggios, the two elements gradually becoming more intermingled as the piece proceeds. The E flat minor prelude builds on and greatly extends these ideas.
The other Italian element is in the B minor prelude. This uses an archetypal preludio texture and movement associated with Corelli’s Sonate da camera, the
66 Preludes
closest example in its figurations being that of Op.4 No.2 (Bologna 1694). François Couperin mentions the practice of playing Italian string music on the harpsichord (1717 pp.35–6), and there is no reason to believe that this was unique to Paris.17This final example of a prelude type neatly refers back at the end of the collection to the Corellian aspects of the C major fugue, while in its course it moves away from the serene diatonic harmony of Corelli to prepare the thorny chromaticism of the final fugue subject.
In spite of its compendium nature, a number of current prelude types are not represented in Book I. One is the Corelli concerto allegro, used by, for example, Mattheson in the 7th and 10th suites of his Pieces de Clavecin (1714). The quality of these suites is unlikely to have inspired Bach, or made him think kindly of Mattheson’s writings, but the prototype was there for use. Another is the free arpeggio type, also used by Mattheson, and notably by Handel (1720). Of French types, the overture does not figure. This must be because its second section is traditionally fugal. It is therefore more suitable to introduce a suite, as in the D major Partita BWV 828 or the B minor Overture BWV 831, than a fugue. Although many of the preludes are strongly characterised rhythmically, there are very few in which one can pinpoint an actual dance rhythm. It would be quite wrong to force, for example, the E major prelude into the character of a gigue. Only the C sharp minor prelude is reasonably close, in this case to a siciliano. But even here the character of the piece is not straightforward, and the siciliano reference is only one element in it. It is the subtlety and complexity of reference that gives these pieces much of their fascination.
One might also have expected to find representatives of the recent and prestigious prototypes included by François Couperin in L’art de toucher le
clavecin (1717). These should have been of interest since they equally had an
educational function.18What Couperin’s preludes do superbly is cultivate the sensuous sonority of the harpsichord, whether in the brisé manner or in a line that sets out to recreate the expressiveness of the viol on the inherently inexpressive harpsichord (prelude in B flat). Only Couperin’s preludes in B minor and E minor have something of the invention about them. In Book I only the prelude in F minor could be said to cultivate instrumental sonority for its own sake, since there is no other reason for notating the holding on of broken-chord notes. If he did know them, Bach may not have wished to include Couperin’s type of prelude since they are models of improvisation rather than composition. Although some of the Book I preludes undoubtedly began life as improvisations (notably the prelude in C major) the history of their reworking, polishing, and refinement shows that Bach went for a finished effect. Couperin’s preludes are no less full of art, but they never lose the sense of relaxation and freedom of improvisation.