Capítulo 3: El fenómeno de Instagram
3.4. La estética por sobre la realidad
Th ree models are suffi cient to generate Bach’s polyphonic 24-bar minuet: fi rst, a per- fect cadence approached from I6; second, a circle-of-fi ft hs progression; and third, an opening out I–V progression expressed as a descending bass line, ˆ8–ˆ7–ˆ6–ˆ5. Th e three are shown in examples 4.28, 4.29, and 4.30, respectively. (Th is might suggest to the pedagogically inclined that training students to compose and realize such models might be an eff ective way of getting them to appreciate what Bach does. Harmony is better taught not as chords with individual identities but as progressions within a community, not as single “words” but as idioms embedded in phrases.)
Th e cadence in example 4.28 shows the bass line of the approach to a perfect cadence from I6 followed by a two-voice version and an alternative three-voice version incorporating a suspended seventh above the bass in the second bar. Th is prepares Bach’s version (bars 13–16). A version of the same cadence in minor mode is next shown, fi rst as a simple bass line, then in a three-voice harmoniza- tion, then in an enriched version incorporating suspensions, and fi nally in Bach’s expression (bars 22–24).
Example 4.29 shows an enrichment of a circle-of-fi ft hs progression. Th is fun and pedagogically useful construct is popular with organists and keyboard players because it facilitates traversal of apparently great tonal distances in a short space. (It is hard to imagine Mozart succeeding in the genre of the piano concerto, for example, without a naturalized view of the circle of fi ft hs; think of how much mile- age he gets out of this construct in his development sections.) Example 4.29 begins with a bass line, then there is a harmonized version, then an enriched version fea- turing greater melodic movement and suspensions, and fi nally Bach’s music (bars 9–12). Th e same construct is invoked elsewhere in the composition, but this time the circle is broken. As shown further in example 4.29, there is, fi rst, the bass line,
28. Laurence Dreyfus, Bach and the Patterns of Invention (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 1–32.
CHAPTER 4 Bridges to Free Composition
145 then a two-voice version, then a version enriched with passing notes but missing two steps of the model (E–A), and fi nally Bach’s music (17–22).Th e third pattern used by Bach is a bass pattern proceeding from I to V in stepwise ˆ8–ˆ7–ˆ6–ˆ5 motion. Th e fi rst two lines of example 4.30 display the pattern in
Perfect cadence approached from I6
6 6 or 6 5 becomes
or
13
or (in Bach's hands)
Perfect cadence approached from I6
becomes
or
22
expressed by Bach as
thirds and tenths, respectively. Th en, the “straight” tenths of line 2 are enlivened by a pair of 7–6 suspensions in the middle 2 bars (line 3). From here, it is but a short step to Bach’s fi rst 4 bars, which include a 4–3 suspension in the fourth bar (line 4). Th e 4-bar passage is repeated immediately (line 5).
Th ese three patterns are, of course, ordinary patterns in eighteenth-century music. Th e ˆ8–ˆ7–ˆ6–ˆ5 bass pattern, familiar to many from Bach’s Goldberg Varia-
tions, reaches back into the seventeenth century, during which it functioned
as an emblem of lament.29 It was also subject to various forms of enrichment,
A circle-of-fifths progression etc may be expressed as or as 9 and by Bach as A circle-of-fifths progression may be rendered as
or in decorated form (and without the boxed notes) as
17
and by Bach as
Example 4.29. Circle of fi ft hs as model.
29. Ellen Rosand, “Th e Descending Tetrachord: An Emblem of Lament,” Musical Quarterly 65 (1979): 346–359.
CHAPTER 4 Bridges to Free Composition
147 including the incorporation of chromatic steps. It functions here as a begin- ning, an opening out. Bach claims this space, this trajectory, not by inventing a new bass pattern, but by expressing the familiar within a refreshed framework. For example, he treats the medium of solo cello as both melodic and harmonic, and thus incorporates within a compound melodic texture both conjunct and disjunct lines. Apparent disjunction on the musical surface is rationalized by the deeper-lying harmonic/voice-leading patterns revealed here. Bach’s inge- nious designs owe not a little to the security of his harmonic thinking. In bars 1–4, for example, the fi rst and third notes of the G–F–E–D bass motion appear as eighth-notes in metrically weak positions, but this in no way alters the har- monic meaning of the phrase. Similarly, the B-natural at the beginning of bar 17 resolves to a C an octave higher in the middle of the next bar, but the registral8 - 7 - 6 - 5 bass pattern ^ ^ ^ ^ expressed as enriched as 1 composed by Bach as 5 and repeated as
Example 4.30. Th e ˆ8–ˆ7–ˆ6–ˆ5 bass pattern as model.
discontinuity and the nonisomorphism in design are mediated by an underlying harmonic continuity.
Th e analyst’s task, then, is to identify these models, many of them com-
a speculative play with their elements. Again, the matter of fi nal chronology— how these three models are ordered in this particular piece—is, at this stage of the analysis, less important than simply identifying the model. If we think of Bach as improviser, then part of our task is to understand the language of improvisation, and this in turn consists in identifying tricks, licks, clichés, and conventional moves. How these are ordered on a specifi c occasion may not ulti- mately matter to those who view compositions as frozen improvisations, and to those who oft en allow themselves to imagine alternatives to what Bach does here or there. On the other hand, those who are fi xated on scores, who cling to the absolute identity of a composition, who interpret its ontology literally and strictly, and who refuse the idea of open texts will fi nd the compositional approach unsatisfactory or intimidating. Indeed, emphasis on the formulaic places Bach in some great company: that of African dirge and epic singers who similarly depend on clichés and, inevitably, of jazz musicians like Art Tatum and Charlie Parker.
A few preliminary comments about style need to be entered here. Obviously, Corelli and Bach utilize similarly simple models in the two compositions at which we have looked. For example, both invest in the cadential approach from I6. Yet there is a distinct diff erence between the Corelli sound and the Bach sound. How might we specify this? One source of diff erence lies in the distance between model and composition. Simply put, in Corelli, the models lie relatively close to the sur- face; sometimes, they constitute that surface, while at other times they can be mod- ifi ed by the merest of touches—an embellishment here and there—to produce that surface. In Bach, the relationship between model (as a historical object) and com- position is more varied. Some models are highly disguised while a few are hardly hidden. Th e more disguised ones evince a contrapuntal depth that is not normally found in Corelli. Bach’s music is therefore heterogeneous in the way that it negoti- ates the surface-depth dialectic, whereas Corelli’s is relatively homogeneous. It is possible that this distinction lies behind conventional perceptions of Bach as the greater of the two composers.